Nitrox Tank

[Akimbo]

Ajduplessis, I can certainly see how someone could develop a cynical/sceptical attitude towards nitrox and O2 handling practices promoted in the scuba industry. ...

Let’s not forget that the vast majority of high pressure oxygen used in the world is for welding and burning. Anyone who has ever visited a steel fabrication shop, body shop, or ship yard can recognize that a science degree or hospital cleanliness isn’t required to safely work with HP O2. Many of us have seen Oxygen-acetylene torches that are decades old, covered in steel grinding particles, and with O2 regulators that have never been serviced (because they keep working). When was the last time you heard of an industrial oxygen explosion?

It isn’t that hard to prevent. Go to your local gas supplier and look in the back. There are hundreds of 220+ Ft³ oxygen bottles in back being filled, delivered to customers, and returned every day. Statistics prove that some very simple precautions have made it very safe to work with. Industry is pretty vigilant about these precautions and it doesn’t take much training to convey them.

 

[deep in jersey]

The temp to ignite is close to 1000 degrees .I dont think you have to worry unless you put a torch or throw the tank into a fire.

 

[gkwalt]

I think the original question got lost in the discussion of exploding O2. OSHA, which is governing commercial diving requires O2 cleaning when the O2 content exceeds 40%. However, CGA, NASA and PSI/PCI require an O2 clean cylinder with O2>23.5%, which is the definition of nitrox in 29CFR 1910.401. O2 cleaning is not magic. A dilute solution of Simple Green tumbled in the tank for awhile will remove hydrocarbons. Then the tank must be dried and O2 compatible O-rings and valve thread lube must be used. Inspecting the tank with black light is better than the standard white light. Once a tank is certified O2 clean they should not be filled with air.

These are best practice recommendations...not necessarily what happens in the real world.

 

[WetBoy101]

Thank you!!! I was wondering how many replies I would get to my question before someone answered with a simple answer that I could understand...Simple green! Wow!!!!!

 

[fdog]

I think the original question got lost in the discussion of exploding O2. OSHA, which is governing commercial diving requires O2 cleaning when the O2 content exceeds 40%. However, CGA, NASA and PSI/PCI require an O2 clean cylinder with O2>23.5%, which is the definition of nitrox in 29CFR 1910.401. O2 cleaning is not magic. A dilute solution of Simple Green tumbled in the tank for awhile will remove hydrocarbons. Then the tank must be dried and O2 compatible O-rings and valve thread lube must be used. Inspecting the tank with black light is better than the standard white light. Once a tank is certified O2 clean they should not be filled with air.

These are best practice recommendations...not necessarily what happens in the real world.

I'm sure you accidentally made a typing mistake here, and omitted adding "non-oxygen grade" or "non-hyperfiltered" to "air".


All the best, James

 

[boulderjohn]

Thank you!!! I was wondering how many replies I would get to my question before someone answered with a simple answer that I could understand...Simple green! Wow!!!!!

If you had wanted to know the process for turning a standard tank into an O2 clean tank, you should have asked that in your question. It would have gotten you that answer a lot faster than waiting weeks until someone blundered into what you wanted to know.

 

[WetBoy101]

If you had wanted to know the process for turning a standard tank into an O2 clean tank, you should have asked that in your question. It would have gotten you that answer a lot faster than waiting weeks until someone blundered into what you wanted to know.

My question was "What makes a tank suitable for Nitrox"

Answer "Cleaning it with Simple Green to rempve Hydrocarbons, etc"

Read the OP!!!

 

[boulderjohn]

My question was "What makes a tank suitable for Nitrox"

Answer "Cleaning it with Simple Green to rempve Hydrocarbons, etc"

Read the OP!!!

I did read it. It is ambiguous at best.

If you had been one of my writing students, I would say that if it took two weeks before anyone understood what you had written, and everyone else took a different meaning to it, then perhaps the communication could have been written more clearly.

 

[oxyhacker]

More like "maybe" than "wow". Like most simple answers to complex problems, it's easily misunderstood.

Thank you!!! I was wondering how many replies I would get to my question before someone answered with a simple answer that I could understand...Simple green! Wow!!!!!

 

[idocsteve]

I did read it. It is ambiguous at best.

Reminds me of that old SNL skit.

Forman to employees as he walks out of the operations room: "You can't put too much fuel in a nuclear reactor!"

He leaves..

The two employees look at each other and they go back and forth in an exchange, which was actually funny, which is a rarity for that once epic show.

"Did he mean that if you put too much fuel in a nuclear reactor, it's going to be a bad thing?"

"No, he meant you can't put too much fuel in a nuclear reactor, don't worry, let's dump it all in there!"