I use T2O instead of H2O

[Tom-Alex Soorhull]

I think the fishes prefer Di-Tritium oxyde instead of stinking water,
they are really glowing from pure joy...

[Limnophile]

Very interesting .... < PLONK >

"Tom-Alex Soorhull" > wrote in message
om...
> I think the fishes prefer Di-Tritium oxyde instead of stinking water,
> they are really glowing from pure joy...

[NetMax]

If he had suggested using perfluorocarbons, then he might have some
credibility. Actually it's an interesting question. What happens when
you put a fish in PFCs? If we can breath this liquid in our lungs, then
what effect would it have on fish? I think the O2 level in perflubron
can be 3 times normal atmosphere, which would make it many times more O2
concentrated than a fish would ever experience in water.

An obvious application would be transport. A fish could be put into a
tiny sleeve with just enough liquid to keep it wet. The liquid would be
a PFC/Ammo-lock/sedative recipe. An insulated reinforced envelope would
be all you need to ship a small fish anywhere in the world. You heard it
here first on rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc, and in case such a thing is
possible, the idea is copyright NetMax 2004 ;~)
--
www.NetMax.tk

"Limnophile" > wrote in message
...
> Very interesting .... < PLONK >
>
> "Tom-Alex Soorhull" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I think the fishes prefer Di-Tritium oxyde instead of stinking water,
> > they are really glowing from pure joy...
>
>

[Limnophile]

Check this out :
http://classes.kumc.edu/cahe/respcared/liquidventilation/wikeper.html
It's in clinical trials for humans. Kewl !

I think it would be much too expensive to use for shipping fish, though.

Limnophile

"NetMax" > wrote in message
...
> If he had suggested using perfluorocarbons, then he might have some
> credibility. Actually it's an interesting question. What happens when
> you put a fish in PFCs? If we can breath this liquid in our lungs, then
> what effect would it have on fish? I think the O2 level in perflubron
> can be 3 times normal atmosphere, which would make it many times more O2
> concentrated than a fish would ever experience in water.
>
> An obvious application would be transport. A fish could be put into a
> tiny sleeve with just enough liquid to keep it wet. The liquid would be
> a PFC/Ammo-lock/sedative recipe. An insulated reinforced envelope would
> be all you need to ship a small fish anywhere in the world. You heard it
> here first on rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc, and in case such a thing is
> possible, the idea is copyright NetMax 2004 ;~)
> --
> www.NetMax.tk

[NetMax]

Regarding expense, perhaps, but if it only took a few ounces of the
liquid, and if it was re-usable.... Another application (though it's
probably not water soluble) is during a power failure, and all your fish
are gasping at the surface (spray in a bit of PFCs). I wonder how it's
recharged (they mention 'a high FIO2 to maintain high oxygen
concentrations within the fluid', so re-charging might be a possibility).
It can hold up to 20 times more O2 than atmospheric, and what % O2 does
water hold? That will pack quite an O2 punch.

I'm just enjoying the speculation ;~) Isn't that how sci-fi stories are
written. You take a scientific possibility and expand it in time to
include seemingly reasonably commercial applications. If I were to
continue down those lines, then we could have PFC aquariums, using
filters which removed every DOC trace while re-charging the O2 levels.
The fish would be evolved to that particular environment, and there would
be no danger of contaminating local waterways as they would not survive
in water (having devolved the gills to almost nothing). The
hybridization potentials and stocking capabilities would be ...
interesting.

Also consider that PFC has similar CO2 capability and you would have
plant growth which would make CO2 charged tanks look barren (that one I
have more trouble with ;~) It's maybe a good thing I'm more of a
naturalist myself :o)
--
www.NetMax.tk

"Limnophile" > wrote in message
...
> Check this out :
> http://classes.kumc.edu/cahe/respcared/liquidventilation/wikeper.html
> It's in clinical trials for humans. Kewl !
>
> I think it would be much too expensive to use for shipping fish,
though.
>
> Limnophile
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If he had suggested using perfluorocarbons, then he might have some
> > credibility. Actually it's an interesting question. What happens
when
> > you put a fish in PFCs? If we can breath this liquid in our lungs,
then
> > what effect would it have on fish? I think the O2 level in
perflubron
> > can be 3 times normal atmosphere, which would make it many times more
O2
> > concentrated than a fish would ever experience in water.
> >
> > An obvious application would be transport. A fish could be put into
a
> > tiny sleeve with just enough liquid to keep it wet. The liquid would
be
> > a PFC/Ammo-lock/sedative recipe. An insulated reinforced envelope
would
> > be all you need to ship a small fish anywhere in the world. You
heard it
> > here first on rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc, and in case such a thing
is
> > possible, the idea is copyright NetMax 2004 ;~)
> > --
> > www.NetMax.tk
>
>

[RedForeman ©®]

Hi,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Google Groups account
you reported for Usenet abuse will be suspended soon. We appreciate your
assistance in keeping Google Groups as abuse-free as possible.

Sincerely,

The Google Groups Team

************************************************** **********************
--
RedForeman ©® future fabricator and creator of a ratbike
streetfighter!!! ==========================
2003 TRX450ES
1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
'98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
==========================
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø


is that better??

[Mudbunny]

(Tom-Alex Soorhull) wrote in message >...
> I think the fishes prefer Di-Tritium oxyde instead of stinking water,
> they are really glowing from pure joy...

Hmm, what's this?? A nice shiney hook?? Let's have a taste!!

For some reason I am on my chemistry horse today.

Using T2O wouldn't work, even though it is water. All of the
biological systems on earth are designed to waste *no* energy. In T2O,
the bond strength between the T and O would be slightly higher. Higher
enough to ensure that all of the bacteria, algea, plants, fish, etc...
that normally use water would not be able to process it. They could
bind it, but there wouldn't be enough energy in the system to break it
down into the components required by the afore-mentioned systems.

Marcel

[Michi Henning]

"Mudbunny" > wrote in message
om...

> For some reason I am on my chemistry horse today.
>
> Using T2O wouldn't work, even though it is water. All of the
> biological systems on earth are designed to waste *no* energy. In T2O,
> the bond strength between the T and O would be slightly higher. Higher
> enough to ensure that all of the bacteria, algea, plants, fish, etc...
> that normally use water would not be able to process it.

Huh? Why would the bond strength be higher for tritium than for hydrogen?
From what I remember from my high-school chemistry, isotopes are chemically
indistinguishable from each other. I was told that they can be distinguished
only
by physcial means, such as a separating them in a centrifuge.

Cheers,

Michi.

--
Michi Henning Ph: +61 4 1118-2700
ZeroC, Inc. http://www.zeroc.com

[Marcel Beaudoin]

"Michi Henning" > wrote in
:

> Huh? Why would the bond strength be higher for tritium than for
> hydrogen? From what I remember from my high-school chemistry, isotopes
> are chemically indistinguishable from each other. I was told that they
> can be distinguished only
> by physcial means, such as a separating them in a centrifuge.
>

Tritium is heavier, so as a result, the bond strength is slightly higher
and the bond distance is slightly shorter. Chemically it is completely
indistinguishable, and reacts in exactly the same way, however the physical
properties are slightly different. These physical properties result in some
slight differences in reaction rates.

Marcel

[Michi Henning]

"Marcel Beaudoin" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Michi Henning" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Huh? Why would the bond strength be higher for tritium than for
> > hydrogen?
>
> Tritium is heavier, so as a result, the bond strength is slightly higher
> and the bond distance is slightly shorter. Chemically it is completely
> indistinguishable, and reacts in exactly the same way, however the physical
> properties are slightly different. These physical properties result in some
> slight differences in reaction rates.

Ah, I didn't know that -- I live and learn :-)

Thanks,

Michi.