It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Invention: Triton Oxygen Respirator Extracts Air Underwater!

page: 6
69
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


Wouldn't you still need a line for heat? You can't stay down for that long because of hypothermia, you still need diesel and a line to keep your body temp up. This just solves an air problem for as long as the battery lasts. Then you need a recharge, and I'd hate to be on the bottom when the battery goes out. It's just a sudden no air thing, nothing to really let you know it's starting to thin out.




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


A dry suit would do. Or a wet suit and a lot of coffee



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


6-12 breaths of air if anyone is wondering what STASS has in it. Think of how many times you breath in a minute when you ponder using this device. Now think of how much more air you use when you are panicked, or stressed out.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Sorry MysterX, took me a bit to catch up in the thread. I'm one of those Readers that has way too many topics open at the same time. So my progression through a thread is usually a little slow.

We all make mistakes, no harm done. I get a little caught up at times too.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Pheonix, this device does not split water, it removes Dissolve O2 from solution, H20 is the solvent, O2 is dissolved in it. We are talking about an Element dissolved in a compound, not breaking a compound.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


Not to # on you in any way, and I really don't mean any harm but be prepared to spend several thousand dollars.

I mean it will be awesome, and it will be a nearly endless supply of air at short depths, but it's not going to be cheap. We're talking a filter with nano-holes small enough only o2 will come through. Just think about how much something like that alone will cost to make. What 152pm ? Do you realize how small that is? Unfathomable unless you're into Molecular physics. I'm not, I imagine you aren't either, I don't even know how to begin to describe that size to you, or myself.

That number may not even be right, I had to try and search a size for a single molecule of oxygen, I also found one that says 62Picometers. Long story short, this filter works on the premise there is a pore that only a single oxygen molecule can fit through completely negating the water it is dissolved in, allowing only that O2 to pass through it. Absolutely crazy(but 100% possible) science, and manufacturing.

It's truly mind boggling, and it's still just a theoretical device at this time from what the article mentioned.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Can it remove radiation particles from ocean water?



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Hi all.
Water is 2 parts hydrogen 1 part oxygen.
You and I homo sapiens cannot survive just with oxygen.
The oxygen content in the air we breathe is 14.1 to 19.4 percent.
I love this site.
Sea creatures have different biological structures to us.
Scuba divers have tanks full of air which has the correct percentage of oxygen in it.
The air we breathe is 70% nitrogen.
As above oxygen percentage.
4% carbon dioxide a plant food.
Arsenic, Sodium hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide are also present in small doses



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kingswood
 


You can breath just the oxygen though, Astronauts survived on pure oxygen for 2 weeks in the space shuttle, with no ill effects. People survive on pure oxygen in hospitals for a few days at a time with no ill effect.

Yes, pure oxygen can be harmful for extended periods of time, and compressed oxygen(pure) while diving can be dangerous, it is not impossible.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kingswood
 


what planet do you live on ?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I was doing something completely random yesterday and this thread popped to mind. I had an amazing thought...nay, epiphany, about this artificial gill technology.

Imagine the applications for space travel/colonization.

You can store oxygen far more efficiently in H2O, and during sleep cycles you can breathe through the gills. Not only would this improve payload efficiency, it would produce (albeit a small amount) hydrogen gas...fuel.

Once at the destination (moon, mars, etc), it's the same story. Less resources need to be dedicated to oxygen production, as H2O harvested can be stored and used directly for ~1/3 of the mission's needs. The hydrogen gas byproduct can also be utilized on the ground as well.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I didn't bother to read all the posts in this thread; somebody may have mentioned it...

Imagine the size of a battery needed to process at least 192 liters (51 gallons) of water per minute assuming 100% efficiency!!

edit on 17-1-2014 by nakiel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

blamethegreys
You can store oxygen far more efficiently in H2O,


What makes you think that? Just how much dissolved oxygendo you think you can store in water?


it would produce (albeit a small amount) hydrogen gas...fuel.


You have not bothered to read this thread, have you - just where does the hydrogen come from?


The hydrogen gas byproduct can also be utilized on the ground as well.


What hydrogen gas product are you on about?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Notwithstanding the excellent debunking already done in respect of this conceptual device, I thought I would offer a slightly different perspective. From casual internet research, it seems to me that:
a. CO2 molecules are smaller than O2 molecules (which, along with the slightly larger again N2 molecular size, is why bike tyres inflated with CO2 deflate faster than tyres filled with air), and
b. There are far more (up to 10x by some estimates) CO2 molecules in seawater than O2.
So, wouldn't this wonder device provide a much higher proportion of CO2 than O2? Noting that raising the CO2 content of breathing gas to just 3% at the surface could lead to death, I imagine that breathing a relatively high CO2 concentration at depth would be .... well ... not good for you. The bright side is that you might enjoy a short dive unconstrained by scuba tanks before the extreme symptoms are felt.
Casual research indicates that H2O molecules are slightly smaller (in the shortest dimension) than O2 molecules; although, sources vary. So, wouldn't the nano-pores in the device allow a heap more water through than the desired O2? Or, would the cohesive effects of H20 molecules prevent this? Hmmm ......



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

YellowFin
a. CO2 molecules are smaller than O2 molecules


So when you add a atom of carbon to 2 atoms of oxygen the size of the oxygen atoms automagically shrink?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by YellowFin
 


Tires filled with nitrogen deflate slower because they are heavier, than tires filled with air(which containes nitrogen). A single molecule of nitrogen is smaller than a single molecule of CO2, O2 is also smaller than a molecule of CO2 as well as nitrogen..

CO2 is 232.6pm
O2 is 152pm
N2 155pm
H20 is 191.69pm

O2 is still smaller than everything you listed, by a fair amount too. There is no close here to any of your close's or smaller than. Oxygen is the smallest of the things you've listed....
edit on 17-1-2014 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I haven't read past the first page of this thread, so maybe someone already mentioned these things, but I see a couple of problems with this.

In salt water, wouldn't the salt tend to clog the tiny intake tubes? Also, what about micro-organisms? A complex filter of some kind would be needed.

Secondly, it uses a battery. How long would a battery of that size last? Not very, I'm guessing. It has tiny moving parts which would either be prone to breaking down, or very expensive to make, or both.

When nano technology is perfected, then this will be viable, but I doubt we're there yet. Maybe another 10 years or so.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Anyone who believes such tech is currently possible is pretty gullible.

Take a garden hose to a pool. Put one end in your mouth, have a friend hold the other end above water, submerge to four feet, and you'll understand.

There's a purpose behind a three-stage regulator and compressed air tanks.

I hope somebody pointed that out before page six. LOL



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

nakiel
I didn't bother to read all the posts in this thread; somebody may have mentioned it...

Imagine the size of a battery needed to process at least 192 liters (51 gallons) of water per minute assuming 100% efficiency!!

edit on 17-1-2014 by nakiel because: (no reason given)


Good point-the battery looks tiny-I wonder if they could somehow utilize the Hydrogen in the water in order to top up the battery?Although seperating the Hydrogen takes a lot of electricity itself...hmmm

I actually read an article about something very similar to the OP being developed a good decade or so back-I wonder if this is the evolution of that idea?



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Hi, diver fans.


Because of that sentence:

...allowed oxygen-breathing lifeforms to survive underwater, in space, or among...

and because of obviously

...in space,...

I guess this "device" will end up in HOAX !!!

There is no usable/breathable O in the vacuum of space !
We certainly don't need links for that, right?

Blue skies.




top topics



 
69
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join