Better system design

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’m sure a chemist will correct this:

CO2 in an aqueous solution, exists in a potential state; as either [ (CO2) aq] or
[ (H+) (HCO3-) ]

With a probability azimuth at the matter state change.

Temperature influences the probability of which form.

As I stated in my first post, lowering the temperature will increase solubility of most gases, including CO2 in seawater.

What that does not necessarily imply is that a chiller on a CaCO3/CO2 reactor will appreciably improve the efficiency of CO2 use.

It is not possible to make such an assertion based merely on the solubility of CO2.

I personally think this would be an expensive add on of dubious value. Even if one accepts the premise that CO2 is more efficiently used (I do not), how much CO2 must be saved to offset the expense of the chiller, it's electricity, and the other equipment to attach it?

The hypothesis does not have enough justification to make it worthwhile, IMO.

Same analysis and lack of convincing utility applies to the ozone suggestion.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If a 25wt UV Syerilizer has a pathogen flow of X gph, an algae flow of 2X gph.

System volume is also (X); the math is stupid simple.

Once every hour the volume could be irradiated to a pathogen level.

Or a mixed percentage every hour to an alga level.

Although each manufacturer designates suggested flow rates.

The complexity of adding actuators, provides an option to set a unit into algae flow rates.

You are introducing information that is irrelevant to the point. No, the mechanical and control additions just add unneeded complexity for no benefit for the UV.

Switching flow rates is still unjustified. Pathogen eradicating flow levels already delivers the dose sufficient for what you are citing as needing less flow (algae is your wording). You position has been debunked several times now.

Furthermore each flow rate adds heat.

This limits the influx of heat, while still providing the benefit of correctly sized UV sterilizer.

Absolutely wrong. This is basic thermodynamics and a simple first order application of the First Law of Thermodynamics..

Heat is steady state, set by wattage of the lamp and not the flow rate through the fixture. The lamp envelope is water cooled.

Lower flow raises delta T per pass, it doesn't reduce total heat added to the tank. The same energy is imparted to the water regardless of the flow, it has nowhere else to go.

Example:
A 30W UV sterilizer lamp = 102.4 BTU/hr (30W × 3.412 BTU/Wh)

1 BTU raises 1 lb water 1°F. Water = 8.34 lb/gal.
Low flow 60 GPH: 60 × 8.34 = 500.4 lb/hr
Delta T = 102.4 / 500.4 = 0.205°F per pass

High flow 180 GPH: 180 × 8.34 = 1501.2 lb/hr
Delta T = 102.4 / 1501.2 = 0.068°F per pass

Total heat added per hour: 102.4 BTU in both cases. Flow rate changes delta T per pass, not total heat added to the system.

I’m sure a chemist will correct this:

Are you aware that you are arguing with an actual credentialed chemist?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I personally think this would be an expensive add on of dubious value. Even if one accepts the premise that CO2 is more efficiently used (I do not), how much CO2 must be saved to offset the expense of the chiller, it's electricity, and the other equipment to attach it?

I did some napkin math above that shows this to be exactly the case.

The power required for any reasonable delta T large enough to measurably make a difference is 1kW or more for a modestly small reactor. Any net benefit would be easier to obtain via flow adjustment. This whole thing is a non starter even if the theory has merit.

 

[MnFish1]

You are introducing a tangent argument that has nothing to do with the original exchange or counter point. Nobody is debating UV sizing. The entirety of the exchange was discrediting the idea of needing variable flow rate with a whatever is assumed to be a properly sized UV. That's all.

And I said very clearly that varying the flow does not help. There is no reason to vary a flow rate and if fact it may be harmful/decreasing the efficiency of the UV's purpose. Read before criticizing?

 

[BeanAnimal]

And I said very clearly that varying the flow does not help. There is no reason to vary a flow rate and if fact it may be harmful/decreasing the efficiency of the UV's purpose. Read before criticizing?

The criticism is injection of tangent arguments that had no context to the argument you stepped into, not the part you agreed with in context, that's all. It muddies the waters after the fact. It is your super power

 

[Dan_P]

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. You have not addressed a single point made in response to your posts, and with each reply you are drifting further away from the actual questions and topic.


The user’s posts often make very little sense outside of loose context alignment and misplaced but real facts mixed with non sequitur wandering. Technical phrases mixed in with broken connective language.

Maybe a troll, maybe an AI experiment, may take just somebody overstating their credentials and knowledge, paraphrasing AI and search results with no real understanding. That is my take and maybe explains why questions can’t be answered and responses deflect or restate. Looking at the post history, I see the same pattern. Maybe the OP can explain, maybe not.

I am not sure what to make of the op’s responses.

To me the responses are barely intelligible and resemble someone having a long discussion with themselves about each post, and then sharing snippets from that discussion. The snippets are not meaningless or randomly selected, just out of context. AI or differently abled human?

 

[MnFish1]

The criticism is injection of tangent arguments that had no context to the argument you stepped into, not the part you agreed with in context, that's all. It muddies the waters after the fact. It is your super power

I would be banned if I mentioned your superpower:)

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would be banned if I mentioned your superpower:)

Everybody knows already, it’s bacon making. Anyway, you have no insult that will bother me or deter me from speaking my mind, so there’s that too. Now if you will excuse me, I have bacon that just came off of the smoker to attend to.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am not sure what to make of the op’s responses.

These are awkward exchanges for sure. Not as awkward as poached egg white omelets, but close.

The snippets are not meaningless or randomly selected, just out of context. AI or differently abled human?

Yep, odd building blocks for sure but human connective tissue.

 

[Reginald Reefer III]

Here for the nerd fight, being an engineer myself. This is both entertaining, and somehow therapeutic....

 

[Dan_P]

Everybody knows already, it’s bacon making. Anyway, you have no insult that will bother me or deter me from speaking my mind, so there’s that too. Now if you will excuse me, I have bacon that just came off of the smoker to attend to.

Nutrient porno…I am not going to get this out of my head

 

[Privateye]

There's a lot to unpack in this thread, but I'm going to skip over what's been said and just respond to the original post.

Regarding CO2, yes a low temperature does increase the solubility of gases in liquids. However, the saturation point for CO2 in water is extremely high. I'm not confident that reducing the temperature a few degrees will have much of an effect on the dissolution of CO2. If you need to add a chiller anyway I could see implementing it there, but then would we also need to consider temperature affecting the rate of the reaction? More gases can dissolve but fewer solids, right?

There is no benefit to fluctuating flow rates with a UV sterilizer. When you're targeting one type of microbe, you're likely allowing the other to recover. However, if you just oversize your UV so the dose is strong enough to affect pathogens, and maintain a high enough flow rate for it to overcome algae, then your unit will suit both purposes. A high dose is required to treat parasites, and a high turnover rate is required to treat algae. I'm using these terms loosely - some species of microbes are more-susceptible to UV than others.

 

[PaReefingFamily]

If the desire is to target both and algae can be targeted using a higher flow rate but parasites require a lower flow (longer uv exposure time) rate don't you just set it to the lower requirement ? Longer dwell time will be (more) affective on algae as well.

I was wondering about this as well as I run my UV with a very low dwell time to target both parasites and algae 24/7.