Breathing with plants nose plug

[fredreload]

Let me ask you this, which is faster, respiration breaks down of CO2 or photosynthesis to produce O2. The answer seems to be the later. So we put like plants plug in front of our nose, each time we exhale CO2 from our lung it is converted by the nose plug to O2 and breathed back in. Could CO2 be converted in such a short time? Well since photosynthesis works faster than respiration, it should work

[Silvestru]

8 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Let me ask you this, which is faster, respiration breaks down of CO2 or photosynthesis to produce O2. The answer seems to be the later. So we put like plants plug in front of our nose, each time we exhale CO2 from our lung it is converted by the nose plug to O2 and breathed back in. Could CO2 be converted in such a short time? Well since photosynthesis works faster than respiration, it should work

There are so many questions and inaccuracies but I'll start with first. How is photosynthesis faster than respiration?

The whole idea is well not good but why put plant-plugs in our nose? Why wouldn't you just plant more trees and grass in the city or something. Putting it under your nose doesn't change much.

Better yet, destroy the gas company influence on global energy market, install solar panels throughout the world, play on your solar powered xbox all day.

[fredreload]

11 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

There are so many questions and inaccuracies but I'll start with first. How is photosynthesis faster than respiration?

The whole idea is well not good but why put plant-plugs in our nose? Why wouldn't you just plant more trees and grass in the city or something. Putting it under your nose doesn't change much.

Better yet, destroy the gas company influence on global energy market, install solar panels throughout the world, play on your solar powered xbox all day.

Well the idea is if you are traveling to zones where oxygen is not presented, for instance, under the sea, or outer space, without an (oxygen tank). And I would also ask, why isn't photosynthesis faster than respiration? At an ideal one to one ration aka photosynthesis versus respiration, I"ll name it the tree hogger

[Sensei]

27 minutes ago, fredreload said:

respiration breaks down of CO2

Sorry for my pedanticism. But respiration does not break down CO₂.. Larger molecules are burned and CO₂ is outcome..

 

[Janus]

A person consumes ~550 liters of oxygen per day.  A 100 ft tall tree, 18 inches across at its base, produces ~570 liters of oxygen per day, or  just about  what a human consumes.   So how are you going to squeeze that much greenery into nose plugs, especially when it is the surface area of the greenery exposed to sunlight that determines the oxygen production due to photosynthesis. 

[fredreload]

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Sorry for my pedanticism. But respiration does not break down CO₂.. Larger molecules are burned and CO₂ is outcome..

 

You got me :D, I meant to say respiration breaks down of sugar, it's been a while since I've studied Kreb cycle, my mistake

12 minutes ago, Janus said:

A person consumes ~550 liters of oxygen per day.  A 100 ft tall tree, 18 inches across at its base, produces ~570 liters of oxygen per day, or  just about  what a human consumes.   So how are you going to squeeze that much greenery into nose plugs, especially when it is the surface area of the greenery exposed to sunlight that determines the oxygen production due to photosynthesis. 

Well yes consider the ATP consumption as a factor, I would probably go with concentrated plant enzymes. To solve the ATP problem you could cheat with electromagnetic radiation(speculation) or use some other method to renew ATP(haven't figured it out).

 

P.S If the photosynthesis reaction is faster than the ATP generation, then I would throw in a mini cycle for ATP production through glycosis, but since I cannot confirm it, I suppose this falls under speculation, sorry guys

Edited June 14, 2018 by fredreload

[Sensei]

Photosynthesis works only when there is natural or artificial light source. So typically just half-day, or so, plants/algae/autotrophs can do it.

Respiration has to be done entire day, no matter, if there is light source or not animal or human has to do it.

Imagine graph with two axes. X-axis is time (24h), and Y-axis amount of produced/exhaled O2/CO2 (in Liters or mL per second or hour, for example). Make two of such (e.g. different color line) for autotrophs and heterotrophs.

Calculate area of graph for each kind.

Heterotrophs line will be almost straight line entire day.

Autotrophs line will be curve, going up in daylight and then down..

Prepare such graphs for different kind of autotrophs, grass, small tree, large tree, etc. etc.

Some kind of large plant/tree might exhale more O₂ than human requires per day.

Your question is way too general. There is needed e.g. area of tree leafs or amount of autotrophs and their kind, to be able to calculate how much they will exhale O₂ (and whether it'll be enough for single human to survive).

Edited June 14, 2018 by Sensei

[fredreload]

35 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Photosynthesis works only when there is natural or artificial light source. So typically just half-day, or so, plants/algae/autotrophs can do it.

Respiration has to be done entire day, no matter, if there is light source or not animal or human has to do it.

Imagine graph with two axes. X-axis is time (24h), and Y-axis amount of produced/exhaled O2/CO2 (in Liters or mL per second or hour, for example). Make two of such (e.g. different color line) for autotrophs and heterotrophs.

Calculate area of graph for each kind.

Heterotrophs line will be almost straight line entire day.

Autotrophs line will be curve, going up in daylight and then down..

Prepare such graphs for different kind of autotrophs, grass, small tree, large tree, etc. etc.

Some kind of large plant/tree might exhale more O₂ than human requires per day.

Your question is way too general. There is needed e.g. area of tree leafs or amount of autotrophs and their kind, to be able to calculate how much they will exhale O₂ (and whether it'll be enough for single human to survive).

The role for sunlight in the photosynthesis reaction is the production for ATP, if you have ATP, the reaction could continue for 24 hours I think for the production of glucose of rubisco enzyme, I forgot if oxygen is produced in this cycle but one of the O from oxygen comes from water H2O. Now to create this ATP source you would need to renew it without producing CO2 because combine with the CO2 my body exhale would be more than enough for the Kreb cycle to handle. Well, I dunno how much ATP we need to bring, so I'll leave it at this. But anyway, thanks for the heads up, ATP is not renewable without a light source

[John Cuthber]

One simple approach is that the food we eat is combined with oxygen to produce energy. The plants get energy from the Sun + make oxygen and "food".

We get through something like 2400 Calories a day.

That's roughly 100 Watts.

So the plants need to get at least 100 Watts to be able to provide us with O2 (and, coincidentally, food).

The Sun provides something like 1000 Watts per square metre so, it looks like you need to stuff a tenth of a square meter of "plant filled solar panel" up your nose to provide the energy and O2.

But, for a start the reaction's nothing like 100% efficient.

" results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation"
from 

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

Call it 5% efficient- you now need two square meters- that's pretty big unbrella.

And most of us spend most of our time indoors where the light levels are much lower.

That's another factor of 10 or 100.
And then there's night- time which, at best, halves the energy you can get.

So, you can see why (as pointed out before) you need roughly a tree's worth of greenery to supply you with oxygen.

Good luck sticking it up your nose.

[fredreload]

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

One simple approach is that the food we eat is combined with oxygen to produce energy. The plants get energy from the Sun + make oxygen and "food".

We get through something like 2400 Calories a day.

That's roughly 100 Watts.

So the plants need to get at least 100 Watts to be able to provide us with O2 (and, coincidentally, food).

The Sun provides something like 1000 Watts per square metre so, it looks like you need to stuff a tenth of a square meter of "plant filled solar panel" up your nose to provide the energy and O2.

But, for a start the reaction's nothing like 100% efficient.

" results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation"
from 

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

Call it 5% efficient- you now need two square meters- that's pretty big unbrella.

And most of us spend most of our time indoors where the light levels are much lower.

That's another factor of 10 or 100.
And then there's night- time which, at best, halves the energy you can get.

So, you can see why (as pointed out before) you need roughly a tree's worth of greenery to supply you with oxygen.

Good luck sticking it up your nose.

Ya well, I was exaggerating = =, but really, for plants, it all comes down to Rubisco enzyme, and if you supply ATP for 24 hours, the reaction should run for 24 hours, assuming you have unlimited supply of ATP. The only reason plants does not produce glucose at night is because there is no sunlight and therefore no ATP, but if you shove or inject ATP into the plant at night it should continue the reaction. Assuming synthetic ATP is creatable

Edited June 15, 2018 by fredreload

[John Cuthber]

Have you seen the price of ATP?

[fredreload]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Have you seen the price of ATP?

I did check it out once, there are chemical agencies doing it, forgot the price though. I'd imagine ATP could be stored and non degradable like Google Box and algae? Beats me, I am quite unfamiliar with this molecule

Edited June 15, 2018 by fredreload

[John Cuthber]

OK, so  human turns over something like 40 Kg of ATP a day (no, that's not a typing error)

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-humans-synthesis-around-70kg-of-ATP-each-day-does-this-molecule-break-down-quickly-or-something

 

And I can buy 25 g for £404 (about $540).

So, nearly a million dollars a day.

Sticking an oak tree up your nose is beginning to look sensible.

[CharonY]

Not sure how any of that would work. Rubisco either fixes co2 or uses o2 (creating p-glyerate) but at no point is o2 produced via co2.

Quote