# Free CO2 and alternative energy use in the home aquarium



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

This might sound crazy, but I'm bored and the discussions of carbonic acid made me think, hmm what are other sources of CO2 that might obtainable...

Anyone every sit next to their tank and breath in through the nose and out through their mouth into a straw into the tank to supply plants with CO2?

How many people breathing into a tank would it take to provide enough CO2 for the plants for a day?

Other thoughts?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

It would basically do nothing. 4.5% co2. 

The faster you breath, the less co2 it would have... until you pass out, at which point it would stabilize for you to repeat the cycle.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

so that gets to my second question, how many people would it take? say for a 10 gallon tank.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

probably a couple dozen all day long.......


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

every breath would also introduce oxygen and cause huge surface agitation, thus off gassing the co2 you put in. I do not think you would see a net gain.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

would all the nitrogen do anything? to fish or plants?


----------



## joekidwell (Aug 7, 2011)

If they could only make something to extract the co2 from the air and pump it into you're tank.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> would all the nitrogen do anything? to fish or plants?


No. It is the same as the air we breath IN.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

joekidwell said:


> If they could only make something to extract the co2 from the air and pump it into you're tank.


They do.... that is how pressurized co2 tanks are FILLED.


----------



## KrazyFish (Dec 23, 2010)

LOL - you really must be bored if you are thinking about this.

I don't think you would see any benefits and really how realistic or feasable is it? You would need to through a "Blow Hard" party every day. It would be really funny to see - imagine all your friends standing around the tank blowing bubbles into the water with straws until everyone passes out.....too funny.

But let's be serious here it just won't work.


----------



## joekidwell (Aug 7, 2011)

Well they need to scale them down and make them affordable....it would make tanks a thing of the past


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jul 29, 2008)

I've seen a cartoon poking fun of this actually. But yeah, unless you have nothing better to do than sit by your tank all day blowing, it's not going to work. Even if you somehow do manage to do that, it probably won't work too well.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

joekidwell said:


> If they could only make something to extract the co2 from the air and pump it into you're tank.


agreed! how about start inventing that



KrazyFish said:


> LOL - you really must be bored if you are thinking about this.
> 
> I don't think you would see any benefits and really how realistic or feasable is it? You would need to through a "Blow Hard" party every day. It would be really funny to see - imagine all your friends standing around the tank blowing bubbles into the water with straws until everyone passes out.....too funny.
> 
> But let's be serious here it just won't work.


It is a funny image. It wasn't a serious thought and I knew when I was thinking it there would be no way it would be feasible. Just being curious.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

This one has actually been done.  You can't achieve modern standards of desired CO2 levels, but apparently it was enough to have a positive impact on the plants. I found this reference:

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/mouth.html

I seem to also remember one fellow (same one?) was filling trash bags with exhaled CO2 while doing his daily exercise, thus saving time and producing a bit more concentrated CO2. :hihi:


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> This one has actually been done.  You can't achieve modern standards of desired CO2 levels, but apparently it was enough to have a positive impact on the plants. I found this reference:
> 
> http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/mouth.html
> 
> I seem to also remember one fellow (same one?) was filling trash bags with exhaled CO2 while doing his daily exercise, thus saving time and producing a bit more concentrated CO2. :hihi:


holy cow! that's quite amazing. I wonder how the wife would feel about trash bags of air sitting next to my tanks...


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

joekidwell said:


> Well they need to scale them down and make them affordable....it would make tanks a thing of the past


But tanks are already affordable, so why move past them?


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

OverStocked said:


> But tanks are already affordable, so why move past them?


I can see the progression in the technology leading to getting the CO2 out of the air in the house and putting it in the tank. It would take away the need for for tanks and refilling them etc. If it was scaled down to the extent that it was the size of an air pump it wouldn't be as obtrusive in the home as having a 20 lb tank sitting next to you stand. 

I could see a company like ADA going for something like this that would be sleek and barely noticeable. 

Its human nature to look for easier ways to do things or improve the way things are done, so it makes sense.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> I can see the progression in the technology leading to getting the CO2 out of the air in the house and putting it in the tank. It would take away the need for for tanks and refilling them etc. If it was scaled down to the extent that it was the size of an air pump it wouldn't be as obtrusive in the home as having a 20 lb tank sitting next to you stand.
> 
> I could see a company like ADA going for something like this that would be sleek and barely noticeable.
> 
> Its human nature to look for easier ways to do things or improve the way things are done, so it makes sense.


I can safely say it will never be down to that size. Oxygen concentrator commonly come in the size of a small dorm fridge. The smaller, toaster sized portable ones are only able to produce oxygen at a 2-4 lpm rate. 

CO2 concentrators are much larger, and much much less common. Expecting an affordable, small unit sometime in the next millennium is a futile effort. There just isn't any market. 

None of the regulators ADA sell are made by ADA. The Little, most expensive(and better one) is made by Leland, just rebranded. There isn't much technical R&D going on at ADA. Someone else will have to spend the huge some of money on making it, and ADA might rebrand it. I don't see this happening as there isn't a separate need outside of this very small market that doesn't actually exist. 

Also, Oxygen concentrators are very noisy, and I'd expect a co2 one to be as well. The constant hum of a concentrator at work makes me want to gouge my eyes out.


----------



## FishFarmer (Feb 8, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> would all the nitrogen do anything? to fish or plants?


The nitrogen would be in the form of N2 gas, which is not bioavailable to plants--unless fixed to a bioavailable form by _Bradyrhizobium_ bacteria in leguminous plants.

On another note, it would be cool if someone invented a little pump and reactor to extract CO2 out of atmospheric gas and inject it into the tank. That would be really simple and easy.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

don't rain on my parade! got to have dreams and visions else we'd never have progress. 

what about collecting the emissions from your car, extracting the CO2, then injecting that into your tank.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

FishFarmer said:


> On another note, it would be cool if someone invented a little pump and reactor to extract CO2 out of atmospheric gas and inject it into the tank. That would be really simple and easy.



That's basically what joekidwell was talking about I think and overstocked poopoo'd


----------



## hydrophyte (Mar 1, 2009)

I always thought that that thekrib.com post was an elaborate joke.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

hydrophyte said:


> I always thought that that thekrib.com post was an elaborate joke.


Could be, I read somewhere on here today that somebody was using some sort of solution in their drop checker that is more accurate. Anyway he said he tested it b/c without the solution the drop checker didnt change when he blew into it, but with the solution it changed right away.

I dunno how all that works but it would seem that our breath could have an effect. 

If the krib.com post was true I guess it could be worthwhile for someone with a lower light tank that wants improvement of plant growth without doing Excel or CO2 injection.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

The next evolution in CO2 tech is to use CO2 scrubbing tech. A machine would pull CO2 out of the air at night and releases CO2 into your tank during the day.

It's not practical now because of the size and price of the thing but industrial plants have them. CO2 concentration might be an issue too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> don't rain on my parade! got to have dreams and visions else we'd never have progress.
> 
> what about collecting the emissions from your car, extracting the CO2, then injecting that into your tank.


You'd be mostly adding N2, again. Also you'd be adding CO and a slew of other dirtiness... Also, not sure how you plan to "capture" it....


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

Oxygen concentrators reminds me of a CO2 production method I schemed up.

Yeast can produce CO2 from sugar via two methods, aerobically (with oxygen) and anaerobically (without oxygen).

The anaerobic method, which we're all familiar with, produces CO2 and alcohol.

But the aerobic method produces three times the amount of CO2 for the same amount of sugar, and no alcohol.

When you mix up a DIY CO2 batch, it starts off aerobic. But since it's sealed, with only an outlet, the available oxygen is quickly consumed. So it switches to anaerobic, and 66% of the potential for CO2 production is wasted. Plus the amount of useful sugar you can add to the mix is limited, since eventually the yeast will be slow down and be killed by alcohol.

So what if you could bubble oxygen through the DIY mix?

Air contains oxygen, but it wouldn't work. It's 78% nitrogen, which is very poorly soluble in water. So a reactor would fill with nitrogen until it and your CO2 burp out and are wasted. Or the insoluble nitrogen bubbles coming from a diffuser would carry most of the CO2 up and out of the tank.

You could however produce pure oxygen, or a mix of oxygen and hydrogen, through water electrolysis.

I never worked out exact build details. Because although I'm sure it could be done, I'm not sure if the cost of electricity for electrolysis would exceed the benefit.

Anyone both intrigued enough with the idea, and familiar enough with the maths, to do a proper cost/benefit analysis?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

Unfortunately the CO2 scrubbers out there right now look like this:


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> The next evolution in CO2 tech is to use CO2 scrubbing tech. A machine would pull CO2 out of the air at night and releases CO2 into your tank during the day.
> 
> It's not practical now because of the size and price of the thing but industrial plants have them. CO2 concentration might be an issue too.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber


neat!



OverStocked said:


> You'd be mostly adding N2, again. Also you'd be adding CO and a slew of other dirtiness... Also, not sure how you plan to "capture" it....


no N2, because you would somehow extract pure or nearly pure CO2 from the emissions (extraction could be done using something like the scrubber that mistergreen posted) and capture in some container of sorts....hmmmm a tank? 

This obviously would not eliminate the tank and injecting mechanisms that we have now, but it would reduce auto emission pollutants and it would provide a means of refilling tanks without going to a store and paying.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

are they massive because they have to scrub massive amounts of CO2 from the emissions of the power plant? If you only need to scrub enough CO2 over night to get you through the next day in your tank I don't see why technology couldn't advance enough to make it small enough to be applicable.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

You can do an interesting exeriment: Put some 1 dKH water in a small container. Measure it's pH. Take a straw, or a piece of air tubing, and blow into the water for about 20 seconds. Measure the pH again. You will be surprised!

This is how I did some experiments with CO2 a few years ago.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

kamikazi said:


> are they massive because they have to scrub massive amounts of CO2 from the emissions of the power plant? If you only need to scrub enough CO2 over night to get you through the next day in your tank I don't see why technology couldn't advance enough to make it small enough to be applicable.


This is true but it might be still too big, maybe the size of a tank stand.
If you read the wiki article, CO2 is capture either chemically or physically with activated carbon. You need a lot of stuff to capture a good amount of CO2 for your tank. Releasing the CO2 from the stuff usually involves heat which could be a fire hazard. There's still a lot of room for development for use in the home.



Hoppy said:


> You can do an interesting exeriment: Put some 1 dKH water in a small container. Measure it's pH. Take a straw, or a piece of air tubing, and blow into the water for about 20 seconds. Measure the pH again. You will be surprised!
> 
> This is how I did some experiments with CO2 a few years ago.


lol, are you suggesting we blow into our tank for CO2? I hope I don't pass out.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

where would i get 1dkH water?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> where would i get 1dkH water?


make it.


----------



## Abrium (Jan 7, 2011)

This is very interesting and makes me want to think about a streamlining a design that would mimic the functionality presented in thekrib article. The only downfall that I see is the amount of physical work that has to be put into the collection of the co2. Please indulge:

In the article on thekrib the author had to repeat chair exercises over 2 to 3 days to replenish the co2 source. That amount would fill three 15 gallon tanks or a 55. For me there in lies the problem. Fish tanks, especially planted tanks, are addictive. In accumulative gallons alone I have 225+ gallons of heavily planted tanks. I am going to make an assumption that only individuals such as oursevles would even look into a solution such as this. This isn't something that a newcomer sits around and tries to figure out. Basically the process needed to achieve the co2 goal eliminates, by volume requirement, the target market that would use the breathing machine.

And, you can make 1dhk water from distilled water. Costs about a dollar for a gallon.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The Space Station uses CO2 scrubbers to hold down the buildup of CO2. All we need to do is obtain the used scrubbers, then open the spigot at the bottom and let the collected CO2 enter our tanks. (Patent Pending.)


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

OverStocked said:


> You'd be mostly adding N2, again. Also you'd be adding CO and a slew of other dirtiness... Also, not sure how you plan to "capture" it....


 run a garden hose from your exaust pipe to your tank! that sure would be economical. especially bc gas is so cheap. :thumbsdow

WARNING: dont actually do this!


----------



## hydrophyte (Mar 1, 2009)

This looks a lot like the ADA Super Jet ES-600 filter. It would be so cool in my cabinet...



OverStocked said:


> Unfortunately the CO2 scrubbers out there right now look like this:


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

jreich said:


> run a garden hose from your exaust pipe to your tank! that sure would be economical. especially bc gas is so cheap. :thumbsdow


Especially since it is a pretty popular way to kill yourself too.....


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

OverStocked said:


> Especially since it is a pretty popular way to kill yourself too.....


2 for 1 kill your self and your fish :drool:


----------



## DogFish (Jul 16, 2011)

It's a good thing I never became a teacher. This would be a great rainy day class room project for a bunch of hyper 3rd graders. 

Class, everyone grab some airline, put one end in the aqurium and start to slowly blow bubbles. :icon_mrgr


----------



## joekidwell (Aug 7, 2011)

OverStocked said:


> But tanks are already affordable, so why move past them?


:icon_neut

It could easily be but on a timer just by plugging it into one, never have to worry about leaks or tank pressure and say goodbye breaking it all down just to refill a tank


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

Abrium said:


> This is very interesting and makes me want to think about a streamlining a design that would mimic the functionality presented in thekrib article. The only downfall that I see is the amount of physical work that has to be put into the collection of the co2. Please indulge:
> 
> In the article on thekrib the author had to repeat chair exercises over 2 to 3 days to replenish the co2 source. That amount would fill three 15 gallon tanks or a 55. For me there in lies the problem. Fish tanks, especially planted tanks, are addictive. In accumulative gallons alone I have 225+ gallons of heavily planted tanks. I am going to make an assumption that only individuals such as oursevles would even look into a solution such as this. This isn't something that a newcomer sits around and tries to figure out. Basically the process needed to achieve the co2 goal eliminates, by volume requirement, the target market that would use the breathing machine.
> 
> And, you can make 1dhk water from distilled water. Costs about a dollar for a gallon.


I'm a relative newbie, only been in the hobby for a little over a year. I have 2 tanks a 29 and a 40. So a streamlined version of thekrib article's concept (if it actually is real) could actually be helpful. 

Also I'm a pretty active person, go running and what not so to take 10 mins or so to blow up a trash bag sitting and standing would bother me either. 



DogFish said:


> It's a good thing I never became a teacher. This would be a great rainy day class room project for a bunch of hyper 3rd graders.
> 
> Class, everyone grab some airline, put one end in the aqurium and start to slowly blow bubbles. :icon_mrgr


A friend of mine is a 5th grade teacher and in the hobby, I'll mention this to him. At the very least you could have them do Hoppy's experiment with the 1dkH water and pH test.


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Jan 16, 2010)

LOL!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Abrium (Jan 7, 2011)

Come to think of it I haven't refilled my co2 tanks in almost a year and when I do have them refilled at the local welding supply its only 1.08. Its not like the co2 breaks the wallet. Why are we worried about bags again?


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

joekidwell said:


> :icon_neut
> 
> It could easily be but on a timer just by plugging it into one, never have to worry about leaks or tank pressure and say goodbye breaking it all down just to refill a tank


But how is a mechanical device going to be less prone to breaking down? Pipe dreams and fairies is all I'm seeing here.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

the bag idea is secondary. 

What'd I like is a method of getting the CO2 directly out of the air in the home and into the tank.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> the bag idea is secondary.
> 
> What'd I like is a method of getting the CO2 directly out of the air in the home and into the tank.


It's a cute idea. But that is all it is. Expecting an affordable in home system anytime in the next century is silly. There is just no market. Think of this, nothing we use was developed for us. We are secondary or tertiary consumers. 

There is no other practical use for an in home co2 scrubber. I think people are grossly underestimating how complicated these are and how many parts would be in it. Expecting it to be aquarium air pump sized is completely impractical. 

If you want this, you're going to have to develop it. And expect to lose a ton of money in the process. There just isn't a need or use for it. Expecting it to have less problems than a standard co2 setup or be more cost effective is even more outlandish.

Also, all I get from the bag idea is that it is a joke....


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

it could be hydro powered by the water flow of a filter so it won't use more electricity


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

kamikazi said:


> it could be hydro powered by the water flow of a filter so it won't use more electricity


So now you intend to put a hydro-electric power plant in your filter, too? 

We've gone so far into science fiction I don't know whether to laugh or call a mental health professional....


----------



## Bettatail (Feb 12, 2009)

barbarossa4122 said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!


+1


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

well... either a hydro powered scrubbed or a solar powered one using the light from the aquarium fixtures. 

it wouldn't need to be a full blown hydro-electric power plant.

the water could flow out of the filter into a small water wheel, which in turn produces the power. Call it mini-micro hydro power system. 

It could be used to power lights, scrubber, air pumps etc only the filter would be plugged in for electricity. Filter pumps power might need to be increased, but the flow could be regulated after it has passed through the mini-micro hydro power system (MMHPS)


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

Laugh if you want but great advances in technology, inventions, products only come from two places, they either happen by accident or dreamed up by a visionary.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Do electrolysis with water, bottle the o2, then ignite a piece of carbon in a closed chamber filled with o2.
Now somehow bottle the co2 that would be formed.
Maybe you could do electrolysis with air thats compressed to a liquid, who knows what you'd be splitting though.


----------



## Bettatail (Feb 12, 2009)

kamikazi said:


> Laugh if you want but great advances in technology, inventions, products only come from two places, they either happen by accident or dreamed up by a visionary.


not the technology, it is the blowing method that is funny. lol

next 50 years, we will probably see the device for our fish tank that you mention here.

and it is a plus to reduce global warming.


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Jan 16, 2010)

Yeah, I was laughing at the "blowing" stuff too not at the new tech ideas. Sorry.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

I did a quick google search about going off grid with aquariums and just briefly reading a few topics it seems the biggest hurdle is the heater so your limited to fish that live without heated water. 

Pretty interesting reads though...saying that undergravel filters work best in off grid setups because it takes less energy to pump air than water etc.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

barbarossa4122 said:


> Yeah, I was laughing at the "blowing" stuff too not at the new tech ideas. Sorry.


oh ok, makes sense 

I really wanted to find the cartoon that was mentioned early on but my search for that only provided a picture of a couple drinking an alcoholic beverage or something out of a fish bowl.


----------



## Bettatail (Feb 12, 2009)

kamikazi said:


> I did a quick google search about going off grid with aquariums and just briefly reading a few topics it seems the biggest hurdle is the heater so your limited to fish that live without heated water.
> 
> Pretty interesting reads though...saying that undergravel filters work best in off grid setups because it takes less energy to pump air than water etc.


it is true, my air pump only use 4 watt of energy, dual air supply, more than good enough to run a undergravel filter for 20G, but if I use HOB or submerged pumb/filter, it is 5 watt at least, and much more if it is canister type filter.


----------



## jasonpatterson (Apr 15, 2011)

DogFish said:


> It's a good thing I never became a teacher. This would be a great rainy day class room project for a bunch of hyper 3rd graders.
> 
> Class, everyone grab some airline, put one end in the aqurium and start to slowly blow bubbles. :icon_mrgr


Here's your lesson plan. This is a pretty common middle school activity, though perhaps not for the reason we'd want it.



kamikazi said:


> it could be hydro powered by the water flow of a filter so it won't use more electricity


Assuming you used a generator with 100% efficiency, you'd be dealing with a drop in height of the water on the order of an inch or two at most, let's say 

h = 5 cm

Pumping it to a greater height would slow the rate of water coming out of the filter or require a larger pump which would consume more energy. For a large filter that moves 300 gallons of water per hour (actual value, not nominal,) you'd be looking at 

Y = 8.35 lb/gal x 300 gal/h = 2505 lb/h

falling out of the filter from which you could conceivably extract energy.

The maximum power generated by that water would be given by

P = Y x h

P = 4175 lb/h x 5 cm = 12525 lb cm/h

Those units are legitimate, but not something that we would ever use, so some conversion is in order. Let's find out what 12525 lb cm/h is in watts, for instance.

1 lb = 4.44 N

1 h = 3600 s

1 cm = 0.01 m

P = 12525 lb cm/h x 4.44 N/lb x 1 h/3600 s x 0.01m/1 cm = 0.26 Nm/s 

P = 0.15 W (again note that this assumes 100% efficiency in the process as well)

The water leaving the filter would be moving at a very slow speed as well (actually it would be motionless at 100% efficiency,) so you'd probably need to supplement with an additional powerhead.



kamikazi said:


> Laugh if you want but great advances in technology, inventions, products only come from two places, they either happen by accident or dreamed up by a visionary.


If you can build a carbon dioxide condenser of any sort that runs on 0.15W, more power to you.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

jasonpatterson said:


> Here's your lesson plan. This is a pretty common middle school activity, though perhaps not for the reason we'd want it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wow and I thought I was crazy for thinking about these ideas, you actually did MATH related to it, lol, I'm not sure if I should be impressed or sad for you 

Lets say you wanted to power your lighting by utilizing the filter pump and lets say your lighting is 2 clip work lights each using a 13 watt CFL. So thats 26 watts.
And lets say you increased the power of the pump to get more height. what height and flow would it take to power the bulbs? 

I assume you perhaps work the equation backwards but I suck at math and you are obviously more knowledgeable than I am on it.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Here's an idea, 
Why don't your teenagers on the Forum get your degree in chemistry and engineering. Figure out how to make a smaller and cheaper CO2 scrubber for us to use.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

kamikazi said:


> wow and I thought I was crazy for thinking about these ideas, you actually did MATH related to it, lol, I'm not sure if I should be impressed or sad for you
> 
> Lets say you wanted to power your lighting by utilizing the filter pump and lets say your lighting is 2 clip work lights each using a 13 watt CFL. So thats 26 watts.
> And lets say you increased the power of the pump to get more height. what height and flow would it take to power the bulbs?
> ...


The problem is you're trying to get back energy from something that needs energy. 
If you raise the heigh you'd just need a more powerful pump, it would all counter out, and nothing is 100 percent efficient. 
What you're hoping for is like hooking up an exercise bike to a DC human powered generator, and then converting it to AC so it can power your exercise bike.


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jul 29, 2008)

mistergreen said:


> Here's an idea,
> Why don't your teenagers on the Forum get your degree in chemistry and engineering. Figure out how to make a smaller and cheaper CO2 scrubber for us to use.












Although there'd have to be another bigger market for it apply to. Maybe commercial indoor farming? The scrubber could take CO2 from the outside and somehow transfer it into the room where the plants are being grown.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

this whole power genorator thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine, which is impossable.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

Axelrodi202 said:


> Although there'd have to be another bigger market for it apply to. Maybe commercial indoor farming? The scrubber could take CO2 from the outside and somehow transfer it into the room where the plants are being grown.


But they already use co2 generators in greenhouses. They are just not a scalable unit. 

Something useful for us wouldn't be useful to anything large. 

The primary use of co2 in industrial supply is fire extinguishers.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

mistergreen said:


> Here's an idea,
> Why don't your teenagers on the Forum get your degree in chemistry and engineering. Figure out how to make a smaller and cheaper CO2 scrubber for us to use.


Good idea! too late for me.



jreich said:


> this whole power genorator thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine, which is impossable.





Chlorophile said:


> The problem is you're trying to get back energy from something that needs energy.
> If you raise the heigh you'd just need a more powerful pump, it would all counter out, and nothing is 100 percent efficient.
> What you're hoping for is like hooking up an exercise bike to a DC human powered generator, and then converting it to AC so it can power your exercise bike.


Not quite perpetual motion, too bad that's impossible.

It's why I suggested keeping the pump plugged in, but as you point out the extra power needed to get the water flow to be enough would counter the savings of not having the lights plugged in. So thats why to really get off the grid with it you need to use solar power for the filter, this could be on your roof, then hydro for the lights.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

kamikazi said:


> Not quite perpetual motion, too bad that's impossible.


 u r correct, but more or less the same principal


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Not really sure what's going in this thread but I know a guy who just for fun put some baking soda in a flask, put a stopper on it, heated it on a hot plate and got co2 for his tank from it. Neat experiment 0 practicality.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> Not really sure what's going in this thread but I know a guy who just for fun put some baking soda in a flask, put a stopper on it, heated it on a hot plate and got co2 for his tank from it. Neat experiment 0 practicality.


 how do u know it was co2?


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

It's a common high school and middle school lab experiment. Heated NaHCO3 becomes water + CO2. There are numerous ways to make gasses in the home. Bleach + h2o2 = massive amounts of O2 etc.


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

nm
but it sounds like you would need a ton of baking soda to produce a little co2, neat experiment either way.


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

not to mention the fire risk


----------



## jreich (Feb 11, 2009)

kamikazi said:


> not to mention the fire risk


 and the fact that your aquarium would look like a meth lab.


----------



## Bettatail (Feb 12, 2009)

Jeffww said:


> It's a common high school and middle school lab experiment. Heated NaHCO3 becomes water + CO2. There are numerous ways to make gasses in the home. Bleach + h2o2 = massive amounts of O2 etc.


Actually, it is another way to get co2 and wildly practice in asia countries, they don't heat the NaHCO3 but use vinegar to produce co2, only problem of this kind of "reactor" is the amount of vinegar required so the chemical reaction can be precisely controlled and CO2 don't go all out overnight.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Axelrodi202 said:


> Although there'd have to be another bigger market for it apply to.


Sure there are applications. A way to reduce atmospheric CO2 or take it into space. The lighter and cheaper the device, the better for space exploration.


----------

