40 replies to this topic

[itch]

to lost:
THANK YOU, that's what i wanted to know:eusa_clap
it sounded too good to be the truth, i just couldn't find a flaw..
back to the drawing board;). so,no fan it will be..


to hippie3:
i know you're here for several years, that's why i was asking you..
i've seen the other posts, but they're not helping me now because some of those things are unavailable to me now,like HEPA, the thingy to seal the bags, the bags themselves, the ionizer. i'm grateful for the tips, but they're not good for me now..i have very limited resources, and that's why i'm trying to make something out of "nothing".well not anymore..


tnx for the effort, peace!

[Hippie3]

see
http://mycotopia.net...html?1037328398

[Beast]

Yeah the "water filtration" provided by water pipes/bongs is not particulate filtration. It is to grab the hydrophilic carcinogens and let the hydrophobic cannibanoids pass. Mold, bacteria, etc are not going to disolve into the water.

[Hippie3]

http://mycotopia.net...html?1036079853

[itch]

hippie: tnx 4 the linx..

lost: gotcha..
i just wonder something about oust....now, i took a look on www.oustodor.com and found this:
How does Oust® Air Sanitizer work?
Oust® Air Sanitizer contains glycol micro-particles that linger in the air, attaching to airborne bacteria and odor molecules, cleaning the air of bacteria and odors and leaving your home smelling clean and fresh.

offcourse there's no oust in my country and i doubt that i'm going to find a spray that contains glycol micro-particles so i'm wondering for the alternative(not again:D). do you maybe know exactly what type of glycol that's in.?? wikipedia says it's Ethylene glycol that is used as antifreeze. if it is, super ill use antifreeze, but i doubt because there are more glycols: diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol...and a lot of stuf with word glycol inside..so maybe you know..


beastmaster: correct for the classic bong, but if you used alcohol or bleach it would kill the bacteria but looks like the size of the bubbles is crucial..maybe if you'd use 100 bottles it would kill 99.99% of them, but who knows;)

[itch]

well yes, but theoreticaly after some time in use in any sequential bottle the concentration of bacteria in the air would be lower by some percent..note that when you lower something by same percent over and over again it never reaches zero, but after xx stages it gets under some accepteble percent and you can assume thats it's acceptable..this is theory, but to do that you would need god knows how many stages...veeery unpractic:( unless every bottle takes out 90% bacteria. then after 1st would be 10%, after 2nd 1%, after 3rd 0.1% and after 4th 0.01% which would mean that 99.99% gets filtrated...
unfortunately for us, 90% is sience fiction, but it's nice to have dreams;)

bye

[Hippie3]

there's also something called the law of diminishing returns,
as well as limitations imposed by the laws of physics/chemistry
so that no matter how many bottles you go thru
you never reach the desired goal.

[itch]

i'm not certain that that law is aplicable here..that's if we asume that every filter takes 90% of bacteria that comes inside.that's an ideal filter,a real would filter less every time because it gets saturated with bacteria..
i already said it can never reach zero, but the desired goal could be 1% that you could reach with some effort..but that's not important because it's theoreticaly and we don't have any use of that..only to have something to write about:)

bye

[bluehelix]

It's the same glycol that Paul Stamets and JS Chilton mention in their book The Mushroom Cultivator over 20 years ago, triethylene glycol. He says on page 17 of that book one can vaporize it through a heated wick using some sort of aero-disinfector. Of course Oust is easiler if its available where you live.

[itch]

bluexelix: tnx, although i don't have a clue where i'll find it:eusa_doh:

lost: hey, take it easy, i'm writing just to write something..that's all theory, and we don't live in theory world..i already said im not putting any fans, this is just smalltalk..haven't you noticed the smileys?:)
i'm sorry if someone got offended or if it's not allowed to philosophy..i won't do it again

peace!

[Hippie3]

somehow i don't think i quite believe that..
:)

if we asume that every filter takes 90% of bacteria that comes inside

that's a pretty generous assumption, assuming you meant your hypothetical bubbler filter,
one un-supported by any evidence,
unless you have some you'd like to present ?

[itch]

you're right.how did you know i lied.?? you must have some supernatural powers..as we speak i'm building a massive 100bonged 6gloved (music) box just to prove you were all wrong..hahaha[evil laugh]


:lol:

[Hippie3]

lol
btw
if i were to attempt such a bubbler/filter
i would think that one might want to add
something to the water to reduce the surface tension,
that would reduce bubble size rendering your device more effective.
a few drops of shampoo would suffice.

[slp]

Never to worry.....if you want to try one of the Ions, FMRC ships out of
country, and has for many years. I went through all this crap......and much
more. Then Al and I got together and designed the unit FMRC sells. It solved
all our problems, and costs hardly anything to run. It is all we use in our labs.
We have even sold them to the EPA for sterile culture work. We have used
them now for some 20 years...............slp/fmrc

[itch]

tnx 4 the info on ions, i'll think about it..

hippie: ofcourse it's pure hypothetical.it was just an example.if i had evidence i would use it and wouldn't be here asking 4 help;) ..my assumption would be that a real bubble filter would filter about 5-10% and that means you would need hundreds of them..though nice thinking for the shampoo..it and some chemicals could raise the efficiency for 5-10% maybe..still lightyears from enough..

lost:i know what you mean..this just occured to me and i was thinking that it could work..that's why i asked here, because i knew someone must know something about it..and after some 35 posts i see someone does know something:)
And for the newbies like me here it goes:

KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME
:eusa_naug BUBBLE FILTER :eusa_naug
That stuff is pure hypothetical and DOESN'T WORK in reality!!!
It will not provide you with steril air because of it's low efficiency. It can only provide you with a headache..

Although you could use it as a bong:)

bye

[BuckarooBanzai]

There are a number of problems with the bubble filtration concept:

1> Water is HEAVY. You will need an assininely huge fan to generate even a small stream of bubbles in one "bong." A series of them could only be run from a pressure tank (like for pneumatic tools). Ever notice how much harder you have to suck on a three chambered beauty?

2> Bubbles have very high surface tension (that's why bubbles form instead of just dissolving into the water). The only air actually exposed to the water would be about three atoms deep on the surface of the bubble, and that air is quite effectively locked in by the surface tension. Bongs only filter herb smoke because the tars are electrically attracted to the water. Contaminants do not have a net charge to speak of.

3> Bubbles are HUGE compared to the contaminants you want to remove. Your bubbles would have to be microscopic (read: invisible) to have any impact at all (and that impact would be negated by surface tension). To produce bubbles the size you would need, you'll have to lay out some major bucks for ceramic air stones, which in turn will require even more air pressure to operate effectively.

4> A strong air stream bubbling through bleach will produce low vapor pressure and evolve chlorine gas. Chlorine will irritate the heck out of your sinuses/eyes and corrode any metal surface it touches very quickly.

5> A strong air stream bubbling through alcohol will produce a highly FLAMMABLE aerosol. Filling a small box with flammable vapor and then flaming a syringe will produce an explosion.

Just my 2 cents...