Switching between standard and enriched air

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Zaphod:
FWIW, I just attended a PSI Fill-Station and Hazmat course yesterday and they are currently promoting the idea (in their class) that air should NEVER be introduced into a Nitrox cylinder, regardless of the quality/grade of the air, etc., etc. If it is, then they say that the cylinder is no longer suitable for nitrox. Unfortunately, the instructor I had claims only to be the messenger and couldn't answer the tough questions (like, what about using NITROX21). So, here I am relaying what I was told - so don't shoot me either. According to PSI, there is currently some federal politicians (that PSI is involved with) that want to change the laws to reflect this thinking.


air should NEVER be introduced into a Nitrox cylinder, regardless of the quality/grade of the air, etc., etc.

Now how do you do PP blending???
If you can't introduce air into a Nitrox cylinder, what do you add after you put the O2 in????


EAN21??? is Oxymoron
Enriched Air Nitrox. if it is only 21% it is not enriched air.
 
MildlyDamp:
I recently purchased the Atomic Aquatics B2 regulator. Like many other regs, the instruction sheet specifically advises against swtiching back and forth between standard compressed air and enriched air. The salesperson at my LDS, who is a very experienced DM, said that this is just standard CYA language that's in most regulator manuals, and not to worry.

My question is - can I switch between standard and Nitrox? If so, do I have to take various precautions (e.g. having the reg cleaned first)?
There is a reason why this CYA language is in most (if not all) manuals and that is that people got hurt. You are not the first to ask this question and it continues to amaze me how many people vent their opinion about this subject. The issue is that we DMs, instructors, store owners, tech and recreational divers lack the means to test what switching does to your reg (and your HP hoses and SPG) and of course it also depends highly on the quality of the air.

You can safely assume that manufacturers do perform these tests and if they found it necessary to publish a warning (which does not exactly help sell regs...) you can also assume that there is some risk. The only independent study on this subject that I am aware of was conducted by NASA. Unfortunately this was not representative of the situation that recreational/technical divers are in. So my advice is to O2 clean your reg before switching from standard air to any nitrox mix.
 
...can anyone explain to me the motivation behind the concept of never introducing air into a Nitrox cylinder, not to mention the re-hydro requirement? Is it a conspiracy to double the number of tanks sold to the diving public....or are hydro testing stations not getting enough business? ...and if safety is the motivation, how can frequent re-hydroing of tanks ,and the resulting metal-fatigue, be a good thing? ....and is the same group that frowns on overfilling--for safety reasons, yet demands multiple re-hydroings, which stress a tank way beyond the overfilling with gas at pressures commonly seen in the real-world?

Zaphod, I fail to understand how this 'new' regulation improves the alledged concern ...." having a little remaining gas in a cylinder and then filling with another mixture (and presumably not measuring the O2 content" . What happens if you dive an EAN36 mix, consume most of the tank, then, for example, refill with EAN28...without analyzing the total mix, god only knows what's really in the tank...the requirement to replace consumed Nitrox with fresh Nitrox doesn't address different concentrations of Nitrox.

The only legitimate issue is the cleanliness of the gas, air, Nitrox, whatever.....if it meets/beats the hydrocarbon contamination standards, then it's safe regardless.

I'm curious what defines 'gas type' as well........I can just see it now, do the 1st dive on EAN 28, then rush over to the fire station for a quickie rehydro, because I'm diving EAN 36 on my 2nd dive of the day.......

...or maybe I can just being an EAN 23 tank, and an EAN 24 tank, and an EAN 25 tank....and...etc!

Karl
 
ScubaRon:
The only independent study on this subject that I am aware of was conducted by NASA. Unfortunately this was not representative of the situation that recreational/technical divers are in. So my advice is to O2 clean your reg before switching from standard air to any nitrox mix.

You obviously didn't read the NASA study.

I did.

NASA tried to force ignition in GROSSLY contaminated regulators, by hooking them up to high pressure gas sources with extremely-fast-acting (pizeo-actuated) electrical valves that could pressurize the line leading to the regulator in a few milliseconds.

This is much faster than you can do so with a manual valve, even if you slam it open, and is HUNDREDS of times faster than you will do so if you have a brain and open valves slowly with the purge depressed when you do so.

They were very interested in this for all the obvious reasons - NASA uses O2 all over the place, from aircraft to spacecraft to training purposes and on and on and on. They were caught offguard during the Apollo 1 fire - nobody thought it was as dangerous as it was to have 100% O2 in there, even at 1 ATM, and they found out exactly how bad it can be, as the materials that killed the astronauts would not have burned in such a fashion in atmospheric air. Now they're anally careful about such things, and for good reason - three men died as a consequence of not understanding where the line was, and what the risks were.

The speed of cycling is important because adiabatic heating is dependant on the rate of rise of pressure at any given location. Anywhere that there is a constriction (e.g. quick change of direction, orifice, etc) in a gas path you can get localized adiabatic heating. Basic chemistry of fire tells us that you need heat, fuel, and an oxidizer to get a fire.

There is always fuel in a regulator in the form of seats and O-rings, and those little nooks and crannies are GREAT little places to get quick changes in direction of the gas (specifically, a nice dead end!) Think those "oxygen compatable" O-rings won't burn in pure O2? Think again. Even at 1 ATM, they will. Try it with a gas welding outfit if you'd like - make sure you have somewhere safe (e.g. ceramic that is rated for that level of heating, a welding backstop, etc, and a fume hood!), turn on the Oxygen, bathe the piece in it (atmospheric pressure only!) then try to light it with a common long-stick butane lighter (e.g. a BBQ lighter). Poof goes the O-ring and/or seat!

Next contestant please!

(BTW, brass, the common regulator body metal, DOES NOT burn in pure O2 at pressures up to about 10000 psi. That's one of many reasons why its a great metal to use for regulators!)

The only difference between the O2-compatable parts and non-O2-compatable ones is the ignition temperature. Its HARDER (requires more heat) to get the O2-compatable ones lit, but once they are.....

Oh, BTW, adiabatic heating is quite capable of producing several hundred degrees of temperature in small localized places. More than enough to touch it off.

Anyway, what NASA found was:

1. Below 50%, there was almost no difference between air and EANx in terms of ability to force ignition. The common 40% recommendation was drawn from this, in part, as its a decent safety margin over the 50% tests.

2. At or above 50%, the risk was essentially identical to that of 100% O2. So those who think they're increasing safety by using an 80/20 deco bottle instead of 100%, in terms of combustion risk, are deluding themselves. Both will light with almost the same effort.

3. Even GROSSLY contaminated regulators were difficult, but not impossible, to get to light off with mixes under 50%, but remember these were EXTREME conditions. Also remember that the risk was almost the same for say 32% and 21% - the PPO2 is very high in a scuba tank!

4. It is a LOT easier to get a reg to light off on high (over 50%) FO2s, to the point that care is definitely called for in that case, contaminated or not. Slamming valves on those tanks is just plain asking for it. Also, regs made of Titanium and Aluminum (e.g. the SP "UL" series, and all the titanium regs) are EXTREMELY unwise on high FO2 mixes, as the METAL will burn, not just the O-rings and seats! Get one of THOSE lit and it will NOT be a flash fire that is self-limiting due to exhaustion of fuel - it will instead be a conflageration. Indeed, one medical regulator company that made med-grade O2-regs out of Aluminum was forced to recall them after a number of them ignited in use (!)

From the data there is no particular reason to believe that there is significant risk from mixes in the recreational venue (< 40%) used with conventional regulators. There IS a risk with non-O2-clean tanks and valves if you are PP mixing, since you must put in 100% O2 before you top the tank with air, and during that process you can initiate a flash fire with disasterous results. However, that risk is easily controlled - no heat, no fire, and the way to avoid heat is to put that O2 in S.L.O.W.L.Y.

The CYA language is still there, but its like the language that warns you that you can fall off a ladder and break your neck. There are things in this world that are best met with a big fat "DUH!" when we hear 'em.
 
Genesis:
You obviously didn't read the NASA study.
Of course I read the study. The regs that were tested were regs used internally at JSC and I like to think that NASA uses better air than many of us. So while they may have been "grossly contaminated", they may have been pretty clean compared to what many rec divers are using.

The report also concluded with the recommendation to O2 clean the regs and to keep them clean.
 
Sorry, but I carelessly used EAN and nitrox interchangeably, and, of course, I know of what you speak. Since the primary issue we're discussing is compliance with CGA rules and DOT regulations, it may be important to point out these organizations may not have a category of "nitrox" but only EAN. All of the pre-printed (not custom) VIP stickers I've seen available from the training agencies say EAN. So, perhaps there's a reason for using that nomenclature. I'm not willing to buy the standards from the CGA in order to find out. If they only adopt the category of EAN, then we're back to the same problem.

In further discussions with Bill, it seems that these issues are not currently law, but CGA guidelines with no enforceability right now. However, PSI is including these statements in their training material because DOT is considering adopting them at which point they will become law.

Genesis:
Actually, "Nitrox" is ANY Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture. It is entirely possible (although I can't come up with a particularly good reason to do so) to mix up some EANx15 or somesuch, albiet that would require either de-oxygenated air for the top or a tank full of nitrogen as the "PP" component.

So don't call it an "enriched" air tank. Call it "oxygen compatible Nitrox." That can be anything from 0.1% to 99% oxygen, the balance nitrogen, with a low enough contaminent (hydrocarbon, etc) count to remain safe in an enriched atmosphere.

Now you break no CGA or DOT rules; your tank is properly labelled, and it contains what it says it contains.
 
scubafanatic:
...can anyone explain to me the motivation behind the concept of never introducing air into a Nitrox cylinder, not to mention the re-hydro requirement?
I have read somewhere that the tank material actually absorbs certain gases (I believe it was CO2) and that these may be released later on, creating contamination. Perhaps this has prompted that rule. I doubt that it is relevant for switching between nitrox and air, but I can imagine that it is important for other gases.
 
If you'd read my followup post, you'd see that the primary issue is one of labelling and legality w.r.t. the CGA and DOT. If you want to do PP blending in your cylinder, go right ahead. They don't care. They just care if you label it properly before you blow up the neighborhood.

Yes, EAN21. That's my point. Please read c a r e f u l l y.

DEEPLOU:
air should NEVER be introduced into a Nitrox cylinder, regardless of the quality/grade of the air, etc., etc.

Now how do you do PP blending???
If you can't introduce air into a Nitrox cylinder, what do you add after you put the O2 in????


EAN21??? is Oxymoron
Enriched Air Nitrox. if it is only 21% it is not enriched air.
 
ScubaRon:
Of course I read the study. The regs that were tested were regs used internally at JSC and I like to think that NASA uses better air than many of us. So while they may have been "grossly contaminated", they may have been pretty clean compared to what many rec divers are using.

The report also concluded with the recommendation to O2 clean the regs and to keep them clean.

Yes, for high FO2 service - the reason they were doing the tests.

Nobody is disputing cleaning regs for mixes containing more than 40% O2. What's being disputed is the need to clean them for mixes within the recreational range.

Indeed, I know that claim of "need" is BS. How come? Because DNAX, and others, make a "de-nitrogenation" membrane system that produces recreational nitrox mixes - and their system DOES NOT contain, or require, a hyperfilter.

Indeed, those systems take air, reverse-osmosis process it to remove some of the nitrogen, and then compress it in a traditional, oil-lubricated compressor.

Not only have I never heard of such a system blowing up, they are commercially sold in pre-packaged self-contained units that are quite suitable for charter boats or smaller shops that wish to produce (and bank) recreational Nitrox.

A larger version of one of them is indeed in one of the local shops, and that is how he produces the Nitrox he sells.

I won't fill my Nitrox tanks there, because I DO PP mix my gas from my own compressor, and as such I will not put anything other than hydrocarbon-free gas in them - but for those who have cylinders that are NOT O2-clean, he not only can but WILL fill them, and does. This is very popular around here with guys who sometimes dive air, sometimes dive Nitrox.

Indeed, the standard "Nitrox-style" VIS sticker contains TWO punch-outs - one for cylinders that are suitable for premix of less than 40% FO2, and one for Oxygen Service, which is suitable for any FO2 up to 100%.

The former does not require oxygen cleaning, the latter DOES, and that you also never introduce anything with potential hydrocarbons (e.g. Grade-E gas) into it.

If your red herring argument had validity, the shops throughout the US that use these systems would have had exploding cylinders left, right and center - but it simply is not happening, and never has.
 
First, it's not new. The regulations have been around for longer than most people on this board have been diving. Second, if you're not analyzing your mix after your cylinder's been filled, then you shouldn't be diving nitrox and the shop shouldn't be selling it to you. That aside, the CGA and DOT don't seem to care if you're using EAN24, EAN80 or EAN27.2, they just want to know that it's EAN. What they seem to care about is that 19 - 23% O2/N2 mix is AIR. Third, what requirement to replace consumed with fresh? Don't think I said that...

scubafanatic:
Zaphod, I fail to understand how this 'new' regulation improves the alledged concern ...." having a little remaining gas in a cylinder and then filling with another mixture (and presumably not measuring the O2 content" . What happens if you dive an EAN36 mix, consume most of the tank, then, for example, refill with EAN28...without analyzing the total mix, god only knows what's really in the tank...the requirement to replace consumed Nitrox with fresh Nitrox doesn't address different concentrations of Nitrox.

The only legitimate issue is the cleanliness of the gas, air, Nitrox, whatever.....if it meets/beats the hydrocarbon contamination standards, then it's safe regardless.

I'm curious what defines 'gas type' as well........I can just see it now, do the 1st dive on EAN 28, then rush over to the fire station for a quickie rehydro, because I'm diving EAN 36 on my 2nd dive of the day.......

...or maybe I can just being an EAN 23 tank, and an EAN 24 tank, and an EAN 25 tank....and...etc!

Karl
 

Back
Top Bottom