Debunked: Triton Artificial Gills (Indigogo Campaign)
- Thread starter huwp
- Start date
txt29
Senior Member.
Yet, there are no arguments that can persuade the believers. The fact alone that it would be really cool if it worked, is enough for them to believe it works indeed. When I post links to Metabunk or to the anti-Triton campaign to websites where they promote the Triton gills, it is often met with anger. For example here:
http://www.techspot.com/community/t...-relaunches-on-indiegogo.226046/#post-1536592
External Quote:
John Lewis
Member
Been seeing people like this on several sites that have given the Triton scam space, leading me to wonder why they have such an objection to anyone trying to raise reasonable questions or protect folks not as versed in the kind of tech Triton claims. Are they really that clueless, or could they be shills?
vislaw
Member
It would only make sense for them to pose as supporters so I would not be surprised at all if that were the case. They have clearly shown themselves to not be terribly bright.
Earlier today I had a conversation with several friends about how we would have conducted this campaign if we were intent on scamming people. We agreed that we would easily have been able to run out the clock but Saeed seems incapable of restraining himself from making blatantly obvious false statements and claims. ... I also know that many people take the position that if you are stupid enough to give money to these scammers you deserve to lose that money. The truth is that many people are gullible (i.e., see Sunday morning evangelical preachers promising prosperity to people who are desperate for success and salvation ... see also, palm readers and psychics who promise to tell the future or communicate with the dead. ... These are the very people that an enlightened society seeks to protect by preventing aggressive and immoral people from preying on them).
What we are talking about here is FRAUD --- MISREPRESENTATION. Saeed has made several statements that are outright lies calculated to induce people to give him money. However, aside from the fact that Saeed would be very difficult to collect anything from after he and his cohorts spend the money, the real culprit here is the "enabler" who makes this fraud possible and who turns a blind eye to the flagrant conduct taking place on their platform - INDIEGOGO.
exclamationMarek
New Member
That is a popular opinion, and an opinion which I really hate. It's victim shaming! If somebody leaves his bike unlocked in a shady neighbourhood and it gets stolen it's not his fault, it's the thieves fault!
I want to live in a world where I can buy whatever I want without having to question if the seller is legitimate. Where I can just read what's on the box and be sure that this is exactly what I'm getting, no sugar coating, no marketing lies, no scams. None of the backers of Triton are "idiots", it is not their fault they won't get a product as described. It is 100% Saeeds fault. He is the idiot. He is the one who doesn't understands the basics of being a decant human being, and there is nothing more important to comprehend than that. The backers simply already live in the simple world of my dreams (give or take a couple disappointments)
I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Of course the perpetuator of a scam is the bad guy, but his scam would do less well if people were more skeptical.
Of course it's nothing for people to be ashamed about - it's a perfectly ordinary and normal thing to be taken in by a scam. However people do learn over time not to be taken in. Is there a better way for them to learn not to be scammed than to fall for a scam? Probably.
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
It's somewhere in the middle for me. This is the Internet. Infinite amounts of information regarding the veracity of these claims is available. At the same time, infinite amounts of bunk are out there. When someone researches anything, from hedgehogs to celebrities to artificial gills, there is a ton of bunk to get through and some people don't have the know-how to find the good stuff amongst the bunk. They certainly should, but that just isn't how it works with some people.
Blaming people for falling into a primed trap is terrible. The gentlemen behind this ruse tailored it specifically for a certain audience--idealistic, trusting, hopeful--and it worked. That's not the victims' fault. If someone doesn't get their money back who could be feeding a family for a week with it, I don't think we can blame them. Maybe blame the lack of scientific knowledge in the world today, but not them.
That being said, IGG and the 'creators' of Triton are VERY guilty, and should be blamed and prosecuted.
Maybe this could be a lesson of sorts. This thread is getting traffic, people are speaking up and the guys behind it are starting to flail. Maybe the next time we'll have learned our lesson. I hope.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Much of the reason I lock my bike is that I don't want to lose it.
But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I also just don't want to look into the face of someone whose opinion
I respect, as I explain to them that, no, I simply did not
lock up my Trek cruiser in that shady neighborhood.
Yes, most of us would "want to live in a world" where everyone was ethical...but until that's close to being reality...
Last edited:
Vostok
New Member
Found this video while making the rounds on Youtube
Does a fair job at going over all the issues with Triton's claims and all its impossibilities However the video may not conform to the forums politeness policy.
The video is relevant for the first 12 and a half minutes, the remaining time goes over similar scam product start-ups
Does a fair job at going over all the issues with Triton's claims and all its impossibilities However the video may not conform to the forums politeness policy.
The video is relevant for the first 12 and a half minutes, the remaining time goes over similar scam product start-ups
txt29
Senior Member.
Yes, it is a nice video, and I was considering asking the author for permission to add it to the anti-Triton campaign, but it is already a bit outdated (does not address the LOX claims), too kind to the scammers (far underestimated water flow values), and it also includes a claim about hyperventilation that I find insufficiently explained and potentially dangerous.
The water flow volumes are based on too optimistic values, and the author concludes the need of 100 L/min - respiration rate of 10 L/min, 200 ml of O₂ in air vs 20 ml of O₂ in water. In fact there will be never the equivalent of 20 ml of dissolved O₂ in water. The average saturation of surface ocean and fresh water varies between 1 to 14 mg/L, which is equivalent to 0.7 to 10 ml of atmospheric O₂ [source]. As for the average respiratory volume, let's quote NOAA via Wiki: "In normal conditions this will be between 10 and 25 liters per minute (L/min) for divers who are not working hard. At times of extreme high work rate, breathing rates can rise to 95 liters per minute."
So we get a bit different values:
Air/water O₂ ratio: from 210 / 14 [ml] = 15 - to - 210/0.7 [ml] = 300
Water flow needed: from 15*10 L/min = 150 L/min - to - 300*25 L/min = 7,500 L/min
(In the worst case of 95 L/min (hard work) it would be 300*95 L/min = 28,500 L/min)
Now, those values count with the device being a re-breather, somehow keeping the ~80% of inert nitrogen in the respiration cycle, but we saw in the videos it clearly is not the case - full lung volumes are being exhaled. It means, for this level of ventilation (and CO₂ removal) we have to supply all the gas from water (or LOX), not only the 20% calculated above. We have to multiply the values by the factor of five:
5 times 150 to 7500 L/min » 750 to 37,500 liters of water per min
(142,500 liters per minute at hard work)
In liters per second: 12.5 to 625 L/s!
(2,375 L/s at hard work)
Somehow realistic estimation for real world conditions - respiration rate of 20 L/min and O₂ water saturation of 8 mg/L (5.6 ml/L), we get:
- air/water ratio: 210/5.6 = 37.5
- water flow for replacing O₂ only: 937.5 L/min (15.6 L/s)
- 5 times for the ventilation: 4,687.5 L/min (78.1 L/s)
Since we do not have any true re-breather, all those values would be 50% higher in the depth of 5 m (15ft).
In the anti-Triton IGG campaign, I calculate with 6 mg/L (= 4.3 ml/L) and up to 30 L/min, which are a bit safer values, but still not excessive, and rather realistic in real life scenarios. On the other hand, I do not multiply it by five there either, so the values are under-estimated there too.
So already the very minimal values are considerably higher than estimated in the video, and the realistic average values are almost ten to fifty times higher than estimated there. Not speaking about the maximum values for hard work, that would require filtering of up to more than two thousands liters per second! To get an idea about this water flow, I am attaching a photo of a 2,000 L/s turbine head (note the ladder in the background for the scale of the photo)
As for the hyperventilation, it is off-topic here, so I do not want to go into details, and although the author partially mentions its dangers, I would not feel comfortable reposting the video without detailed explanation.
Last edited:
vislaw
Member
I can confirm that the Indiegogo Legal Department has been put on notice of the stakes at risk if this campaign is permitted to continue. I suspect that communication has taken place between Indiegogo and the campaigners and Saeed is likely scrambling to figure out what move to make ....
We will be taking more action on Monday that will hopefully be helpful as well.
In any event, we intend to make certain that there will be serious consequences if Indiegogo fails to take action.
txt29
Senior Member.
You should perhaps contact IGG and complain that Triton stopped answering questions, which is their obligation according to the terms of IGG, and ask for suspending or delaying the end date, until they answer the questions satisfactorily.
You could also ask a few more questions to Triton - for example whether they sell the "perks" as private persons, or as a corporation. In the second case, you can ask them what is their registration ID, and what is their VAT ID. As soon as you are a European business and have paid them, you will necessarily need their EU VAT ID, otherwise you'll get big troubles when declaring the taxes. I did not find any company in Swedish commerce registers corresponding to them, so you should also ask in which country they are registered.
If they sell it as private persons, you should ask them who of them takes the formal responsibility, and who will provide the warranty for the products.
Last edited:
That, I believe, is the most vital question to get answered.
"Who is Triton"
Neither the IGG Campaign, nor the Facebook page nor the tritongills web page contains any information about the actual legal entity we're dealing with. Based on the Information in the timeline:
January 2014: Saeed Khademi Joined the company
There should be some sort of legal entity. If they're entering into contracts with dive shops regarding sale of parts and dealing with manufacturers some sort of company would also be a requirement.
So the question to ask would be:
Who is "Triton"
Full name of the incorporated entity
Full postal address
Country/Region of incorporation
Registration Number
optionally: phone number
That should be absolutely basic information and any real company would be able to provide it without any problems whatsoever.
I'd really appreciate it if a backer with access to the comments could post that question.
vislaw
Member
I note that one of the contributors has sought information regarding the so-called business entity:
Barry Brown
Saeed,
You have said repeatedly that you are a "tech company" deeply involved in rolling out distribution to "80% of the world" and "closing deals" with dive shops every day. There is no public record of a business entity for "Triton" that we can find. Please tell us whether you are a corporation, a partnership or some other business organization and let us know what address you are operating from. Also, are these daily contracts with distributors executed by Triton as a company?
Saeed,
You have said repeatedly that you are a "tech company" deeply involved in rolling out distribution to "80% of the world" and "closing deals" with dive shops every day. There is no public record of a business entity for "Triton" that we can find. Please tell us whether you are a corporation, a partnership or some other business organization and let us know what address you are operating from. Also, are these daily contracts with distributors executed by Triton as a company?
This charade by Saeed and friends becomes more and more outrageous when you think about it. These guys are laughable in their execution of the scam but what worries me are the untold number of truly clever and resourceful crooks paying attention. Very likely the Triton gang of three will have their campaign suspended and, if not, they have definitely committed violations of law through their provably false statements and inducements to the public. Had they been more smart they would legitimately have been able to walk away with the money by simply making nebulous claims that the produce was in development rather than specific claims about its technology and existence and commercial contracts/patents etc. etc. Very likely we'll see a video soon of a guy putting a teaspoon of fluid in a gas tank and "proof" of the odometer showing travel of 1000 miles. Or maybe it will be a small "battery" shown powering a light or a motor for a month.
Many people who do not understand technology or commerce desperately want to believe that cheap energy is being suppressed by the oil industry or governments and Indiegogo is practically begging modern day snake-oil salesmen to begin pitching outlandish ideas in the hopes of raising millions of cash for "development."
exclamationMarek
New Member
Well Saeed has a registered company. A small entity (stupidly) called "Global Axxen group" registered to his address of residence. http://www.solidinfo.se/foretag/global-axxen-group/grunddata. Not registered for VAT, but I believe he can still do all the Indiegogo stuff without breaking any tax rules - he has until the end of the fiscal year to figure out any issues with that.
I'm all into busting them, but we should be careful not to go too far with our calling out claims. There is nothing wrong with not replying to a question within one business day! A questioned asked on friday and replied to on monday is "promptly answered" in the business world, isn't it? Not having an address is also nothing unusual for a crowdfunded campaign. Heck, I was part of a kickstarter project and we didn't have an address until after the campaign, since we simply couldn't afford our own office! You can do a lot of work from the university / a coworking space / your own basement / crashing at somebody else's office.
We shouldn't desperately try to grab any argument and throw at them, it will only make us sound like an angry mob. All our concerns should be well grounded.
I'm all into busting them, but we should be careful not to go too far with our calling out claims. There is nothing wrong with not replying to a question within one business day! A questioned asked on friday and replied to on monday is "promptly answered" in the business world, isn't it? Not having an address is also nothing unusual for a crowdfunded campaign. Heck, I was part of a kickstarter project and we didn't have an address until after the campaign, since we simply couldn't afford our own office! You can do a lot of work from the university / a coworking space / your own basement / crashing at somebody else's office.
We shouldn't desperately try to grab any argument and throw at them, it will only make us sound like an angry mob. All our concerns should be well grounded.
deirdre
Senior Member
agreed. and this is a Debunking Site.
We dont debunk a false flag and then sit around grandstanding about how we are going to take the hoaxers down and make them pay for the bunk they spread.
vislaw
Member
Points well taken. The focus here should be on careful and accurate debunking of the concept and claims being made.
Nevertheless, responsible debunking and sharing of information here is invaluable to those of us who are making efforts to attempt to convince Indiegogo to modify its policies and behaviors with regard to fraudulent claims and campaigns based on pseudo-science. I'll try to refrain from expressing my personal outrage so much and stick to the facts.
deirdre
Senior Member
I hear what you are saying but this isnt an activism site. Regardless of the cause. Perhaps you can set up a Facebook page and just invite people there to discuss Indegogos part in this Triton scam.
Or start a new thread about it in the appropriate forum, as "how to stop bunk" is a legitimate topic. But, as i've said earlier, there are more important things in the world of bunk than people getting ripped off a few bucks. And if/when Triton adds more claims that need real debunking, those debunks will be lost on page 6 because of 3 pages of chatting about Indegogo or repetitive posts about how Triton isnt answering questions.
txt29
Senior Member.
Of course, nobody spoke about answering within 24 hours. What we want, is to avoid that Triton delays answering as much as possible, while the due date expires, and the funds are transfered to their account. In that moment it will become much more difficult and much longer, if not impossible, to demand anything from them.
And yes, I know there are projects seeking money exactly to allow them funding of the creation of a company. And I would be OK with it at Triton too, if they did not pretend they already had everything in place, they had production-ready devices, they negotiated with hundreds of dive centers, with suppliers, and and with LOX producers. They would never raise such high amounts of money, if their campaign truthfully described their project, instead of masking it as an online store of finished products.
So this is no moaning or bitching as indicated above. Demanding them the corporate information definitely is debunking of their claims, where they pretend being a functional corporation with technical, productional, and commercial capacities, and pretending selling real products. We are not getting off topic the smallest bit.
Last edited:
John Lewis
Member
Brilliant--and funny. 
Wonder if anyone links to this on IGG on Monday to blow them out of the water...
Wonder if anyone links to this on IGG on Monday to blow them out of the water...
Last edited:
Francesco
New Member
Sorry couldn't wait until Monday... The video is so good!Brilliant--and funny.
Wonder if anyone links to this on IGG on Monday to blow them out of the water...
vislaw
Member
http://tritonclaimants.spacecrafted.com/
[Mod note... please include descriptions with links. Quote added.]
[Mod note... please include descriptions with links. Quote added.]
External Quote:
Last edited by a moderator:
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
This is beautiful... I lost it a little bit when a few air bubbles escaped out of the chicken's mouth.
Is there any way that we could post this to Triton's pages? I understand deirdre's point that the goal of MB is debunking and not activism, but maybe spreading this incredible (and useful!) piece of art around might help stop the Triton campaign from getting any more backers?
tinkertailor
Senior Member.
My bad.
txt29
Senior Member.
Which one? I am watching it, but did not see anything disappearing today. Or did I miss something that was there only shortly?
John Lewis
Member
Which one? Francesco's is still there, and it appears that Triton is currently on radio silence, consistent with a 'running out the clock' strategy.
John Lewis
Member
huwp
Member
Yes - Francesco's comment. My bad - it is still there but it was further down the page than I expected and I missed it.
Last edited:
vislaw
Member
As many of you know, we will be submitting some formal documents to the Indiegogo legal department. I would like to provide a succinct recital of the debunking of the Triton device. Below I have copied the very excellent summary that txt29 has put together. I'd ask you mavens to please look these over and suggest any corrections, clarifications or edits that you would recommend for the sake of accuracy. Because this likely will become an exhibit documenting Indiegogo's notice of the implausibility of the Triton claims for purposes of court, we want them to be pretty much indisputable. Obviously, we can't cover everything but we want to cover the major points. Thus, please look over these paragraphs and advise whether these fairly state the "debunking" consensus for Triton:
1) Rebreather Claim
Triton "inventors" claim the device is a rebreather, while their video shows the opposite. A "rebreather" means that the same air is being recycled - CO₂ is being removed from the exhaled air, while O₂ is added to it. Rebreathers do not release any gas. Theoretically, the CO₂ could be released (with an unusual technology), but it would be a negligible amount at each breath. The phony video with a diver using the Triton gills while sitting in a swimming pool, clearly shows the person exhaling air in volumes and frequency corresponding to normal breathing rhythm at rest (12 breaths of approximately 0.5L per minute), certainly supplied by air with a hidden tube. Triton has also no counter-lung that could store and recycle the exhaled air. Compressing the exhaled air on-the-fly into a miniaturized tank is impossible.
The consequence of Triton not being any rebreather is that it has to supply the diver with a lot of oxygen. It cannot reuse the exhaled unspent oxygen like true rebreathers do. It must supply enough oxygen not only for the metabolism, but also enough of it to reach the necessary partial pressure of oxygen (PPO₂) for the gas exchange in lungs, and also enough of volume to allow sufficient ventilation for the extraction of CO₂ from lungs. A resting adult person consumes 6 liters of air per minute. A moderately swimming diver consumes between 10 to 30 liters per minute or more. Practically all this volume would have to be supplied by Triton, since no exhaled gas is being recycled.
2) Gills Claim
Unlike fish, mammals (including humans) are warm-blooded, and their metabolism requires higher levels of oxygen. An average adult human breathes 6 liters of air per minute. Each liter of air contain 300mg of O₂. In contrary, well oxygenated freshwater or ocean water contains in average only 6mg of O₂ per liter. That is 50 times less than the air. It means to assure the same amount of oxygen, artificial gills need to filter 50 liters of water to replace a liter of air. So the gills would have to filter 300 liters of water every minute to supply a resting person with sufficient oxygen. Under exertion it would be 500 to 1,500 L/min (or more). In the depth of 5m (15ft), the demand would be 50% higher - 450 L/min at rest, and 750 to 2250 L/min under moderate exertion. 2250 L/min is 37.5 L/s. Additionally, we assume 100% efficiency of the oxygen filtration, which is very unrealistic. The true water flow needed might be in fact multiple of the value. Truck-mounted water cannons used by police for riot suppression have the flow of 20 L/s, so try to imagine having two of them strapped to your mouth!
This calculation was made, with the assumption that Triton is indeed no rebreather as proven above. But even it Triton worked as a rebreather, supplying only spent oxygen, the demands would be still too high for a device of this size. An average resting adult person metabolizes ~250 ml of atmospheric oxygen per minute (420-1250 ml/min under exertion). Specific weigh of O₂ at 1 bar is 1.43 g/L, so we would need 365 mg in rest, and 600-1,800 mg of O₂ under exertion. That still corresponds to 60 liters of water per minute at rest, and 100-300 L/min under exertion. Still assuming the impossible 100% filtering efficiency. Those are flows that can never be reached by a battery-powered device of this size. You would need a ¼ horsepower pump just for the water flow, without accounting for the power needed for passing the water through the nano-filter.
3) Liquid Oxygen Claim
Since liquid oxygen is a cryogenic matter and needs to be stored at temperatures close to -180°C, Triton claims the liquid oxygen (LOX) is stored in two Dewar flasks, in each of the arms. Dewar flasks are known to average people as thermos for keeping their beverage hot or cold. Dewars for laboratory use are a bit better, but like common thermos, they also won't keep the LOX at the same temperature indefinitely. Their capability to keep the oxygen liquid is expressed in evaporation rate (ER), which tells how much of it evaporates in a day. At high grade Dewars, the ER is between 0.15 to 2 liters per day. Manufacturing small Dewars is limited by the thickness of the insulation - you simply cannot reduce the thickness, without reducing also the insulation quality.
At the size of the Triton apparatus, with arms approximately 150mm long, and about 40mm in diameter, if you extrapolate the parameters of high grade 100ml Dewars from KGW, you find out that it could have the inner volume of maximally ~20ml, and that this volume would evaporate within 96 minutes after refilling the Dewars with liquid oxygen. The Dewars can either release the evaporating oxygen, or can keep it in an evaporation chamber. In that case, the volume of the empty evaporation chamber must be sufficiently big to avoid excessive pressure. If we assumed the maximum pressure of 200 bars (common high-pressure Dewars are normally built only for pressure around 20 bars), the ratio between the liquid and the gas would have to be around 1:4, and the Dewars would have to be built from superior materials to withstand the pressure at cryogenic temperatures. That would further reduce the volume for the LOX, which could then be maximally around a single ml per tank, and would evaporate within a few minutes after refilling.
Not only shipping LOX in Dewars of these dimensions is impossible, but the volume of oxygen they could contain immediately after refilling, would not supply the diver with oxygen for more than a breath or two. Even re-filling on-site, immediately before the dive would not help.
Safety
A breathing apparatus like Triton is not only physically impossible to build. If it existed, it would be very dangerous for the user, and could not be manufactured and used without necessary certificate by both the manufacture, and by the user. The user would need to be certified minimally as a Nitrox diver, and the homologation of such new device would take years and cost millions. Untrained user could very easily suffer not only possibly fatal oxygen intoxication (in case of repeated dives, or when exceeding safe depth for sufficient time), but in case of an ascent while holding the breath (for example in case of an emergency, in panic, at a failure or loss of the apparatus), the diver would suffer a serious barotrauma, possibly leading to a gas embolism, edema of lungs, or other serious and potentially fatal injury. In no way the device would be approved for the use by children as claimed by Triton.
Another safety risk would be the use of liquid oxygen. Any handling or shipping would be under quite strict regulations, and the risks of using LOX in high-pressure Dewar flasks underwater would multiply the risks enormously. There is extremely little chance that such a device (if possible) could be ever approved for general public use.
1) Rebreather Claim
Triton "inventors" claim the device is a rebreather, while their video shows the opposite. A "rebreather" means that the same air is being recycled - CO₂ is being removed from the exhaled air, while O₂ is added to it. Rebreathers do not release any gas. Theoretically, the CO₂ could be released (with an unusual technology), but it would be a negligible amount at each breath. The phony video with a diver using the Triton gills while sitting in a swimming pool, clearly shows the person exhaling air in volumes and frequency corresponding to normal breathing rhythm at rest (12 breaths of approximately 0.5L per minute), certainly supplied by air with a hidden tube. Triton has also no counter-lung that could store and recycle the exhaled air. Compressing the exhaled air on-the-fly into a miniaturized tank is impossible.
The consequence of Triton not being any rebreather is that it has to supply the diver with a lot of oxygen. It cannot reuse the exhaled unspent oxygen like true rebreathers do. It must supply enough oxygen not only for the metabolism, but also enough of it to reach the necessary partial pressure of oxygen (PPO₂) for the gas exchange in lungs, and also enough of volume to allow sufficient ventilation for the extraction of CO₂ from lungs. A resting adult person consumes 6 liters of air per minute. A moderately swimming diver consumes between 10 to 30 liters per minute or more. Practically all this volume would have to be supplied by Triton, since no exhaled gas is being recycled.
2) Gills Claim
Unlike fish, mammals (including humans) are warm-blooded, and their metabolism requires higher levels of oxygen. An average adult human breathes 6 liters of air per minute. Each liter of air contain 300mg of O₂. In contrary, well oxygenated freshwater or ocean water contains in average only 6mg of O₂ per liter. That is 50 times less than the air. It means to assure the same amount of oxygen, artificial gills need to filter 50 liters of water to replace a liter of air. So the gills would have to filter 300 liters of water every minute to supply a resting person with sufficient oxygen. Under exertion it would be 500 to 1,500 L/min (or more). In the depth of 5m (15ft), the demand would be 50% higher - 450 L/min at rest, and 750 to 2250 L/min under moderate exertion. 2250 L/min is 37.5 L/s. Additionally, we assume 100% efficiency of the oxygen filtration, which is very unrealistic. The true water flow needed might be in fact multiple of the value. Truck-mounted water cannons used by police for riot suppression have the flow of 20 L/s, so try to imagine having two of them strapped to your mouth!
This calculation was made, with the assumption that Triton is indeed no rebreather as proven above. But even it Triton worked as a rebreather, supplying only spent oxygen, the demands would be still too high for a device of this size. An average resting adult person metabolizes ~250 ml of atmospheric oxygen per minute (420-1250 ml/min under exertion). Specific weigh of O₂ at 1 bar is 1.43 g/L, so we would need 365 mg in rest, and 600-1,800 mg of O₂ under exertion. That still corresponds to 60 liters of water per minute at rest, and 100-300 L/min under exertion. Still assuming the impossible 100% filtering efficiency. Those are flows that can never be reached by a battery-powered device of this size. You would need a ¼ horsepower pump just for the water flow, without accounting for the power needed for passing the water through the nano-filter.
3) Liquid Oxygen Claim
Since liquid oxygen is a cryogenic matter and needs to be stored at temperatures close to -180°C, Triton claims the liquid oxygen (LOX) is stored in two Dewar flasks, in each of the arms. Dewar flasks are known to average people as thermos for keeping their beverage hot or cold. Dewars for laboratory use are a bit better, but like common thermos, they also won't keep the LOX at the same temperature indefinitely. Their capability to keep the oxygen liquid is expressed in evaporation rate (ER), which tells how much of it evaporates in a day. At high grade Dewars, the ER is between 0.15 to 2 liters per day. Manufacturing small Dewars is limited by the thickness of the insulation - you simply cannot reduce the thickness, without reducing also the insulation quality.
At the size of the Triton apparatus, with arms approximately 150mm long, and about 40mm in diameter, if you extrapolate the parameters of high grade 100ml Dewars from KGW, you find out that it could have the inner volume of maximally ~20ml, and that this volume would evaporate within 96 minutes after refilling the Dewars with liquid oxygen. The Dewars can either release the evaporating oxygen, or can keep it in an evaporation chamber. In that case, the volume of the empty evaporation chamber must be sufficiently big to avoid excessive pressure. If we assumed the maximum pressure of 200 bars (common high-pressure Dewars are normally built only for pressure around 20 bars), the ratio between the liquid and the gas would have to be around 1:4, and the Dewars would have to be built from superior materials to withstand the pressure at cryogenic temperatures. That would further reduce the volume for the LOX, which could then be maximally around a single ml per tank, and would evaporate within a few minutes after refilling.
Not only shipping LOX in Dewars of these dimensions is impossible, but the volume of oxygen they could contain immediately after refilling, would not supply the diver with oxygen for more than a breath or two. Even re-filling on-site, immediately before the dive would not help.
Safety
A breathing apparatus like Triton is not only physically impossible to build. If it existed, it would be very dangerous for the user, and could not be manufactured and used without necessary certificate by both the manufacture, and by the user. The user would need to be certified minimally as a Nitrox diver, and the homologation of such new device would take years and cost millions. Untrained user could very easily suffer not only possibly fatal oxygen intoxication (in case of repeated dives, or when exceeding safe depth for sufficient time), but in case of an ascent while holding the breath (for example in case of an emergency, in panic, at a failure or loss of the apparatus), the diver would suffer a serious barotrauma, possibly leading to a gas embolism, edema of lungs, or other serious and potentially fatal injury. In no way the device would be approved for the use by children as claimed by Triton.
Another safety risk would be the use of liquid oxygen. Any handling or shipping would be under quite strict regulations, and the risks of using LOX in high-pressure Dewar flasks underwater would multiply the risks enormously. There is extremely little chance that such a device (if possible) could be ever approved for general public use.
vislaw
Member
One more question: I have been unable to get a good handle on the claim Triton makes that their miracle membrane filters out oxygen from water: The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keep water out and let oxygen in.
This sounds ridiculous to me, but I'm not a scientist. Is this even physically possible (aside from associated questions such as energy required to separate etc. etc.) In other words can this exist?
This sounds ridiculous to me, but I'm not a scientist. Is this even physically possible (aside from associated questions such as energy required to separate etc. etc.) In other words can this exist?
txt29
Senior Member.
This was already discussed here previously, on the page #2, check for example the posts #58 and #63. Besides the facts posted there, any molecular filter would become immediately clogged with impurities (including salt), and passing the necessary volumes of water through a molecular filter would also require very huge amounts of energy.
vislaw
Member
Thanks! Very helpful. You might want to add a paragraph to the TRICON page.
txt29
Senior Member.
As for the energy needed for the filtering of the dissolved O₂ (if it was possible at all), you can look at the energy requirements of reverse osmosis - you need around 3 kWh/m3 (source Wiki), which is 3 Wh/L - it should be similar for the inexisting O₂ molecular filter too. One liter of water contains approximately 50 times less oxygen than a liter of air, so at rest (respiration rate of 6 L/min) you would need to filter 300 liters of water per minute. It means each minute you would spend 900 Wh of energy for passing the water through the filter only. It makes 40.5 kWh in total for the 45 minutes dive. With higher respiration rate, when moving, it would multiply by 2 to 5.
EDIT: we do not know how much oxygen is supposed to be supplied by the gills and how much by LOX, but it would make sense using both technologies only if both of them supplied similar volumes of oxygen, otherwise it would be simpler keeping only the better technology, reducing so the size, complexity, and cost. So even if combined gills and LOX were used, we would have to count with several kilowatthours of energy needed only for passing the water through the filter.
EDIT: we do not know how much oxygen is supposed to be supplied by the gills and how much by LOX, but it would make sense using both technologies only if both of them supplied similar volumes of oxygen, otherwise it would be simpler keeping only the better technology, reducing so the size, complexity, and cost. So even if combined gills and LOX were used, we would have to count with several kilowatthours of energy needed only for passing the water through the filter.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
I prefer keeping it short and simple. This is why I link to this Metabunk thread from there. If I included all the debunking, it would be too long, and nobody would bother reading it. The main three factors + the security are fully sufficient for instantly understanding that the device is a scam.
huwp
Member
That is nowhere near enough power. For example, here is a 1/4 horsepower submersible pump that can do up to 30 gallons a minute at the surface (less at depth):
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Superior...le-Thermoplastic-Utility-Pump-91250/204589831
We'd need 600+ gallons per minute minimum, or, 20 of those pumps, also without allowing for the resistance of a nano-filter or any other resistance in the system, with each pump being ~10x larger than one Triton. And power consumption of pumps almost certainly doesn't scale linearly with flow rate - the pumps for fire hoses run around 1,500 horsepower.
These back of the envelope calculations are easily enough to definitively prove that Triton's claims are total bunk in the real world, but I'm not sure how they would stand in front of a good lawyer? In a courtroom, would all a lawyer need to do is to demonstrate that any of those numbers can be 'disputed' (even if it doesn't change the outcome) to have discredited the analysis?
txt29
Senior Member.
Reread the paragraph - the ¼ horsepower is only in the context to the the very minimal requirement of 60 L/min to supply only metabolized O₂ for a diver resting on surface. Simply the absolute indisputable minimum. It is clearly stated that in real conditions the requirement would be orders of magnitude higher (over ~2,000 L/min under extent).
EDIT: As for the energy needed for the filtering - have a look at the estimation in my post above - it is based on empirical values of energy requirements of reverse osmosis, so should be pretty close.
Last edited:
Similar threads
