Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

howequipmentworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#51

Post by schiffern »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #20
breakyerself wrote: post #5

It's a fun read. It does seem to imply that the parachutes slowed them down from 25,000 mph, but the heat shield smashing through the atmosphere would have slowed them down first.

That would be one helluva parachute.

I don't know of any actual parachutes, but the closest thing is probably inflatable heat shields like HIAD or MOOSE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAD#Inflatable_heat_shield_en...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#52

Post by [deleted] »

kijiki wrote: post #45
londons_explore wrote: post #37

Anyone selling house-size CO2 absorbers to keep CO2 in my house to more like pre-industrial 200ppm rather than the 800ppm that's more common of house air in cities?

A HRV or ERV, depending on how humid it is where you live will help immensely. Unfortunately hard to retrofit into existing construction.

[deleted]

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#53

Post by croisillon »

intrasight wrote: post #38
userbinator wrote: post #21

It's worth remembering that this is 1960s technology.

I watched the moon landing as a young kid. On our rich neighbors TV. We didn't have one. I do hope that live to see another one. Not sure as they keep delaying it.

I hope your rich neighbours live long enough to allow you to watch it!

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#55

Post by teekert »

londons_explore wrote: post #37

Anyone selling house-size CO2 absorbers to keep CO2 in my house to more like pre-industrial 200ppm rather than the 800ppm that's more common of house air in cities?

I think measuring CO2 is mostly only useful as a proxy for how well you are ventilating (which is correlated to the health of your air unless outside air is filled with ie small particles or smog), and when you measure 800 ppm it is more than adequate. 800 is not doing anything to the body (that we know of).

Do you want to use chemicals and devices that make the climate problem worse just to lower the CO2 concentration in your personal space? Sure it’s a small effect but not something we can all do.

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#56

Post by teekert »

wpm wrote: post #47
changoplatanero wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what city you live in but in the big cities I’ve lived in it was always easy to get the level down to 500ppm by opening windows.

Yeah I live in Chicago and it is not hard to keep it at 450ppm. Right now it’s 493ppm in here.

I mean that’s really low. If it’s cold outside you’re probable just wasting energy keeping your spaces warm with so much ventilation, making the problem worse in the process.

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#59

Post by immibis »

teekert wrote: post #55
londons_explore wrote: post #37

Anyone selling house-size CO2 absorbers to keep CO2 in my house to more like pre-industrial 200ppm rather than the 800ppm that's more common of house air in cities?

I think measuring CO2 is mostly only useful as a proxy for how well you are ventilating (which is correlated to the health of your air unless outside air is filled with ie small particles or smog), and when you measure 800 ppm it is more than adequate. 800 is not doing anything to the body (that we know of). Do you want to use chemicals and devices that make the climate problem worse just to lower the CO2 concentrati…

IIRC 1000 is where it starts having easily detectable negative effects on human cognition, which means it has less easy to detect negative effects on human cognition at numbers lower than that.

Re: The most famous carbon dioxide absorber

#60

Post by evgen »

8474_s wrote: post #58

The part of story where Co2 absorbers were incompatible between two modules sounds really dumb. What was the cause?

There was never any requirement for sharing anything between the two vehicles and they were made by completely different contractors. Grumman made the LEM and North American Aviation made the command module. There was also a significant redesign of the command module after the Apollo 1 fire which completely changed the cabin environment. Sort of how you probably cannot take a chunk of equipment out of the cockpit of an Airbus 320 and expect to slot it in to a similar role in a Boeing 737.
Post reply on HN