|
something cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Benefit to running an oxygen generator in office space?
#19225147 - 12/04/13 01:59 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Is it expected that running such in a normal sized office space provide a noticeable increase in local oxygen density, that in turn will increase subject oxygen intake to a degree where the brain performs more efficiently and the subject feels better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Benefit to running an oxygen generator in office space? [Re: something cool]
#19225174 - 12/04/13 02:28 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Unlikely. You'd have to pump out quite a bit of oxygen and make sure it doesn't escape from the office (i.e. seal it) in order to raise the oxygen content of the air considerably. And this would have at least two drawbacks: (1). a higher oxygen level increases the risk and spreading speed of any fires and (2) oxygen is in fact toxic due to its oxidant behavior and elevating the oxygen level in the area you are for an extended period of time may e.g. increase the risk of cancer. However, realistically, I don't expect you to reach really high levels of oxygen in a regular office since the oxygen will simply diffuse, and then you'll notice no effects at all, negative or positive.
|
something cool
meandering

Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1,306
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Benefit to running an oxygen generator in office space? [Re: koraks]
#19225429 - 12/04/13 06:10 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That's interesting. I held the presumption that oxygen was only a good thing, as it relates to human health and biological life. I assumed that an increase of oxygen could only yield a more efficient brain and therefore better physiological responses to any ailments and contaminants.
Non related to that point, but from your good point on the increase of fire hazards, I semi-randomly imagine that in prehistoric times, when oxygen content in the atmosphere was much more dense, environment fires from lightning would've been much more intense. A semi-random question from there: Does burnt forests, of the type that would result from a heavy forest fire, contribute positively to fossil fuel deposits, perhaps boosting their rate of deposit, or are cindered woods null for that use?
I would be interested to see a study on how oxygen levels in various people of various political views compare (not left/right but extreme/moderate) - if there is a relation between individual's tolerance of peers and brain-oxygen content - with that query stemming from wondering whether high stress levels, possibly caused by trauma, constrict bloodflow to the brain, resulting in less brain-oxygen content in certain people, leading to views of curtailed tolerance caused by an inability to balance longer trains of thought that would result in more rational and patient perspectives.
Thought meandering.
Edited by something cool (12/04/13 06:19 AM)
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Benefit to running an oxygen generator in office space? [Re: something cool]
#19225503 - 12/04/13 06:49 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
something cool said: That's interesting. I held the presumption that oxygen was only a good thing, as it relates to human health and biological life. I assumed that an increase of oxygen could only yield a more efficient brain and therefore better physiological responses to any ailments and contaminants.
Yes, well; it seems that it's not such a clear-cut case, although it is obvious that mammals need oxygen to live and thrive, and that too little oxygen tends to kill them off. However, the same is true for too much oxygen. The toxicity of oxygen is well-known and has been for quite some time; the long-term effects of oxygen on the body as an oxidant is something that seems to be a more recent development, with oxygen linked in that way to the emergence of cancer. You'd have to look into the details yourself; I'm just going by the little I know about this.
Quote:
Non related to that point, but from your good point on the increase of fire hazards, I semi-randomly imagine that in prehistoric times, when oxygen content in the atmosphere was much more dense, environment fires from lightning would've been much more intense. A semi-random question from there: Does burnt forests, of the type that would result from a heavy forest fire, contribute positively to fossil fuel deposits, perhaps boosting their rate of deposit, or are cindered woods null for that use?
Hmm, interesting point. I think there are quite a few uncertainties in this train of thought and if I add them up, I'm inclined to think that the effect you hypothesize is probably absent or negligible at best. My thoughts: - The incidence and scope of forest fires as a result of higher oxygen levels in the atmosphere are a bit doubtful; the highest oxygen content in the atmosphere historically was about 30%, which is a lot more than today's 21%, but still not excessive. You'd have to run tests to see how the correlation between oxygen levels and forest fires would turn out in reality, but I don't expect a massive effect, to be honest. Other factors, such as humidity and vegetation patterns seem more important. - Fossil fuels aren't the product of burnt forests, but mostly of fossilized (non-burnt) biomass. Burning biomass before fossilizing it doesn't seem likely to me to increase the caloric value of the resulting fossil fuels (quite the opposite!) or accelerate the fossilization process. Just these two points considered sort of make your theory moot in my eyes, but it's an interesting hypothesis nonetheless.
Quote:
I would be interested to see a study on how oxygen levels in various people of various political views compare (not left/right but extreme/moderate) - if there is a relation between individual's tolerance of peers and brain-oxygen content - with that query stemming from wondering whether high stress levels, possibly caused by trauma, constrict bloodflow to the brain, resulting in less brain-oxygen content in certain people, leading to views of curtailed tolerance caused by an inability to balance longer trains of thought that would result in more rational and patient perspectives.
Hmm, that one's even more problematic, I think. It seems to me that you're skipping over a lot of complex matters rather haphazardly. What is an extreme political view and how do you measure it? What is the relation between political views and the tolerance of peers, exactly? And what is ultimately the relationship between oxygen flow and tolerant behavior? There's too many other factors at play here that are very likely to influence these things as well - as was the case in your forest fire theory. Ultimately, your hypothesis comes down to something like 'people with badly functioning brains are more likely to have extreme political views', which at first glance seems pretty problematic for several reasons.
I think in general that you're really good at constructing causal chains of reasoning that connect a wide range of concepts - which certainly is fun. But in the process, it might be worthwhile to be more conscious of the complexity of the concepts your juggling and the context in which they are embedded, because considerations in those areas often prove to have a much more profound effect on the ultimate outcomes than the exact line of reasoning you come up with. Compare it to balancing on a foot-wide ridge on top of a mountain without being aware of the fact that there's vast slopes and valleys on both sides. If you start running very fast with your eyes closed, what is more likely to happen: you break your neck on a stone neatly poised on the ridge, or you plummet to your death in one of the valleys on either side?
|
|