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.
Simply put in the absents of a specific standard you start by picking an existing standard that is nearest to your requirement eg with the 100R8 non conductive high pressure hose. Originally for hydraulic applications that you now need to modify for say an oxygen application.
Then with the manufacturer you have some of the manufacturing procedures modified to meet your new change of use design criteria ie cleaning inspection testing oils and grease changes etc .we discussed earlier.
So by alteration and or by including additional conditions or removing any of the original manufacturing detail that would conflict with the new gas application. Together with the change of use from hydraulics to oxygen gas you remove any an all of the non compliant of a possible risk factors and add with any additional testing cleaning testing etc you require to achieve compliance with the change in application from the original specification.
In effect creating a modified SAE100R8 non conductive hose to a SAE100R8 Oxygen Hose
Similar to the earlier intermediate pressure hose we discussed SAE100R3 with modification becomes SAE 100R3 DIVERS HOSE
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.
In both the above applications the LP R3 and HP R8 the braid remained as in the original spec
It was only the inner core and end fittings that were deemed the "Wetted Parts"
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.
I fully agree hence why the additional terms printed on the hose as described above named as:
Oxygen Hose and Divers Hose
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".
For hydraulic use I agree the above SAE standards are acceptable however I fear you are not fully understanding the principles here. Allow me to explain a bit better:
1. By stating the original mechanical
SAE on the hose you have a valid transparent and quantifiable start point for all the mechanical properties and performance criterial of that hose
2. By including the
100R3 and
100R8 you now have the full and accepted properties of the hose
3. The final component is by adding
DIVER HOSE and
OXYGEN you have now added the application for the hose
So you have the standard the performance and the application
Similar design adoption is done with Hyperbaric medical chambers Diving decompression chambers and diving Bells. The basic standard starts as ASME 8 Div 1 or 2 or BSEN now PED 5500 and it's just a boiler code. The application change of use incorporates additional design criterial for example you want to stick a man inside your boiler code pressure vessel you may add such considerations such as the PVHO-1 Pressure Vessel Human Occupancy and so on (say a window and a door)
Now interestingly if you look at your EU standards for pressure vessels you will end up in the same confusion as you found with the hose. The EU standards don't quite answer the application requirement For example if you use the EU pressure vessel standards you end up with an inferior mechanical design bolted to which is a Medical Device Directive and the position you are in becomes difficult.
Now by contrast if you removed the SAE 100 R printing from the hose and just printed DIVERS HOSE or OXYGEN this would satisfy any concerns over the hydraulic issues but nullify any hope of knowing what the hose actually is.
Which brings us back to the scuba world of La La land were brand names are all our fellow divers have to go on and ignorance and stupidity creates these asinine replies we have from those various replies in order to lower the knowledge level of products down to the basics of their level with only one or two lines of information given (the catalogue knowledge) by which fellow diver get to make an informed choice.
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
At this point we enter POV Warrior land. Two experienced individuals with detailed points of view.
Enough. Read the guidance on POV Warriors
FAQ - What is a POV Warrior? , if I'm not being clear.
