Debunked: Triton Artificial Gills (Indigogo Campaign)
- Thread starter huwp
- Start date
vislaw
Member
In most instances an attorney will propound discovery requests such as Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories that must be answered under oath. By carefully crafting such requests and using deposition testimony you can generally get the parameters defined to a point that there isn't that sort of "weasel room" in court. In the case of the Triton campaign the whole house of cards will obviously collapse because so much can be easily proven to be untrue once the process of discovery begins.
txt29
Senior Member.
Yes, a good suggestion. Well, moving it above would require completely rewriting all the text, so I modified it a bit, and finally added a brief calculation for both the minimum and the moderate maximum. I hope it is now less confusing:
You would need a ¼ horsepower (200W) pump just for supplying the metabolized oxygen, and without accounting for the power needed for passing the water through the nano-filter. For that 3 Wh are needed at reverse osmosis for every liter. It means 8.1 kWh in the very minimal case (45*60 L/min) and up to 300 kWh under moderate extent at the depth of 5m (45*2250 L/min). All that from a tiny lithium battery with usual capacity of just units of watthours (5 orders of magnitude less).
Last edited:
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
What gets me about the necessary flow rates is that if they were true, triton would make way more supplying miniaturized water jet propulsion to the military and ROV manufacturers than going on indigogo with a scuba mask.
exclamationMarek
New Member
If I may add something, I think there are some essential points that a text summarising our de-bunking work should follow, to be as legitimate and fair as possible, especially if you, vislaw, want to use it in a legal document.
- We should target the most recent claim by Triton, that is “artificial gills system that takes oxygen out of the water, AND has additional liquid oxygen canisters, so these TWO sources combined provide breathable air”
- We should be careful on the numbers we quote, we can’t take the energy requirement to filter SALT out of water and assume their device will need the same power, since this gives them a line of defence by saying that filtering oxygen is much less energy demanding
- We should perform debunking math in the BEST case scenario, to prove that their device will not work under ANY conditions. Otherwise they have a line of defence by saying it only works in some waters / for some people
- The description should be written in a natural language, free of sarcasm and slurs.
- We shouldn't say that the videos were “certainly faked”, only show that they are possible to fake, and voice our suspicions.
txt29
Senior Member.
Not only that. It could be used as a low cost desalination device - one $300 Triton could supply 54,000 liters of drinking water in 24 hours (after reminelizing the destilated water a bit) - enough for a small town. If it can align O₂ molecules to pass through holes just
Last edited:
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Actually, it is 1Å = 0.1nm smaller.
txt29
Senior Member.
If the filter really passed only O₂ molecules as they claim, it could only happen if there was a PPO₂ gradient across the filter. On surface, we have 1 bar of O₂ on the recipient size (pure O₂ hence 1000 ml/L), on the wet size we have in the very best case of maximally oxygenated water only 10 ml/L (14 mg/L). It means that for passing the molecules through the filter (ignoring the energetic costs of it, and ignoring the energy cost of aligning the O₂ molecules), we would need to apply the pressure of 100 bar on the wet size. 100 bar is 10 MPa. At the depth of 5m you would need 15 MPa of pressure for the filtering.
In comparison, the pressure applied at reverse osmosis is 280 kPa (source Wiki). It means that my estimates using the energy cost of reverse osmosis were way too optimistic, in fact. You'd need to apply at least 36 times higher (53 times at 5m) pressure gradient at O₂ filtering, in the ideal case of extremely well oxygenated water, so the energy cost would be proportionally (if not exponentially) higher too.
EDIT: You could also apply vacuum on the dry side, instead of high pressure on the wet side (or both of them concurrently), which could perhaps reduce the energetic cost a bit, but then you'd need to recompress the oxygen to the tiny reservoir shown on their diagrams, at extremely high pressure to allow breathing from it.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
BTW, there is another problem with the molecular filter at Triton. If it really worked as advertised and O₂ molecules could align and pass through holes only 0.1 nm larger than H₂O molecules, the filter would let pass any ions or molecules smaller than that. The main problem would be likely hydrogen - it has a very small diameter, hence it would pass much quicker and easier than oxygen. Although there are only minute amounts of hydrogen dissolved in seawater, due to much easier and quicker permeability, its concentration might raise to levels posing risk.
EDIT1: wrong ppm values for oxygen and hydrogen removed
EDIT2: the molar concentrations of hydrogen are in the range of 10^-8 at the average pH of 8.1, hence there would be a risk only if the permeability of the filter for hydrogen was 6-7 orders of magnitude better than at oxygen.
EDIT1: wrong ppm values for oxygen and hydrogen removed
EDIT2: the molar concentrations of hydrogen are in the range of 10^-8 at the average pH of 8.1, hence there would be a risk only if the permeability of the filter for hydrogen was 6-7 orders of magnitude better than at oxygen.
Last edited:
exclamationMarek
New Member
Although I agree with your estimate, and it does sound convincing to me, we cannot even assume that the magic filter works thought reverse osmosis. We should only stick to hard numbers that are completely disconnected to their technology, like for example the compression ratio of liquid nitrogen - it's 861:1, no matter how they approach it, that is a physical constant. Same with air solubility in water, no matter how they filter it, the can at most expect X amount of air from Y amount of filtered water.
And again, very careful with quotes and sources. A mix of hydrogen and oxygen, in a proportion of 97% hydrogen and 3% oxygen is actually used by scuba divers in some cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrox_(breathing_gas). Honestly, I didn't know that until 3 minutes ago and it still blows my mind why would anyone do that, but it just goes to show how little we know until we check and recheck every claim we make ourselves
And btw: Isn't a water molecule actually smaller than an O2 molecule?
And again, very careful with quotes and sources. A mix of hydrogen and oxygen, in a proportion of 97% hydrogen and 3% oxygen is actually used by scuba divers in some cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrox_(breathing_gas). Honestly, I didn't know that until 3 minutes ago and it still blows my mind why would anyone do that, but it just goes to show how little we know until we check and recheck every claim we make ourselves
And btw: Isn't a water molecule actually smaller than an O2 molecule?
txt29
Senior Member.
I did not refer to any reverse osmosis in my calculation. You need a partial pressure gradient in every case, at any filter (EDIT: otherwise the gas would flow in the opposite sense). The reverse osmosis used in desalination alone is irrelevant. I used it only as a reference for comparing the energetic cost to supply the necessary pressure, but you can as well search the power of a corresponding pump instead.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
That's exactly why I wrote "risk of mixing comparable volumes of oxygen and hydrogen". Hydrogen becomes highly explosive at the concentration of 4% in air (source Wiki), which corresponds to the ratio of H₂:O₂ of 1:5.25, so due to the size of the nano-holes, and because of minimally 50% of O₂ molecules not aligned to pass through the filter, the ratio would be minimally 1:4 or even higher.
exclamationMarek
New Member
ok but going back a step, this quoted source http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm referees to the hydrogen that is part of H2O. NOT freestanding dissolved H2 in gas form. There is no H2 gas that would be caught through such theoretical filter.
txt29
Senior Member.
Yes, right, my bad, those values are indeed wrong, but there is hydrogen in form of ions dissolved in water. I just have to find a better reference with absolute numbers. For the moment I only found that the concetration of hydrogen ions in sea water significantly rose due to the acidification of oceans. I'll keep searching for absolute values
EDIT: in the meantime I removed the wrong concentrations from the post above
EDIT: in the meantime I removed the wrong concentrations from the post above
Last edited:
exclamationMarek
New Member
Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did they just change the title of the campaign?! It reads "World's First Artificial Gills Oxygen Respirator" but I specifically remember it being called a "re-breather" in the very title . Can indiegogo campaigns change their damn TITLE during funding, or was this changed when they refunded everybody and re did the campaign on April 1st?
. Can indiegogo campaigns change their damn TITLE during funding, or was this changed when they refunded everybody and re did the campaign on April 1st?
vislaw
Member
Indeed they have done so. I have my original complaint to Indiegogo in which I quoted the campaign: ‘Triton, World's First Artificial Gills Re-breather’ ... This change is quite recent and does not pertain to the re-booting.Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did they just change the title of the campaign?! It reads "World's First Artificial Gills Oxygen Respirator" but I specifically remember it being called a "re-breather" in the very title
The earliest archived version from March 19th 2016
https://web.archive.org/web/2016031...-world-s-first-artificial-gills-re-breather#/
https://web.archive.org/web/2016031...-world-s-first-artificial-gills-re-breather#/
txt29
Senior Member.
This was already discussed several times here. The volume and the weight of O₂ are bigger than at H₂O, but the molecules differ in shape. The O₂ molecule is 0.1 nm slimmer in the cross-cut direction:
(Please note that this picture shows actually the two hydrogen atoms excessively large, not in the right scale to the oxygen atom, although the length of the O-H bonds is in about the right ratio)
So you could only filter those O₂ molecules that are aligned with the shorter side against the hole (just a few % of the total volume). There is only 0.1 nm difference between O₂ and H₂O if you measure their shorter sides, so the holes would have to be extremely precise in size. There could be perhaps a way to repulse the H₂O molecules with some hydrophobic chemical/polar bonds, though (unlike O₂, H₂O is a polar molecule).
Last edited:
vislaw
Member
Somewhere I ran across this reference to a Korean patent
REBREATHER USING HOLLOW FIBER MEMBRANE WITH BUFFER
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...locale=en_EP&CC=KR&NR=101078280B1&KC=B1&ND=5W
I copied the link and I recall that whomever was talking about this had speculated that young Mr. Yeon may have seen this and used it as inspiration for his SADI design project. Does anybody know more about this? I can't find any substantive information regarding what the patent is all about.
REBREATHER USING HOLLOW FIBER MEMBRANE WITH BUFFER
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...locale=en_EP&CC=KR&NR=101078280B1&KC=B1&ND=5W
I copied the link and I recall that whomever was talking about this had speculated that young Mr. Yeon may have seen this and used it as inspiration for his SADI design project. Does anybody know more about this? I can't find any substantive information regarding what the patent is all about.
txt29
Senior Member.
Back to the hydrogen - the concentration of free hydrogen ions in seawater can be calculated from its pH. At the average pH of 8.1, there would be 7.9E-9 moles of hydrogen in a mole of water, so the risk of comparable levels of oxygen and hydrogen would be low, unless the O₂ filtering was ~6-7 orders of magnitude worse than at hydrogen. I'll edit the former post accordingly.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
Nice find! Yes, it is the same bunk, not taking in account the actual amount of oxygen dissolved in water, and the partial pressures needed for the gas exchange through the membrane. Still, the diagrams show a device much bigger than Triton. At quick reading I did not see the CO₂ scrubber here either, but at least it seems to have some internal volume to actually keep some gas.
Last edited:
John Lewis
Member
You might try getting in touch with KOREA INSTITUTE OF MACHINERY & MATERIALS, shown as the entity applying for the patent.
http://kimm.plani.co.kr/english/html/index.php
Found on their page:
http://kimm.plani.co.kr/english/html/resear/resear_03.php
Last edited:
Yes, that change happened today. I've got a screenshot of the comments page from this morning (2016-04-18) with the old "Triton, World's First Artificial Gills Re-breather" Title:
huwp
Member
Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did they just change the title of the campaign?! It reads "World's First Artificial Gills Oxygen Respirator" but I specifically remember it being called a "re-breather" in the very title
They must have changed it only shortly before you posted. The wayback machine has a snapshot of the page dated 18th April still saying 're-breather':
https://web.archive.org/web/2016041...-world-s-first-artificial-gills-re-breather#/
Another demonstration that they are following their critics and quietly fixing basic errors that they have made where they think their backers won't notice.
Edit - duplicate above post was made while I was typing.
vislaw
Member
They haven't shown any response to critics except when Indiegogo got involved. Based on the subtle removal of "rebreather" and the uncharacteristic lack of responses on the comments page I think its a fair assumption that we are seeing reactions to communications being received by TRITON from Indiegogo.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Maybe...I'm not as close to this as some...but my impression is that Indiegogo doesn't seem
to be doing much--so far--and that the Triton folks are just trying to damp down the rising chorus
of "This really can't possibly work" from everywhere but the management of Indiegogo...
exclamationMarek
New Member
Oh I think they are following. They quickly started saying how their canisters follow DOT regulations as soon as somebody pointed that our somewhere. They stopped deleting comments just a couple days after the bot was announced, now this. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I feel that Saeed is watching us. It makes me want to say "Hi [..]"
Regardless of that, I've finished my review of all the work done collectively here in a more law-abiding (?) form, for the purpose of the actions taken by vislaw. As in: with sources, only hard claims, no insults and no sarcasm. If anybody wants a look at that, I've attached it here. The file is open to review and I'm open to suggestions.
Regardless of that, I've finished my review of all the work done collectively here in a more law-abiding (?) form, for the purpose of the actions taken by vislaw. As in: with sources, only hard claims, no insults and no sarcasm. If anybody wants a look at that, I've attached it here. The file is open to review and I'm open to suggestions.
Last edited by a moderator:
txt29
Senior Member.
I did not finish reading, but already have some comments: The first section (rebreather) looks good. The second one (gills) is confusing and incorrect. Triton clearly states the gills filter out the dissolved oxygen, not air, so I would avoid speaking about dissolved 'air'. You should only speak about oxygen. Nitrogen does not pass the molecular filter. You write about 29 ml of 'air' in 1 liter of water - that would give only 6 ml of oxygen. However, the O₂ concentration in freshwater and seawater varies between 1 to 14 mg/L.
There is a much more correct calculation on the page 6, in the post #210 showing several variants of the calculation for both the theoretical minimum and maximum. The source of the information is the paper Dissolved Oxygen. The O₂ concentration does not raise above 14 mg/L, which corresponds to 10 ml of oxygen at atmospheric pressure per liter of water. See for example the diagram below.
There is a much more correct calculation on the page 6, in the post #210 showing several variants of the calculation for both the theoretical minimum and maximum. The source of the information is the paper Dissolved Oxygen. The O₂ concentration does not raise above 14 mg/L, which corresponds to 10 ml of oxygen at atmospheric pressure per liter of water. See for example the diagram below.
Last edited:
exclamationMarek
New Member
Let me repeat my approach to this matter. I want to prove beyond any doubt that their prototype is faked. That is why I do not take the "typical concentration of oxygen in water", measured in a specific river, as you source. I take the "maximum physically possible concentration of air in water". I don't want to prove that this device will not work in "a typical river", I want to prove that this device will not work *ever*. Using hard physical limits and not typical expected values. After all, their demonstration was filmed in a pool and not a typical river.
Your approach would be very valid when designing a product that is supposed to work - that's when you are looking for real values. We are trying to show that something has no right to exist ever, so I believe we need to look at hard limit values.
Following your advice will prove that triton is "even more impossible in some situations", while I believe we should concentrate on "impossible in any situation". Do you agree?
Similarly with the air vs oxygen issue. We know nothing about the (non existent) filter they have. Maybe it's a bunch of nano-bots that one by one pick the molecules they want? Technically, it could be. A scenario where it lets though ALL the air is more likely to work as a source of breathable gas then a scenario where it only lest oxygen thought. Thats why all unknown aspects are assumed to their benefit.
And commenting before reading the whole thing is just plain unprofessional
Your approach would be very valid when designing a product that is supposed to work - that's when you are looking for real values. We are trying to show that something has no right to exist ever, so I believe we need to look at hard limit values.
Following your advice will prove that triton is "even more impossible in some situations", while I believe we should concentrate on "impossible in any situation". Do you agree?
Similarly with the air vs oxygen issue. We know nothing about the (non existent) filter they have. Maybe it's a bunch of nano-bots that one by one pick the molecules they want? Technically, it could be. A scenario where it lets though ALL the air is more likely to work as a source of breathable gas then a scenario where it only lest oxygen thought. Thats why all unknown aspects are assumed to their benefit.
And commenting before reading the whole thing is just plain unprofessional
txt29
Senior Member.
If you use the term 'air' it will be immediately contestable. You have to use the maximum solubility of oxygen, not of air. Your 29 ml air contain only 6 ml of oxygen, which is in fact less than what I calculate with in my examples.
The maximum water solubility of oxygen at 25°C and pressure = 1 bar is at 40 mg/L water. In air with a normal composition the oxygen partial pressure is 0.2 bar. This results in dissolution of 40 * 0.2 = 8 mg O₂/L in water that comes in contact with air.
[Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/oxygen/oxygen-and-water.htm#ixzz46DbB7nla]
I calculate with levels up to 14 mg/L (you can learn in the paper Dissolved Oxygen, why the measured values are above the maximum solubility).
txt29
Senior Member.
Not really. I think we should contest the claims in their campaign, and not inventing our own ideas how it works. You could also invent that the device generates O₂ by electrolysis, or by cold fusion, or teleportates it from remote tanks.
They specifically claim "The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keep water out and let oxygen in". Nitrogen molecules are larger than oxygen molecules, despite their lower molecular weight (read why it is so here: http://www.getnitrogen.org/pdf/graham.pdf). I think the best way to prove them wrong is debunking precisely their claims. When they change them, we'll prove wrong the new version. If you start debunking something else than they claim, especially when speaking to a lawyer, he'll stop listening immediately, regardless if your result is even more optimistic than the reality.
huwp
Member
One comment on a point in all the various excellent compendiums of debunk (by txt29, vislaw and ExclamationMarek) that wouldn't stand up in front of a decent hostile lawyer: unfortunately it isn't quite straightforward to be able to state "rebreathers do not release any gas", as it depends on the specific type of rebreather and a few other criteria. (Apologies to the forum as we are getting in to pretty specific details of dive gear here, but worth straightening out if this has to stand up in court)
Closed circuit rebreathers operating normally at a fixed depth would release no bubbles;
Semi-closed rebreathers operating normally at a fixed depth release a reduced volume of bubbles compared to open-circuit SCUBA (= "normal" dive gear, like that used in the TriChicken video);
All rebreathers release bubbles when ascending due to venting expanding gasses.
(In any case, as we have seen, Triton seem to have twigged that they were using 'rebreather' incorrectly due to not understanding what the term actually means, and have replaced it with 'respirator' which still sounds a bit strange but at least isn't actually a misused term.)
Closed circuit rebreathers operating normally at a fixed depth would release no bubbles;
Semi-closed rebreathers operating normally at a fixed depth release a reduced volume of bubbles compared to open-circuit SCUBA (= "normal" dive gear, like that used in the TriChicken video);
All rebreathers release bubbles when ascending due to venting expanding gasses.
(In any case, as we have seen, Triton seem to have twigged that they were using 'rebreather' incorrectly due to not understanding what the term actually means, and have replaced it with 'respirator' which still sounds a bit strange but at least isn't actually a misused term.)
exclamationMarek
New Member
This is a good point, I'll rewrite that section to meet their exact claims at first, so oxygen only. But I would still stick to the solubility number for Air and take the oxygen portion from that (35% i think, it is described in detail that source). The higher quote for oxygen is only valid if you only dissolve oxygen in air (no nitrogen present in the water).
One thing that bothers me is that Triton used to word “oxygen tank” for a scuba tank. It is an annoying colloquialism to say “oxygen” when you really just mean “air for breathing”. They do that in the movies all the time. No self respecting scuba gear company would use this term in this way, but I guess we established Triton is far from that. This led me to do the math with air, especially since that would have been more feasible anyway, but I guess assuming “they actually meant air” might be taking it a step too far.
Random side note though: not all filters are working on the principal of molecular size. For example goretex allows all air through, including nitrogen and carbon dioxide - quite large particles, but stops liquid water. It even allows water vapour through. Though it couldn’t be used in this case, since getting it wet clogs the airflow. And it is very sensitive to pressure, just the tiniest bit will push water to the other side.
txt29
Senior Member.
No, it is not. The values I used in my examples are based on the global real-world oxygen concentrations of seawater and freshwater. Not on any pure-oxygen saturated water, or on some data from one random river or lake as you suggested earlier. Those are statistical data based on thousands of measurements. Make sure to have a look at the document I linked earlier: Dissolved Oxygen. It also explains why water can be supersaturated in nature: the main factors are the photosynthesis and rapid aeration. I think the best would be using the nominal 100% saturation (at 1 bar of air and 20°C it is 9.03 mg/L corresponding to 6.32 ml of O₂ at atmospheric pressure), while showing also a sample for the maximum average O₂ concetration of 14 mg/L (~10 ml).
Goretex is something totally different. It repulses liquid water or water drops due to the surface tension of the droplets. Due to the hydrophobic properties of the texture, it will not disturb the surface tension of the droplets, hence they will not soak through the texture. Goretex has no chance to filter dissolved gases from water, or anything else that is enclosed in the droplets, just because they stay intact.
txt29
Senior Member.
... I forgot to add that, of course, there are other ways to extract gases from liquids - finally the gills of fish are the best example. Although, even there you still need to assure sufficient partial pressure gradients of the gases through the wall, and the right chemical processes in the transfer medium (blood) to assure the gaseous exchange. Not speaking about the order of magnitude lower oxygen needs of fish metabolism vs mammalians.
However, Triton explicitly claims to use a molecular filter: "The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keep water out and let oxygen in", so let's focus on that. Once they change it (and they probably will do), we can continue the debunking.
huwp
Member
Triton specifically stated in a comment (back in their verbose phase) in reply to a question about the gas mix that the user breathes oxygen:
As well as repeated use of 'oxygen' when describing how the device is to operate:
Agreed, using 'oxygen tank' when you mean 'SCUBA tank' is an immediate flag of someone that doesn't actually know anything about diving but is trying to sound knowledgeable, but 'breathing oxygen' is a specific statement they have repeatedly made about the Triton, as well as being the reason for the 15 ft depth limit (which would actually be true - even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally...
)
Last edited:
Miss VocalCord
Senior Member.
Saeed seems to be back writing a default comment on any critical question or comment:
Also suddenly two supposedly real interested supports show up... gee how bad do people want to loose there money?Hello, I can see that you have a lot of free time so you have been using google to determinate on how Triton works and you already know all of our secrets, GREAT JOB, we will make you disappointment dough on December 2016 so don't keep your hops up to hate us, I can bet that you will be first in line to buy yourself a Triton when it's on the market, have a great day hating :)
John Lewis
Member
Amazing, isn't it? And just in time for his return to the site!
txt29
Senior Member.
The latest update on Triton's campaing from today tells (besides their rants against 'haters'):
This in fact makes it for the debunking even easier, because it puts some limits on either of their technologies, and we know that the the dimensional ratio between the two technologies is about 1:1. Still no chance to work, because each of the technologies can deliver only a tiny fraction of the needed oxygen.We did a change on Triton to make the functionality and handling of Triton much better, before we had both the artificial gills and the liquid oxygen on both side of Triton, so to make Triton easier to use we placed the artificial gills on the left side of Triton and the liquid oxygen on the right side.
This means that you only will connect one liquid oxygen canister to Triton.
The handling will be much better with this solution, we are always looking to improve Triton that is why we travel a lot and have little time to answer everyone, but please keep sending us your nice emails and comments on IGG and our Facebook page this means a lot to us :)
Similar threads
