sambolino44
Contributor
I remember a TV show in the 60's when I was a kid; I don't remember the name of the program (21st Century? 2000 something?) but it was sponsored by Union Carbide. Do they still have TV ads? Anyway, I'll always remember a segment (maybe it was an ad?) showing a mouse in an aquarium, breathing liquid. Funny how that seconds-long image has remained with me all these years. Many years later I did some (Google, Wikipedia) research about this, and was saddened to learn that the mouse did breathe liquid, but died soon after the cameras were off.
I'm not so much interested in the current state of this technology; I spend more time thinking about what recreational diving will be like 500 years from now. Of course, who knows if there will even be recreational diving, or recreation, or people for that matter, in 500 years! But since there's no way anyone can collect on it, I'm willing to bet that they'll look back on us now and see a big difference in how far we've come in other endeavors, like space travel, genomics, computing, imaging (MRI, CAT, etc.), and how relatively primitive we still are at this point in regards to diving. I'll bet in 100 years the only people using open circuit will be nostalgia buffs.
This article sure gives the impression that the scientist they are giving so much credit to is better at garnering attention to get more funding to further his research than the fact that he's actually come up with something innovative. Like others have pointed out, it's been tried before, and there are still a lot of niggling details to be worked out. That's the way it always goes, someone has a neat idea (hey, let's breathe liquid!) and that gets all the attention. The folks who patiently point out all the less-obvious hurdles that have to be overcome are called naysayers. Sometimes, though, articles like this, including the naysayers, spark another idea in someone else, and progress continues.
For instance, we divers all looked at that CO2 scrubber plugged into the femoral vein and said, "You got to be kidding me!" But maybe somebody else will read it and have another idea how to solve that problem (a different medium, or maybe an additive to it?) and progress continues.
I'd like to hear more about the SEALs and their experience with it.
I'm not so much interested in the current state of this technology; I spend more time thinking about what recreational diving will be like 500 years from now. Of course, who knows if there will even be recreational diving, or recreation, or people for that matter, in 500 years! But since there's no way anyone can collect on it, I'm willing to bet that they'll look back on us now and see a big difference in how far we've come in other endeavors, like space travel, genomics, computing, imaging (MRI, CAT, etc.), and how relatively primitive we still are at this point in regards to diving. I'll bet in 100 years the only people using open circuit will be nostalgia buffs.
This article sure gives the impression that the scientist they are giving so much credit to is better at garnering attention to get more funding to further his research than the fact that he's actually come up with something innovative. Like others have pointed out, it's been tried before, and there are still a lot of niggling details to be worked out. That's the way it always goes, someone has a neat idea (hey, let's breathe liquid!) and that gets all the attention. The folks who patiently point out all the less-obvious hurdles that have to be overcome are called naysayers. Sometimes, though, articles like this, including the naysayers, spark another idea in someone else, and progress continues.
For instance, we divers all looked at that CO2 scrubber plugged into the femoral vein and said, "You got to be kidding me!" But maybe somebody else will read it and have another idea how to solve that problem (a different medium, or maybe an additive to it?) and progress continues.
I'd like to hear more about the SEALs and their experience with it.