Tanks A Lot
Contributor
This is the first time I have heard about SAE J517 hoses being mentioned for breathing applications at all, and I would sincerely appreciate a source. As far as I'm aware, that is just not what the standard aims for. It is aimed at hydraulic hoses with no regard for breathing applications whatsoever. The ones for breathing gases and hoses that come to mind are EN250, ISO5359, ISO16964:2020, ISO21969:2009, NFPA1981, among a couple of others. They all largely agree with each other concerning test criteria. EN250 is certainly not a special outlier with its test criteria that somehow gives "toilet hoses" a free pass. Yes, some have a tad more stringent criteria, such as burst pressure = five times working pressure.
You mention the SAE 100R8 being fit for oxygen service, yet this is in no way what the hose was designed for. Its purpose is clearly outlined in J517:
The need for this hose is crystal clear. A lot of hydraulic hoses use steel wire braids as reinforcement. This is potentially fatal in high-voltage scenarios. 100R8 must use some synthetic fiber, such as PA or aramid, to negate this. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the hose's ability for oxygen service and that is because SAE J517 doesn't deal with this subject.
The braid of the hose has almost zero impact on its suitability for oxygen service. And the braid is exactly what sets 100R8 apart. I'm not sure how one can make the leap from this braid to suitability for oxygen service.
Almost all hoses have a non-conductive core. Modern SCUBA hoses are mostly made from an inner liner of polyether-urethane, which is non-conductive. 100R8 hoses do not set themselves apart from other hydraulic hoses by their non-conductive inner liners, they do so via their non-conductive braid.
There is also no argument about the things you list for the suitability for oxygen service of a hose, but none of these apply to SAE 100R8. They don't, because that is not what this hose or standard aims at.
As long as I do not see a specific mention of an SAE document referencing breathing gas hoses, I would go as far as to call for the opposite of what you suggest. Because documents like SAE J517 are specifically not aimed at oxygen gas and other breathing gases, I would argue that they have absolutely no requirement to use special oxygen-compatible lubricants or greases in manufacturing processes, quite the opposite, in fact. I'm happy to be proven wrong on that front, but I can't seem to find any sources that would validate your claims.
I somehow feel like we are still comparing apples and oranges. EN250 deals with breathing gas hoses. SAE J517 deals with hydraulic hoses and mentions no breathing gases or "diver's hose".
You mention the SAE 100R8 being fit for oxygen service, yet this is in no way what the hose was designed for. Its purpose is clearly outlined in J517:
The need for this hose is crystal clear. A lot of hydraulic hoses use steel wire braids as reinforcement. This is potentially fatal in high-voltage scenarios. 100R8 must use some synthetic fiber, such as PA or aramid, to negate this. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the hose's ability for oxygen service and that is because SAE J517 doesn't deal with this subject.
The braid of the hose has almost zero impact on its suitability for oxygen service. And the braid is exactly what sets 100R8 apart. I'm not sure how one can make the leap from this braid to suitability for oxygen service.
Almost all hoses have a non-conductive core. Modern SCUBA hoses are mostly made from an inner liner of polyether-urethane, which is non-conductive. 100R8 hoses do not set themselves apart from other hydraulic hoses by their non-conductive inner liners, they do so via their non-conductive braid.
There is also no argument about the things you list for the suitability for oxygen service of a hose, but none of these apply to SAE 100R8. They don't, because that is not what this hose or standard aims at.
As long as I do not see a specific mention of an SAE document referencing breathing gas hoses, I would go as far as to call for the opposite of what you suggest. Because documents like SAE J517 are specifically not aimed at oxygen gas and other breathing gases, I would argue that they have absolutely no requirement to use special oxygen-compatible lubricants or greases in manufacturing processes, quite the opposite, in fact. I'm happy to be proven wrong on that front, but I can't seem to find any sources that would validate your claims.
I somehow feel like we are still comparing apples and oranges. EN250 deals with breathing gas hoses. SAE J517 deals with hydraulic hoses and mentions no breathing gases or "diver's hose".
)
