For the record, it's ADSORPTION that's happening.
I'm not thinking dust helps us at all in vapor phase filtration. Same reason that smaller water phase sized granules are not optimal. The air needs to move easily through the filter layer.
Vapor filtration uses screen sized of 4x6 and 4x8 typically. Water filtration uses smaller screen sizes. Larger is better for vapor. Smaller is better for water. Logically, crushed dust is worse than the water screen size.
I would imagine if NASA were building these filters (and they do or at least spec the build) they would use the proper (optimal) size for vapor filtration, then lightly vibrate to settle, not crush and compact.
They also use the more efficient coconut carbon, not the documented less efficient coal carbon, or the even less effective wood carbon.
In my opinion, these "deals" filters offered with enormous volumes of carbon are:
1) Unnecessary (the massive carbon is unnecessary, obviously the filtration itself is needed)
2) More marketing oriented than prudent design oriented
3) Using coal or even wood carbon. If they used premium coconut, they wouldn't keep it a secret, right?
Maybe I'm overstating the obvious, but using a more efficient carbon would thereby require less of it to equal the performance of a lesser quality carbon.
Note I claim these as opinions, not law
I'm not thinking dust helps us at all in vapor phase filtration. Same reason that smaller water phase sized granules are not optimal. The air needs to move easily through the filter layer.
Vapor filtration uses screen sized of 4x6 and 4x8 typically. Water filtration uses smaller screen sizes. Larger is better for vapor. Smaller is better for water. Logically, crushed dust is worse than the water screen size.
I would imagine if NASA were building these filters (and they do or at least spec the build) they would use the proper (optimal) size for vapor filtration, then lightly vibrate to settle, not crush and compact.
They also use the more efficient coconut carbon, not the documented less efficient coal carbon, or the even less effective wood carbon.
In my opinion, these "deals" filters offered with enormous volumes of carbon are:
1) Unnecessary (the massive carbon is unnecessary, obviously the filtration itself is needed)
2) More marketing oriented than prudent design oriented
3) Using coal or even wood carbon. If they used premium coconut, they wouldn't keep it a secret, right?
Maybe I'm overstating the obvious, but using a more efficient carbon would thereby require less of it to equal the performance of a lesser quality carbon.
Note I claim these as opinions, not law
