Question about alternatives to HEPA filters in gloveboxes
Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:28 PM
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..
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!
Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:35 PM
rubber gloves.. $2
box... free (ask any reasturant.. they go throw away boxes like mad
plastic wrap $2..
can of oust... $4
tin foil .. $1
glue .. $1
ther then that you'll just need som ISO alcohol and paper towels to wipe down your gloved hands and lower arms (any portion that will be inside the box)
Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:36 PM
Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:23 PM
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;)
Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:27 PM
they are bubbles..
only the outside parts even touch the water..
you have a whole inside space that never touches water..
as for the oust..
you could probily get away with a fine mister spray bottle of 10:1 bleach water..
the water particles should knock most of the contams out of the air..
Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:48 PM
unfortunately for us, 90% is sience fiction, but it's nice to have dreams;)
Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:52 PM
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.
Posted 12 October 2005 - 02:21 PM
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:)
Posted 12 October 2005 - 02:25 PM
Posted 12 October 2005 - 02:25 PM
no offence itch.. but your trying to re invent the wheel man...
do what you like.. but i think hip knows what he is talking about..
if you wanna build a ppgb go for it...
it's your stuff that risks contam..
but i know if it were me i'd listen to the people who have been there done that...
Posted 12 October 2005 - 02:38 PM
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
Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:27 PM
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 ?
Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:48 PM
Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:51 PM
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.
Posted 12 October 2005 - 04:29 PM
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
Posted 12 October 2005 - 09:45 PM
i use it in open air... had pretty good success with agar in a cleaned out rubbermaide on it's side..
few contams but i think that is due to the shitty wraping job with the parafilm
just starting with agar though.. and considdering i can set it up in 5 mins..
it's a real blessing.. and no crappy plastic to try to see through.. and no acward arm holes...
itch.. i'm not trying to trying to be a dick or anything man..
just saying... hypothetical stuff theories is exactly how stuff like ppgb's and cold shocking start.. some other newbie might read this thread.. and instead of taking the advice try to go off on a tangent.. and acutally try to rig something up similar to what you are talking about with the water filtration..
possibly wasting their time, spores, and money...
i mean don't get me wrong.. without trying something new, nothing new would ever come about.. but... if you got something that works.. and works well... why try to complicate it..? no sence in re-inventing the wheel.. ya know
Posted 13 October 2005 - 05:55 AM
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:)
Posted 13 October 2005 - 08:39 PM
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...