Oxygen regulators, medical type

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:35:49 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Mark, please stop shouting. I am trying to learn how these systems are designed.

What you originally said was that you were looking for a cheap alternative to an actual piece of aircraft life support equipment, based on medical discards.

I'm surprised everyone who has answered you HASN'T DONE IT IN ALL CAPS!!!!

So - the answer to your original post is: DON'T EVEN GO THERE, GET A REAL AIRCRAFT O2 SYSTEM!

If price is so important, check out the XCR system (http://www.craggyaero.com/xcr_systems1.htm) or look around for a used system.

Sometimes, it takes people shouting at someone to keep them from doing something really stupid. BTDT!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On 11/6/2015 10:35 AM, wrote:
...I am trying to learn how these systems are
designed.

The questions you're asking, and the information you want, are/is best
answered/obtained through direct contact with the manufacturers of the
equipment (as opposed to, say, technical sales representatives *representing*
those companies - who themselves [in my engineering experience] are variously
informed from "well" to "not so well.") In the halcyon days of yore, this
often meant digging through a Thomas Register or similar; today the WWW will
likely suffice. But in any case it will likely involve several phone calls and
being routed around inside the home office until you find/are-punted-to
someone on the design side of the product, after (most likely) the people
answering the phones first direct you to (maybe even technical!) sales.

HTH.

Bob W.

A lot of people are flying with systems designed for aviation but made 20, 40, even 60 years ago. And besides mechanical failures, other things can go wrong - see some anecdotes posted above and below, such as kinks in hoses, hoses pulled off of a fitting, etc. No matter how official and expensive a system is, I would use a flow meter to verify the flow (and still need to check that hose still reaches the mask etc). An exception is an EDS system, for which a flow meter is useless. But at least you can feel the puffs of gas in your nose (if using a cannula), and the EDS at least has built-in alarms for some sorts of faults.

Amazing, with all due respect a class in logic might help. If systems designed and tested for aviation can fail then what are the chances of a medical system not designed nor tested for aviation could fail. I wrote of the kinked hose, and took steps to not have that happen again, plus I now fly with EDS. I did not have a logic jump that thought "gee this system was designed for aviation and failed, so why don't I make a system out of the cheapest parts I can. If you are oxygen depraved you will not be checking a flow meter, nor understand what it is telling you. Did you notice how no thinks this is a good idea?

Sounds like a candidate for the darwin award, and the absolute fixed thinker award. I remember seeing a news clip about an idiot that was trying to fill a gas tank at night from a can, couldn't see so they lit a match.



On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:13:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
A lot of people are flying with systems designed for aviation but made 20, 40, even 60 years ago. And besides mechanical failures, other things can go wrong - see some anecdotes posted above and below, such as kinks in hoses, hoses pulled off of a fitting, etc. No matter how official and expensive a system is, I would use a flow meter to verify the flow (and still need to check that hose still reaches the mask etc). An exception is an EDS system, for which a flow meter is useless. But at least you can feel the puffs of gas in your nose (if using a cannula), and the EDS at least has built-in alarms for some sorts of faults.

This reminds me of a BG-12 owner I knew a while back. He cut a 12 X 12 " hole in the aft fuselage, so he could inspect and lube things in there. Fitted his custom hatch with a couple of hinges and a little sliding latch. Several pilots tried to tell him he had drastically weakened the structure, because the skin was most of the structure.
He wouldn't hear a word of it.
About 6 months later, he didn't return after the days flying. Search plane found the wreckage near Strawberry strip. We couldn't tell if the boom broke in flight or during what looked like a cart-wheel maneuver, but the fuselage broke right through his little hatch!
I figure 2% will never get the word,
JJ

Since you are obviously looking for some feel-good opinions about using your kluged together inappropriate and possibly hazardous system to avoid spending some extra cash on a system designed for the actual aviation application, I suggest you check out this site in its entirety. It spells out all of the requirements for supplemental oxygen use in aircraft. What you propose is not compliant with these requirements.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/...se-in-Aviation

And since you are trying to save some money on aviation emergency and safety equipment, why don't you just eliminate that expensive and rarely used parachute? You can easily remove that overly technical nylon canopy and replace it with old bedsheets and socks. I mean, really, why spend the money on something you hardly ever use?

That's enough of this. I gave my advice and seems like most everybody agrees. Do what you want. I will be looking for your test results on the NTSB Accident reports.

BTW, your medical system as you described it in your original post says that you can set a "I lpm" (liter per minute) rate. FAA protocols for oxygen use specify 1 liter per minute per 10,000 feet. That means 18,000 feet requires 1.8 liters per minute using a mask or cannula. Oxymizer cannulae can handle this due to their oxygen storage capability, and the demand systems from MH can reduce it further.

Once again, I urge you to give up on saving money on essential high-altitude life saving equipment and buy something reasonable, and compliant with established requirements for oxygen use in aircraft.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:19:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm looking for an---

Moshe..,
Be honest, deep down do you Know and Understand You Could Die,

Or, deep down, do you really believe that you would always be able to detect and take effective action to correct a "supplemental" oxygen problem. And being confident in your conviction of your own abilities to always take thoughtful action, do you view oxygen use while at altitude as a "nice accessory" that is too expensive?. If so, this misconception has a name, "It won't happen to me"
I'm convinced that the strong reaction to your proposal is directly due to others concern for your continued existence.

Safety regulations like those for oxygen use are written in the blood of the dead. This statement is not hyperbole.

Good Lift
Scott

On 11/6/2015 8:09 PM, shkdriver wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 5:19:34 PM UTC-6,
wrote:
I'm looking for an---

Moshe.., Be honest, deep down do you Know and Understand You Could Die,

Snip... I'm convinced that the strong reaction to
your proposal is directly due to others concern for your continued
existence.

Safety regulations like those for oxygen use are written in the blood of
the dead. This statement is not hyperbole.

Good Lift Scott

Not intending to pile on, but it occurs to me my previous - neutrally-written
- post might be misconstrued as "permission to roll your own with my
blessing." It really wasn't. Rather - since the OP seemed (ahem!) - dead set
on obtaining some specific engineering type information, it was simply an
attempt to point him in a better direction than RAS. My guess is - engineering
information aside - medical equipment manufacturers' reactions will pretty
much mirror RAS'. (Lettuce know!)

It may take some doing in that part of the world (eastern U.S.), but I also
highly recommend jumping through whatever hoops are necessary to "take a
chamber ride" if at all possible, so's to safely get first-hand knowledge of
one's individual oxygen starvation symptoms. In any group of 10 or so
participants, you're likely going to see reactions from "obviously goofy" to
"essentially none before unconsciousness." Regardless of one's reactions,
since it's your life you're betting on, in the absence of first-hand knowledge
only Darwinian-denialists would bet on being in that tiny group capable of
recognizing what's going on in time to actually want/be able to do anything
effective about the situation.

Bob W.

P.S. On my ride, that's what I saw. I also learned I seemed to be lacking in
"obvious symptoms" (beyond likely-terminal-stupidity, of course) for the 5
minutes we spent at 25,000 feet.

Two points. Even the Aviation systems can have trouble. A constant flow system, Aerox or Mountain High can be fine for the east, but EVEN AVIATION SYSTEMS CAN HAVE PROBLEMS.

Anyone flying what the original Aerox thin flow meter THROW IT AWAY. Mine broke in half in wave over MT Mitchel in NC, at 23,000 still going up. The original system should NOT be sold to glider pilots. The material is thin and DOES NOT TOLERATE COLD. When I called the company and told them their equipment almost killed me, they told me they also have a thicker, different material that is tested to -50. That is the one you want, not the thin original.

Also, about Bobs point in the altitude chamber, with the chamber ride you have been breathing 100% oxygen for 30 minutes before they take you up. You have roughly 2.5 liters of reserve volume in your lungs, plus hyper oxygenated tissue at this point. It takes a little while to get symptoms.

In the wave, about 2 hours into the flight when my system broke, on the first breath I WAS IN DEEP TROUBLE. In the wave, you have no reserve in your lungs or your tissue, and you immediately have problems.

After that experience I bought a Mountain High, and will NEVER fly wave again without at least a small, (10-15 minute) reserve bottle.

Kevin R. Anderson
92, formerly 192