Integrated CO detector?

[Liquivision]

I bought a carbon monoxide analyser brand new off ebay for around $300-$400 in 2001. If I felt that I had been exposed to CO (i.e. boat fumes, or after taking some breaths from a tank), I could use the detector as a simple tester. This is how. Put the detector in a large zip loc bag. Inhale, hold your breath for 20-30 seconds, then exhale your air into the zip loc bag and quickly seal it. Check the ppm value shown on the detector. Then, use readily available tables to calculate your blood carboxyhemoglobin value (i.e. what % of your hemoglobin is tied up with carbon monoxide).

What I did discover is that after being on a boat with blue exhaust, my blood was so laced with CO that I couldn't safely get into the water.

I also did another test, I took one single breath near the exhaust of my car. That raised my CO levels dramatically and it took 24 hours for them to return to normal.

The detector worked fine until another day on another boat, again with blue exhaust. I was holding the CO detector near my face to see what I was breathing in. The CO level reached such a massive value that not only was it dangerous to human health, but the sensor failed due to oversaturation of CO !! It was toast after that.

Eric

 

[rjack321]

Maybe I cofused the question. I am not thinking that CO needs to be monitored under water. What I am saying is when I hook up my air before I dive it would be nice for there to be a sensor built into my computer and indicate to me the CO levels of my tank.

You don't need to wait for some magic all-in-one unit.

Buy a CO monitor, works just like an O2 analyzer except you'll need a gas to calibrate with every so often. Dandydon has posted here often about various available CO monitors. I have an older one which I will be replacing soon.

 

[HowardE]

I was reading about some of the recent accidents that were attributed to CO in the tanks. I am curious why they don't integrate a CO detector into dive computers? Is this a technical restriction?

What recent accidents attributed to CO?

Thanks for the reply. I am sure someone somewhere is working out a gas analyser for computers. 2015 line up maybe? I would think it would be great to hit an analysis button on the computer and it tells you CO as well as your mixes. Maybe 2025 lineup for that?

I doubt that mainstream recreational divers would be interested in integrated gas analysis. With the expense of O2 cells, it's not really something that I think most recreational divers would even be interested in, or really need. Analyzing gas is something that you can do (once at the dive shop, boat, home, wherever), and its analyzed. Having it integrated into a dive computer would imply continuous analysis which is completely unnecessary in open circuit scuba.

Just my 2¢

 

[reefduffer]

I doubt that mainstream recreational divers would be interested in integrated gas analysis. With the expense of O2 cells, it's not really something that I think most recreational divers would even be interested in, or really need. Analyzing gas is something that you can do (once at the dive shop, boat, home, wherever), and its analyzed. Having it integrated into a dive computer would imply continuous analysis which is completely unnecessary in open circuit scuba.

Just my 2¢

Not really wanting to start an argument, but just consider the discussions about how different manufacturer/models of computer deal with the user forgetting to set the %O2, by defaulting to 21%, or 50% O2 and 79% N2. It's not the continuous analysis that would add value, it's the automatic analysis.

You can appeal to variations of the "gear solution for a skills problem" argument, but IMO this would make for safer diving of the vast rec diver demographic, by eliminating several kinds of human error related to the current O2 analysis regime.

As for the expense, I agree in the context of current technology. See my post #3 above where I explained that it doesn't exist because of what it would cost, if it were possible at all. But given some new approach to %O2 sensing that makes it about the cost and reliability of, say, wireless AI [which, BTW, I don't see the value of, but recognize that plenty do], it would be a very marketable and valuable feature IMO.

 

[HowardE]

Not really wanting to start an argument, but just consider the discussions about how different manufacturer/models of computer deal with the user forgetting to set the %O2, by defaulting to 21%, or 50% O2 and 79% N2. It's not the continuous analysis that would add value, it's the automatic analysis.

For the people who can't remember to change their mix... would these people calibrate their oxygen sensor every dive?

You can appeal to variations of the "gear solution for a skills problem" argument, but IMO this would make for safer diving of the vast rec diver demographic, by eliminating several kinds of human error related to the current O2 analysis regime.

What about the errors from non-calibration? Non-replacement of cells? The current Oxygen Analysis regime is part of analysis of a gas. Your cell must be calibrated every time. Rebreather divers spend several minutes calibrating cells on every dive. When you include an O2 sensor in the computer. You must include this strict regimen. It doesn't get easier.

As for the expense, I agree in the context of current technology. See my post #3 above where I explained that it doesn't exist because of what it would cost, if it were possible at all. But given some new approach to %O2 sensing that makes it about the cost and reliability of, say, wireless AI [which, BTW, I don't see the value of, but recognize that plenty do], it would be a very marketable and valuable feature IMO.

No offense meant... but do you know how an oxygen sensor works? Adding an oxygen sensor to an AI sensor would make it (the combined gas pressure/oxygen sensor) bigger than the regulator itself (in all likeliness).

Again... How would it calibrate? (Every Time?)

Think about it.

Also - while you're thinking... think about this... In the last 20 years has the oxygen senor technology changed?

I'm not arguing, just pointing out that the idea is extremely unlikely, and probably not very desirable in the marketplace. It would be an overpriced novelty. But again... this is just my opinion.

 

[reefduffer]

As for the expense, I agree in the context of current technology. See my post #3 above where I explained that it doesn't exist because of what it would cost, if it were possible at all. But given some new approach to %O2 sensing that makes it about the cost and reliability of, say, wireless AI

For the people who can't remember to change their mix... would these people calibrate their oxygen sensor every dive?

What about the errors from non-calibration? Non-replacement of cells? The current Oxygen Analysis regime is part of analysis of a gas. Your cell must be calibrated every time. Rebreather divers spend several minutes calibrating cells on every dive. When you include an O2 sensor in the computer. You must include this strict regimen. It doesn't get easier.

No offense meant... but do you know how an oxygen sensor works? Adding an oxygen sensor to an AI sensor would make it (the combined gas pressure/oxygen sensor) bigger than the regulator itself (in all likeliness).

Again... How would it calibrate? (Every Time?)

Think about it.

Also - while you're thinking... think about this... In the last 20 years has the oxygen senor technology changed?

I'm not arguing, just pointing out that the idea is extremely unlikely, and probably not very desirable in the marketplace. It would be an overpriced novelty. But again... this is just my opinion.

Well, I could just shut up and let what I take as a misunderstanding of what I wrote pass. I'll let my gut overtake my wits once more and try for understanding.

I am not talking about embedding anything like current O2 sensing technology in an AI computer. I agree that's a non-starter, and have been for three posts now.

I said "given some new approach to %O2 sensing"

When is the last time you calibrated your depth sensor, or SPG?

I don't have to invent it, just hypothesize it's invention. Nanotechnology something. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry on a million or so molecules. I'm in my mid 60's and a lifelong technologist, and today's technology is my early career's science fiction or outright magic. No hyperbole there, I mean that literally. GPS. Bar code readers, RFID. DNA analysis. The !@#$% iPad! I remember being in grad school when the first 4-banger pocket calculator arrived. I used a slide rule as a serious everyday tool for many years.

Heck, even automated gas chromatography-mass spectrometry at a bench-top lab-filling professional instrument level; I remember jaws dropping the first time we saw that.

What I was making a claim for was the utility of the function in the context of overcoming both the stipulated current cost and reliability obstacles. And I do believe that I made that very clear in earlier posts. I hope I have now.

 

[HowardE]

Ok. I guess you did want to argue?

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk