Affordable Oxygen

[John Foster]

I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.

This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:26:40 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
> I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
>
> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.

Many options available at Cramer Decker Medical. I like the low profile CGA-540 fittings.

T8

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank?...

The big reason is that at a lot of places you need a medical prescription to fill what looks like a medical bottle. With a CGA540 you can get a fill at any FBO with O2, or at any welding gas supplier.

[SoaringXCellence]

John,

The other possible challenge with the O2 mount is that the older steel bottles have a longer neck that the aluminum ones. I ran into that problem in my Libelle and needed to make an extension to the tank to get the neck clamp to work.

Mountain High now offers an extension like the one I made.

https://www.mhoxygen.com/product/cylinder-neck-union-extender-port-3-4-16/

Mike B.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
>
> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
>
> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.



On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
>
> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.

Way, way back 22 cf bottles had a rounded bottom that would fit into the cup.

[John Foster]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> > I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
> >
> > This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> > I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
> >
> > This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.
>
> Way, way back 22 cf bottles had a rounded bottom that would fit into the cup.

So if I'm hearing everyone correctly, there is no physical reason not to use the yoke style regulator other than how it would fit. There are no significant strength differences or how it behaves at altitude that could be more dangerous with the yoke style regulator. Is that right?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

John Foster wrote on 1/22/2020 1:56 PM:

>>> This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.
>>
>> Way, way back 22 cf bottles had a rounded bottom that would fit into the cup.
>
> So if I'm hearing everyone correctly, there is no physical reason not to use the yoke style regulator other than how it would fit. There are no significant strength differences or how it behaves at altitude that could be more dangerous with the yoke style regulator. Is that right?
>
I used one for years with no problems; after all, the bottle has to control
2000psi, so an ambient variation of 8 psi or so isn't going to affect it. I don't
think cold to 0 deg F is a problem, either, as I'm still here, but the
specifications should state the operating range. No, I don't know where to get them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 4:56:48 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:15:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> > > I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
> > >
> > > This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> > > I was given an older MH EDS unit to install in my Phoebus glider which I got for a song and am restoring. The glider has a bracket for the oxygen tank, but no tank is installed. The bottom is a rounded fiberglass cup, and there is a flip bracket to go around the neck. It sits behind the seat pan to the right of the landing gear. The cup measures about 5 1/2" inside diameter, but the felt strip padding inside reduces that somewhat by up to 1/4" or so. The neck bracket is about 16" from where the curve of the bottom cup starts. I THINK (but am not sure) a MH AL647 tank will fit, but it has a flat bottom and I'm not sure how much I far forward I can get the tank in the neck bracket so it will fit, as this tank measures 16 1/2", according the the chart on W&W site. Plus, the tank and a plain regulator will run almost 1/4 the cost of what I paid for the glider. I'm pretty sure I can get a plain D-cylinder to fit, as it is narrower and could fit deeper into the curved cup for the bottom of the tank.
> > >
> > > This has gotten me thinking then: is there any reason one couldn't use a standard "yolk-style" primary regulator for the oxygen tank? It would be much more affordable, and easier for me to get one of these style tanks, as I work in the medical field.
> >
> > Way, way back 22 cf bottles had a rounded bottom that would fit into the cup.
>
> So if I'm hearing everyone correctly, there is no physical reason not to use the yoke style regulator other than how it would fit. There are no significant strength differences or how it behaves at altitude that could be more dangerous with the yoke style regulator. Is that right?

Don't assume that someone else's regulator can be substituted for MH with the MH EDS.

[Surge]

On Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:03:59 UTC+2, Tango Eight wrote:
> Don't assume that someone else's regulator can be substituted for MH with the MH EDS.

From Mountain High's website:
"MH Oxygen Regulators are constant-pressure regulators calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"

Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure in the same range should work fine. All the fancy stuff happens in the EDS unit.

Circling back to the OP's comment about price. What is the price of one's life? $600? The same argument can be applied to a functioning parachute and an airworthy aircraft.

[[email protected]]

> ...calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"
>
> Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure...

There is definitely a potential surge problem there.

The EDS regulator is special in being designed to switch from no flow to lots and back while keeping the output pressure reasonable.

If you wish to gamble with yourself, then perhaps a surge tank after the regulator to improve the odds. A pulse-ox to keep an eye on the contraption might also be a good idea. But the words 'good idea' might not fit the situation?

[John Foster]

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:15:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > ...calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"
> >
> > Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure...
>
> There is definitely a potential surge problem there.
>
> The EDS regulator is special in being designed to switch from no flow to lots and back while keeping the output pressure reasonable.
>
> If you wish to gamble with yourself, then perhaps a surge tank after the regulator to improve the odds. A pulse-ox to keep an eye on the contraption might also be a good idea. But the words 'good idea' might not fit the situation?

From what I'm reading, it seems most medical "yoke-style" (CGA870) regulators are rated more for gas FLOW, i.e. Liters per Minute, than for pressure, i.e. PSI. It is hard to find the PSI rating for these medical regulators, but one data point I found was that one was rated at 50psi, which is much higher than the EDS unit is designed to handle. It is the typical regulator where you can dial the FLOW from 0.5lpm to 15lpm. I realize that FLOW and PRESSURE are two completely different animals, but they are related and affect each other. Is there a way to set the FLOW rate to get the PSI at the desired 15-20psi? My gut tells me not really, but my physics is a bit rusty and can't prove it to myself.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

John Foster wrote on 1/23/2020 8:40 AM:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:15:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> ...calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"
>>>
>>> Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure...
>>
>> There is definitely a potential surge problem there.
>>
>> The EDS regulator is special in being designed to switch from no flow to lots and back while keeping the output pressure reasonable.
>>
>> If you wish to gamble with yourself, then perhaps a surge tank after the regulator to improve the odds. A pulse-ox to keep an eye on the contraption might also be a good idea. But the words 'good idea' might not fit the situation?
>
> From what I'm reading, it seems most medical "yoke-style" (CGA870) regulators are rated more for gas FLOW, i.e. Liters per Minute, than for pressure, i.e. PSI. It is hard to find the PSI rating for these medical regulators, but one data point I found was that one was rated at 50psi, which is much higher than the EDS unit is designed to handle. It is the typical regulator where you can dial the FLOW from 0.5lpm to 15lpm. I realize that FLOW and PRESSURE are two completely different animals, but they are related and affect each other. Is there a way to set the FLOW rate to get the PSI at the desired 15-20psi? My gut tells me not really, but my physics is a bit rusty and can't prove it to myself.
>
I misunderstood you earlier: I thought you were considering a medical bottle with
an adapter that fits typical glider equipment, like an EDS regulator. The EDS
system is an important piece of safety equipment, so please do not try to save
money by substituting components UNLESS Mountain High approves of the substitution.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Nick Kennedy[_3_]]

John
If you need O2 you need it to be reliable.
I personally would only use a MH regulator with a MH EDS.
I would also send that unit and regulator back to MH and have it checked out, they recommend doing that every so often.
When you go over 12-14k up to 18k you've got other things to worry about than a cobbled together O2 system.

[John Foster]

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:15:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > ...calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"
> > >
> > > Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure...
> >
> > There is definitely a potential surge problem there.
> >
> > The EDS regulator is special in being designed to switch from no flow to lots and back while keeping the output pressure reasonable.
> >
> > If you wish to gamble with yourself, then perhaps a surge tank after the regulator to improve the odds. A pulse-ox to keep an eye on the contraption might also be a good idea. But the words 'good idea' might not fit the situation?
>
> From what I'm reading, it seems most medical "yoke-style" (CGA870) regulators are rated more for gas FLOW, i.e. Liters per Minute, than for pressure, i.e. PSI. It is hard to find the PSI rating for these medical regulators, but one data point I found was that one was rated at 50psi, which is much higher than the EDS unit is designed to handle. It is the typical regulator where you can dial the FLOW from 0.5lpm to 15lpm. I realize that FLOW and PRESSURE are two completely different animals, but they are related and affect each other. Is there a way to set the FLOW rate to get the PSI at the desired 15-20psi? My gut tells me not really, but my physics is a bit rusty and can't prove it to myself.

Upon further research, it appears that medical oxygen is standardized at 50psi, both from the portable oxygen tanks, and from the wall outlets in hospitals. This would not work to use a medical oxygen regulator and just "dial it down", as the pauses between breaths, the reduced flow at low altitudes, would cause the pressure to rise between the primary regulator (50psi) and the EDS unit (15-20psi). You would need a secondary regulator between them to step the pressure down to 15-20psi, or you would damage your EDS unit.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 10:00:09 AM UTC-8, John Foster wrote:
> On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 9:40:13 AM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:15:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > ...calibrated to deliver 15 -20 psig of dynamic pressure"
> > > >
> > > > Any pressure regulator supplying a constant pressure...
> > >
> > > There is definitely a potential surge problem there.
> > >
> > > The EDS regulator is special in being designed to switch from no flow to lots and back while keeping the output pressure reasonable.
> > >
> > > If you wish to gamble with yourself, then perhaps a surge tank after the regulator to improve the odds. A pulse-ox to keep an eye on the contraption might also be a good idea. But the words 'good idea' might not fit the situation?
> >
> > From what I'm reading, it seems most medical "yoke-style" (CGA870) regulators are rated more for gas FLOW, i.e. Liters per Minute, than for pressure, i.e. PSI. It is hard to find the PSI rating for these medical regulators, but one data point I found was that one was rated at 50psi, which is much higher than the EDS unit is designed to handle. It is the typical regulator where you can dial the FLOW from 0.5lpm to 15lpm. I realize that FLOW and PRESSURE are two completely different animals, but they are related and affect each other. Is there a way to set the FLOW rate to get the PSI at the desired 15-20psi? My gut tells me not really, but my physics is a bit rusty and can't prove it to myself.
>
> Upon further research, it appears that medical oxygen is standardized at 50psi, both from the portable oxygen tanks, and from the wall outlets in hospitals. This would not work to use a medical oxygen regulator and just "dial it down", as the pauses between breaths, the reduced flow at low altitudes, would cause the pressure to rise between the primary regulator (50psi) and the EDS unit (15-20psi). You would need a secondary regulator between them to step the pressure down to 15-20psi, or you would damage your EDS unit.

Using medical O2 for aviation is akin to using a vet for your health care, wrong application. The vet might just shoot you for a broken leg.

[[email protected]]

The vets my wife and I deal with are better doctors than the doctors we deal with.

[[email protected]]

> Using medical O2 for aviation is akin to using a vet for your health care, wrong application. The vet might just shoot you for a broken leg.

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between medical, aviators or welding oxygen. Moisture may be introduced at the delivery device for medical applications, but in the cylinder itself, they are all 99.99% O2. Any moisture in the pressurized cylinder, in the presence of an oxidizer (O2, get it?) promotes corrosion of the aluminum or steel cylinder.

I wonder how long this fairy tale about the "differences" in oxygen will survive?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> Using medical O2 for aviation...

I thought we settled this twenty years ago.

https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-on-welders-oxygen/

Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all produced using the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all the exact same stuff from the same tap.

The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how they're used. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed oxygen applications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the same.

--Bob K.

[Howard Banks]

Mark, if you say something is different and special you can charge more.
Marketing basics.



At 22:21 24 January 2020, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud
wrote:
>
>> Using medical O2 for aviation...
>
>I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
>
>https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-on-
welders-oxygen/
>
>Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all produced using
the
>same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all the exact
same
>stuff from the same tap.
>
>The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how they're
used.
>The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed oxygen
>applications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the
>same.
>
>--Bob K.
>

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 3:50:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> The vets my wife and I deal with are better doctors than the doctors we deal with.

Med school is way easier to get in than Veterinary school.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-8, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > Using medical O2 for aviation...
>
> I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
>
> https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-on-welders-oxygen/
>
> Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all produced using the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all the exact same stuff from the same tap.
>
> The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how they're used.. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed oxygen applications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the same.
>
> --Bob K.

I mis-spoke, I meant to say jury rigging med O2 equipment for a purpose not intended, could be hazardous to one's health. Kind of thought that was implied, forgot an engineer or two populates these pages. I have had hypoxia before during a contest out of INYK. I later realized I had mixed equipment from Aerox and MH. Aerox oxyisaver cannula cannot be used with MH equipment. I would strongly encourage anyone to use the equipment from the manufacturer, read the instructions and not attempt to jury rig a mix of med O2 and aviation O2 equipment.

[Dan Marotta]

As long as there's an FAR about Aviator's Breathing Oxygen.Â* Oh, wait...

On 1/24/2020 2:16 PM, wrote:
>> Using medical O2 for aviation is akin to using a vet for your health care, wrong application. The vet might just shoot you for a broken leg.
> There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between medical, aviators or welding oxygen. Moisture may be introduced at the delivery device for medical applications, but in the cylinder itself, they are all 99.99% O2. Any moisture in the pressurized cylinder, in the presence of an oxidizer (O2, get it?) promotes corrosion of the aluminum or steel cylinder.
>
> I wonder how long this fairy tale about the "differences" in oxygen will survive?
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom BravoMike]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-8, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >
> > > Using medical O2 for aviation...
> >
> > I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
> >
> > https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-on-welders-oxygen/
> >
> > Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all produced using the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all the exact same stuff from the same tap.
> >
> > The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how they're used. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed oxygen applications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the same.
> >
> > --Bob K.
>
> I mis-spoke, I meant to say jury rigging med O2 equipment for a purpose not intended, could be hazardous to one's health. Kind of thought that was implied, forgot an engineer or two populates these pages. I have had hypoxia before during a contest out of INYK. I later realized I had mixed equipment from Aerox and MH. Aerox oxyisaver cannula cannot be used with MH equipment. I would strongly encourage anyone to use the equipment from the manufacturer, read the instructions and not attempt to jury rig a mix of med O2 and aviation O2 equipment.

What/where is INYK? Sorry, can't find it.

[Jock Proudfoot]

At 18:54 25 January 2020, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St.
Cloud wrote:
>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-8, Bob
Kuykendall wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan
St. Cloud
>wr=
>ote:
>> >=20
>> > > Using medical O2 for aviation...
>> >=20
>> > I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
>> >=20
>> >
>https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-
on-welders=
>-oxygen/
>> >=20
>> > Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all
produced
>using=
> the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all
the exact
>=
>same stuff from the same tap.
>> >=20
>> > The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how
they're
>us=
>ed. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed
oxygen
>ap=
>plications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the
same.
>> >=20
>> > --Bob K.
>>=20
>> I mis-spoke, I meant to say jury rigging med O2 equipment for
a purpose
>n=
>ot intended, could be hazardous to one's health. Kind of thought
that was
>=
>implied, forgot an engineer or two populates these pages. I have
had
>hypox=
>ia before during a contest out of INYK. I later realized I had mixed
>equip=
>ment from Aerox and MH. Aerox oxyisaver cannula cannot be
used with MH
>equ=
>ipment. I would strongly encourage anyone to use the equipment
from the
>ma=
>nufacturer, read the instructions and not attempt to jury rig a mix
of med
>=
>O2 and aviation O2 equipment.
>
>What/where is INYK? Sorry, can't find it.
>
Inyokern Airport (IATA: IYK, ICAO: KIYK, FAA LID: IYK)

[Jock Proudfoot]

At 18:54 25 January 2020, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St.
Cloud wrote:
>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-8, Bob
Kuykendall wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan
St. Cloud
>wr=
>ote:
>> >=20
>> > > Using medical O2 for aviation...
>> >=20
>> > I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
>> >=20
>> >
>https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-
on-welders=
>-oxygen/
>> >=20
>> > Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all
produced
>using=
> the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all
the exact
>=
>same stuff from the same tap.
>> >=20
>> > The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how
they're
>us=
>ed. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed
oxygen
>ap=
>plications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the
same.
>> >=20
>> > --Bob K.
>>=20
>> I mis-spoke, I meant to say jury rigging med O2 equipment for
a purpose
>n=
>ot intended, could be hazardous to one's health. Kind of thought
that was
>=
>implied, forgot an engineer or two populates these pages. I have
had
>hypox=
>ia before during a contest out of INYK. I later realized I had mixed
>equip=
>ment from Aerox and MH. Aerox oxyisaver cannula cannot be
used with MH
>equ=
>ipment. I would strongly encourage anyone to use the equipment
from the
>ma=
>nufacturer, read the instructions and not attempt to jury rig a mix
of med
>=
>O2 and aviation O2 equipment.
>
>What/where is INYK? Sorry, can't find it.
>
Inyokern Airport (IATA: IYK, ICAO: KIYK, FAA LID: IYK)

[Jock Proudfoot]

At 18:54 25 January 2020, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St.
Cloud wrote:
>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 2:21:35 PM UTC-8, Bob
Kuykendall wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:44:33 PM UTC-8, Jonathan
St. Cloud
>wr=
>ote:
>> >=20
>> > > Using medical O2 for aviation...
>> >=20
>> > I thought we settled this twenty years ago.
>> >=20
>> >
>https://www.avweb.com/features/pelicans-perch-13getting-high-
on-welders=
>-oxygen/
>> >=20
>> > Medical, welding, and aviator's breathing oxygen are all
produced
>using=
> the same processes and equipment. Not just similar. They're all
the exact
>=
>same stuff from the same tap.
>> >=20
>> > The only differences are what they're dispensed into and how
they're
>us=
>ed. The requirements for purity and cleanliness in all compressed
oxygen
>ap=
>plications are such that the baseline specifications for all are the
same.
>> >=20
>> > --Bob K.
>>=20
>> I mis-spoke, I meant to say jury rigging med O2 equipment for
a purpose
>n=
>ot intended, could be hazardous to one's health. Kind of thought
that was
>=
>implied, forgot an engineer or two populates these pages. I have
had
>hypox=
>ia before during a contest out of INYK. I later realized I had mixed
>equip=
>ment from Aerox and MH. Aerox oxyisaver cannula cannot be
used with MH
>equ=
>ipment. I would strongly encourage anyone to use the equipment
from the
>ma=
>nufacturer, read the instructions and not attempt to jury rig a mix
of med
>=
>O2 and aviation O2 equipment.
>
>What/where is INYK? Sorry, can't find it.
>
Inyokern Airport (IATA: IYK, ICAO: KIYK, FAA LID: IYK)

[Tom BravoMike]

> >
> >What/where is INYK? Sorry, can't find it.
> >
> Inyokern Airport (IATA: IYK, ICAO: KIYK, FAA LID: IYK)

Got it, thanks!

[[email protected]]

ABO is tested for moisture on an individual cylinder basis. Medical O2 is tested for purity on a sample basis (usually one cylinder out of a 20 cylinder line). Industrial O2: each cylinder is sniff tested prior to filling to make sure no flammable gas or other stinky thing is loitering in the cylinder. No testing of industrial grade after filling.

Yes, all are filled from the same liquid O2 tank, all are pumped on the same manifold. However, the compliant filling facility does the above steps because either FAA, FDA, or CGA says that is how to do it.

It's reasonably easy to play safe: have a CGA 540 tank, get a fill from an ABO cascade manifold at the airport. It is not reasonably easy to get a "great price", especially if you fly where there is no ABO manifold available..

[Andrew Ainslie]

Ask anyone who has ever done a decent physics class what happens to moisture when you compress a wet gas. It drops out. That’s why air compressors have moisture traps.

This nonsense about testing for moisture/adding moisture in medical oxygen etc etc never goes away. Compressed oxygen is incredibly dry. Any moisture in a compressed oxygen cylinder would be rolling around the bottom, not in the gas.