[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Snoopy life support test



The CO2 readings are definitely high, especially in the test without life support.  I know that when I used the monitor out in the open the CO2 percentage was between .01 and .03 so I don't expect a calibration error is the cause of the high readings unless something happened to the device during shipment.  That should be easy enough for Alec to test however by simply going to an open area and checking the CO2 reading.

Because the oxygen levels are also low it sounds feasible that the initial environment was the result of respiration while getting both people settled in the cabin and starting the test, although it doesn't really explain the drop in CO2 from 1.6 percent at the end of the no-life-support test to the beginning of the radial-fan test.

It looks to me like even the radial fan had a problem keeping up with the CO2 levels.  It rises from .2 to .3 percent in the first four minutes and then goes back down to .2 percent at 15 minutes and then starts rising again.  Given the CO2 data from both fan tests it might appear that the scrubber is not efficient enough to handle two people in the cabin.  Perhaps another scrubber is necessary or a larger one, or there is something wrong with the airflow over the sofnolime (packed too hard, obstruction, or fan is not powerful enough).  I would have expected the scrubber to handle not only the respiration of the occupants but also reduce the CO2 concentration of the existing atmosphere from the time the test started.

I find the no-life-support CO2 levels very interesting given how quickly the levels accumulate.  At about 43 minutes the CO2 level would have been at 3% or the maximum short term exposure allowed by OSHA.  Simultaneously, the O2 level would have hovered around 16%, borderline survivable and certainly requiring immediate surfacing.  What it really illustrates is that getting into a situation where you cannot surface at the end of your planned dive, is really going to ruin your day.  Without life support, there's no room for error, accident, or circumstance.

Jon


On 8/7/2011 2:37 AM, Cliff Redus wrote:
Alec,  thanks for posting the life support test for Snoopy.  I quite enjoyed seeing actual test data.  Your results of axial vs. radial fans mirrored my results and my conclusions were the same; i.e., radial fans are the way to go.  Have you done any test or calcs to see how long a 0.36 amp current load will take to burn your backup batteries?  My guess is that at this current, you would not make 72 hours.  IF they don you may have to find a radial fan that draws less current. 

I note from your test data that your CO2 readings look high.  Atmosphric air has about 300-400 ppm of CO2. As there are 10,000 ppm per 1%, this translates to 0.03% to 0.04% .  At the point you initiated each test, you were seeing 0.385, 0.25 and 0.27% for the base case, radial fan and axial fans, respectively  or in terms of ppm, 3800, 2000 and 2700.  This could be becuase your CO2 sensor is out of calibration or there was a lot of exhalation of CO2 in the boat prior to the start of each test.  When I did my in the garage life support test, I found that it was necessary to use my air compressor with a nozzle to purge the cabin to get the CO2 level back to normal air for the start of each test.  If the CO2 sensor readings are correct, then with the axial fan, you  reached the ABS maximum allowed CO2 level of 5000 ppm (0.5%) reading at 4 minutes.  If the CO2 sensor had a 1600-1800 ppm bias error, then the axial fan would have also kept the cabin below the 5000 ppm for the duration of the test.

Thanks again for posting.

Cheers Cliff