[diveinfo] [jj@gue.com: RE: O2 handeling & procedures]
Jean-Sebastien Morisset
diveinfo@lists.mvlan.net
Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:35:05 -0500
----- Forwarded message from Jarrod Jablonski <jj@gue.com> -----
Delivered-To: jsmoriss@localhost.mvlan.net
Delivered-To: jsmoriss@mvlan.net
Delivered-To: mailing list quest@gue.com
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:41:50 -0500
From: "Jarrod Jablonski" <jj@gue.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
To: "'matthew f.caldwell'" <matfcald@attglobal.net>,
"'Kruse, Jeffrey'" <jeff.kruse@medtronic.com>,
"'Ken Paramore'" <kennyp56@centurytel.net>,
"'Quest e-mail list'" <quest@gue.com>, <anbope@ruc.dk>
Subject: RE: O2 handeling & procedures
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:quest-unsubscribe@gue.com>
Thread-Index: AcX7s6ESAFbK8z1GSBqRmf4pO/USWgAQpr7wAA+r9mAABXb58ABTGCHw
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MY_OBFUT,MY_OBFUX,
MY_OBFUY,MY_OBFUZ autolearn=no version=2.63
I think that most people looking into the issue recognize the 40% as
arbitrary. My take is that they felt this covered the 32 and 36 popular
blends plus a bit with a round number. When you have something that is
variable and complicated it is usually easier to round up to a convenient
number.
In any case, this speaks to the heart of my original comment. We merely
service as if all regs are O2 regs and treat them accordingly. We have not
used Silicone for many years.
Best,
Jarrod Jablonski
President/Director of Training www.gue.com
CEO Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net
CEO EE www.extreme-exposure.com
-----Original Message-----
From: matthew f.caldwell [mailto:matfcald@attglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:42 PM
To: 'Kruse, Jeffrey'; 'Ken Paramore'; 'Quest e-mail list'; anbope@ruc.dk
Subject: RE: O2 handeling & procedures
Hi Jeff,
My apologies if my comments were confusing.
While the 40% number to you is a degree of risk, to the dive industry it is
a legal boundary of sorts so clueless or not, there are a lot of practices
and liability statements based on this 40%.. People not as discriminating as
you swear by this number..
And what we are saying here is that 40% number is ridiculous when you look
at both non-dive industry practice and military standards.
I tried to be clear we are talking degrees of risk. Did you check out the
links? Trust me.. I had nothing to do with the corporate position of Luxfer
and Catalina.. Just telling it like it is.. especially wrt the 40% part..
There is no misinformation here. This is not my opinion, rather, the
position of well established companies and organizations. It's why I
provided the links so you would not have to take my word for it..
If you don't have the USN Dive Manual I can email it to you via a link
where you can download it. ( www.yousendit.com ) It's about 50 meg so
probably won't fit in a mailbox.. I'd be happy to send it to anyone on this
list so please feel free to let me know.
I believe it was Dick Rutkowski who came up with the 40% number and it was
not based on someone getting data on it..rather a guestimate. Charlie
Johnson a VP of ANDI on the west coast, researched this and compiled a 125
page report on the 40% myth which is available for sale for about $50. He
tried in vain to substantiate the 40% number but what it came down was he
could not, but did find that aside from the dive industry everyone else
takes a very conservative position on this.. I think you will find that
because of the number of variables involved in oxygen fires that are
difficult or impossible to quantify in each and every situation, the CGA and
military default to the most conservative position they can assume.. ie, if
it's not air, treat it like it was pure O2..
A CYA position? Absolutely.
With stakes as high as a human life, not to mention the collateral damage
that could go along with it if the compressor that burns happens to be a
little close to your house or on your boat and the shrapnel takes out your
class.. I don't think there are very many dive professionals who want this
exposure and since the alternative is pretty easy to manage do the sensible
thing..
Regarding compressors.. the wildcard here is that the reactivity of
materials in an enriched air environment is a function of the partial
pressure of O2 not the fraction of O2 in the mix. It is not likely my
friends compressor would have blown up just pumping air but you are right on
in that some do.. Compressors that may be old ( read that, worn rings and a
relatively thick coating of oil on the walls of the head of the compressor)
maybe running hot.. cranked up to a high pressure.. and you have a diesel
engine from a compressor. Now, take that high partial pressure and multiply
it when doing continuous blending of EAN on that old compressor and it is
not hard to imagine getting past the flash point. This is more like what
happened to my friend. His detonated at 2200 psi blending 36%.
What is amazing is that in our industry, vendors will sell you blending
sticks, or blending manifolds and swear up and down it's OK to do this as
long as you are < 40%.. The fact that so many get away with it is why the
practice persists. But then again, so does drunk driving and all it takes is
that one time when you get busted.. Why take the chance? But since one
cannot legislate common sense we have what we have..
As for your regulator, not saying it will smoke at 32% ( or even 50% ) and
I'd be willing to bet you if people were honest there are a lot of people
diving regs serviced for air but using EAN. What I am saying though is if
you want to be consistent with " best practices " in the industry, you will
have your reg serviced for EAN.
In our gas blending course we show students a photo of a titanium reg that
self ignited on a cylinder with a 78% oxygen mixture. It was not a figment
of someones imagination.. it does happen though rarely..
Another aspect of this I am having some success with at local shops and
resorts is to filter all their air to a level which is O2 compatible..
Since the cost to do this is so low you really have to wonder why anyone
would not choose to do this.. If your local shop was providing air of this
quality your equipment would stay clean after EAN servicing. You would also
spare yourself the stink of old silicone and oil which tends to flavor the
air in cylinders and regulators after a while..
These shops have discovered it simplifies cylinder and regulator management
plus their air is consistently of high quality. ie, no stink.
Why would anyone not want a clean regulator? Cristo-lube does not break down
like silicone does and using O2 compatible air just helps to keep it that
way.. So never mind EAN.. equipment serviced to this level of cleanliness
with superior lubricants and parts is reason enough to do it this way in my
opinion.
So you are right in that there are CYA reasons for doing this but the real
world is that this level of cleanliness just makes good sense and good
practice from a business standpoint.
matt.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kruse, Jeffrey [mailto:jeff.kruse@medtronic.com]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 4:37 AM
To: matthew f.caldwell; Ken Paramore; Quest e-mail list; anbope@ruc.dk
Subject: RE: O2 handeling & procedures
Your spreading fear and misinformation. Anyone who has a clue knows that
40% is not a magic number its just a level of risk. Kinda like a 1.4
PPO. Most people don't have problems staying below 40%.
Would your buddies compressor have "blown up" just pumping air. Lots of
air compressors "blow up" just pumping air. Or was he was pumping
4000psi at 40%? Did he screw up and get a surge of 100% O2?
I wouldn't hesitate to use a reg slobbered with silicon grease with the
standard mix of 32%.
There is CYA legal reasons to state such low percentages, and then there
is the real world.
-----Original Message-----
From: matthew f.caldwell [mailto:matfcald@attglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:00 AM
To: 'Ken Paramore'; 'Quest e-mail list'; anbope@ruc.dk
Subject: RE: O2 handeling & procedures
Hi,
What is unique about the dive industry is how it takes exception to what
are well established industry and military standards. ie, the 40% myth
is an invention, not a standard. While most people can relate to degrees
of risk, such as filling cylinders with an 80% oxygen mixture carries
more risk than a 36% enriched air fill.. The industry standard is that
for any O2 level greater than 23.5% ( the upper spec on air ) the
equipment should be cleaned as if it were going to be exposed to 100%
O2. Obviously this is conservative when, say, you are using 32% but less
so the closer you get to 100%.
What is ludicrous is the belief and practice that you are " safe " at
39.9% or below and " not safe " at 40.0% and above.. This is also why
we hear of the occasional oil lubricated air compressor self destructing
when someone tries to use it for continuous blending of nitrox.. " But
I was told it's OK if < 40% " is the common lament.. you will even hear
that < 40% is OK at trade shows such as ADEX..
I actually know someone who did blow up his compressor this way.. He
neglected the part in his gas blending manual that is quite specific
about the type of compressor that must be used for this purpose.. and a
Bauer Junior II was not on that list..
Who else recognizes this? Try www.luxfercylinders.com or
www.catalinacylinders.com or the US Navy dive manual which uses 25% as
an upper limit for EAN not requiring O2 clean equipment. Also, almost
every US government agency likewise recognizes this upper limit.
You will also note that there is only one dive certification agency
recognized by both these companies who " gets it right " when it comes
to O2 cleaning.. ANDI. This is the corporate position of both Luxfer and
Catalina.
It's right on the links above so please check it out.
Also note that below there is an error in the ANDI standard mentioned at
the bottom of this post. ANDI has no problem with the use of 100% O2
whether filling cylinders or breathing it.
However unlike what almost everyone I know or have known who uses 100%
O2, ANDI does not conflict with the manufacturer when it comes to the
hardware and equipment used. They specify that equipment that handles O2
be O2 clean,
use O2 compatible materials and be engineered for oxygen service.. The
last requirement is where most of us fail in our application.. Our
cylinders are fine for 100% O2 ( again see the above links ). It's the
valves and regulators that may not be.
Ever notice the difference between a CGA 870 valve on a medical O2
cylinder vs a Thermo or Sherwood K valve? The later valves are
specifically not engineered for O2 service but we commonly use them for
this purpose anyway.
Check out the design of these valves. They are very different.
To a purist, the use of 100% O2 during deco is fine as long as it's
supplied from a cylinder with a CGA 870 or a CGA 540 valve on it.. In
practice this would mean surface supplied O2 or mounting modifications
to a typical first stage of a regulator.. Which of course is not always
convenient so we bend the rules somewhat, use a standard cylinder with K
valve and unless you are pressurizing a titanium first stage we get away
with it with minimal risk.
BTW, Monel first stages exist for the purist but brass seems to be
compatible enough for most of us..
As for cleaning, again, ANDI uses only cleaners recognized and approved
for
O2 cleaning.. Joy dishwashing detergent is out.. so is Simple Green btw
and that is the position of the manufacturer of Simple Green not ANDI..
On the other hand, one cleaner called Blue Gold is approved by the DOT
as acceptable for O2 cleaning. This cleaner is environmentally benign
and a little goes a long way.. It can also be filtered up to a point for
re-use.
The US military uses other cleaners such as NOC ( Naval Oxygen Cleaner
)which is less convenient to use than Blue Gold and harder to find.
To look at it another way, ANDI is to gas blending and O2 cleaning as
GUE is to diving.. Both look at these respective areas as purists. I
don't think anyone on this list will argue about the merits of the DIR
philosophy.
Likewise the ANDI approach is the purists way to prepare equipment for
O2 use that is unique in the dive industry and is the only agency that
is consistent with industry and the military.
If you don't want to use the methods taught by ANDI it's your call of
course. Just remember that if you say ANDI is excessive or calls for
procedures that are unnecessary.. you are also saying the exact same
thing
for the compressed gas industry and US military as well.. Ed Betts did
some really pioneering work in this area about 15 years ago so if anyone
is interested, you don't have to reinvent the wheel.. it was all worked
out long ago.
matt
( ps yes, I am an ANDI instructor )
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Paramore [mailto:kennyp56@centurytel.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:53 PM
To: Quest e-mail list; anbope@ruc.dk
Subject: Fw: O2 handeling & procedures
>From my files.
Bless,
Kenny P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jarrod Jablonski" <JJ@halcyon.net>
To: "Shlomi Palnitsky" <palnizky@internet-zahav.net>; "Jarrod Jablonski"
<JJ@gue.com>; "dir quest" <quest@gue.com>; "Trey" <trey@netdor.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: O2 hendeling & procedures
> This one will never die and the liability and long shot risk makes it
> tough
> for anyone not to back cleaning. The problem really relates more to
what
> is
> "clean"?
>
> 6.2 Special Preparations for Elevated Oxygen Concentrations
> . . . . . .
> . . . . . .
> In the end, the debate over oxygen cleaning is less a
disagreement
> over whether equipment should be clean; rather it is a debate over
> inconsistency and the erroneous application of existing guidelines.
For
> example, equipment that is "oxygen clean" is no longer "oxygen clean"
when
> filled with air that is not classified as oxygen compatible. In
practice,
> few divers follow this guideline; meaning that for them to conform to
the
> existing guidelines, after each such fill their equipment would have
to be
> "oxygen cleaned". Divers should seek facilities that fill tanks with
> oxygen compatible air or air of similar quality.
>
> 6.3 Oxygen Cleaning
> What people understand by "oxygen cleaning" varies greatly. In
the
> diving world, the term "oxygen cleaning" is well known, nonetheless,
> divers
> differ greatly with respect to what this means exactly or how to
> accomplish
> it. At its most extreme, it is individuals in special outfits
cleaning in
> "clean rooms"; at its other it is individuals "cleaning" in filthy
> condition surrounded by an array of contaminants. In any case, it is
> likely
> that a sensible approach toward oxygen cleaning will reap the greatest
> rewards, and that attention to it will provide acceptable results.
> While the consensus in the SCUBA industry is that oxygen cleaning
> below 40% is not necessary, nonetheless, many divers find it more
> practical
> to establish uniform cleaning guidelines for all their equipment.
Rather
> than dedicate a specific regulator to a specific function, most divers
> maintain equipment equally and use it interchangeably. Therefore,
should
> an
> equipment failure cause one component to be moved into oxygen service,
the
> diver need not be concerned about varying cleaning parameters. . . .
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Administrator <jsmoriss@mvlan.net>
Personal Home Page <http://jsmoriss.mvlan.net/>
Underwater and Travel Photographs <http://www.mvpix.com/>