• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. 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. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

cyklon 300 nitrox compatible?

Discussion in 'Poseidon' started by yaml, May 3, 2012.

  1. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    I did not ask you what your policy was, I asked you the rational for your policy.

    Would you please share with us why have you found this to be "the best practice for our products when it comes to safety, using enriched gas"?

    I might point out that NOAA "invented" (well ... developed) nitrox. Morgan Wells did the safety experiments, and he determined (and defended his finding to the NOAA Diving Safety Board) that with respect to 40% (with a very reasonable safety margin) regulators required no special treatment or handling.

    So, either you have found problems that Morgan missed, or you're blowing smoke up our skirts for some reason that I simply can not fathom. Which is it ... and why?

    BTW: I have a large number of Poseidon regulators in my locker, I love them, and I use them often.
     
  2. bletso

    bletso Dive Shop

    # of Dives:
    Location: Louisville KY
    223
    42
    28
    Dealing with Poseidon you will find that they have their way and everyone else is either ignorant or mis-informed. They supply a lot of governments, (navies), with regs. These entities are suckers for precise procedures. Have you ever looked at Poseidon's requirements to service their Xtremes?

    Dale
     
  3. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    Aristotle said something along the lines of, "Law is mind without reason." I am starting to think that this applies here.

    On the subject of Nitrox cleaning I hardly think that anyone can accuse the folks (NOAA) who developed the procedures and performed the testing of being either "ignorant or misinformed." There is nothing wrong with advancing knowledge, that is a goal of ScubaBoard. If Poseidon (or anyone, for that matter) has done additional testing and experimentation that suggests a different conclusion, it is important that it be be shared and disseminated. However, if Poseidon is spreading misinformation that has no basis in reality, that also should be clearly and cleanly revealed to the diving public.
     
  4. Jorgen Nilsson

    Jorgen Nilsson Dive Equipment Manufacturer

    67
    2
    0
    Dear Sir.

    The rational for our policy is that the risk of an oxygen burn in a regulator increases when using gas with a content of oxygen that exceeds 21%, so if we treat our Enriched Air equipment as if it is to be used with 100% oxygen, we limit the risks of incidents/accidents caused by high levels of oxygen.

    So the policy is not based on any problems that Mr Wells or NOAA missed nor are we trying to "blow smoke up your skirt", it is simply our way of making the use of enriched air equipment as safe as possible.

     
  5. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    "Safe" is a binary concept, it means, "without risk." Things are ether "safe" or "not safe," it is not a matter of degree.

    Since Dr. Wells and NOAA determined that the use of Nitrox up to 40% oxygen poses no additional risk, I'd submit that the concept of, "making the use of enriched air equipment as safe as possible," by suggesting that all equipment used in such service be prepared as though it were to be use with 100% oxygen is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of Dr. Wells work; and at worst, well ... marketing bumph.
     
  6. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    "Safe" is a binary concept, it means, "without risk." Things are ether "safe" or "not safe," it is not a matter of degree.

    Since Dr. Wells and NOAA determined that the use of Nitrox up to 40% oxygen poses no additional risk, a finding now born out by 4 decades of operational experience, I'd submit that the concept of, "making the use of enriched air equipment as safe as possible," by suggesting that all equipment used in such service be prepared as though it were to be use with 100% oxygen is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of Dr. Wells work; and at worst, well ... marketing bumph.
     
  7. scubadiver888

    scubadiver888 Divemaster

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: North America
    1,504
    269
    83
    You are correct that Jorgen Nilsson's use of English is incorrect. This does not mean his rational is incorrect.

    I think who you believe will determine if his belief that requiring regulators to be oxygen clean for anything above 21% oxygen is "marketing bumph" or not. Having read "NITROX AND RECREATIONAL DIVING EQUIPMENT COMPATIBILITY:pRELIMINARY FINDINGS BY DEMA MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE. Bill N. Oliver c/o DEMA." I can see Poseidon's rational.

    Against Poseidon's position:

    • After literally millions of dives NOAA reported no incidence of injury related to compability of nitrox with scuba equipment.
    • IANTD and SDI/TDI cite their favourable safety record coupled with the operational experience of NOAA.
    • Others point to the OSHA and Navy practices that only specify an oxygen cleaning requirement for mixes exceeding 40%.

    For Poseidon's position:


    • Industrial applications require anything above 23.5% be treated as pure oxygen.
    • ANDI argues the conditions for use for nitrox in the recreational community may be broader than experienced by NOAA.
    • Former NASA engineer Elliot Forsyth indicates probability combustion is highly dependent on equipment configuration and operating pressure of the system. While probability is low, fires have occurred in systems below 40%.


    Some will look at this as Poseidon is being too conservative and telling people to throw money away on oxygen cleaning their regulators. Others will look at this as empirical evidence isn't real evidence and I'd rather spend the money to further reduce the risk of a fire.
     
  8. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    It is not my intent to critique Jorgen Nilsson's use of English, but the importance of "safety" as a binary concept is a philosophical one as well as a linguistic one. It was the philosophic consideration that I was appealing to.

    I knew Bill well when he worked at SeaQuest, but the reality is that Bill, when writing for DEMA, must be viewed as an apologist for the industry's initial rejection of nitrox.

    I do not see any logical rationale for Poseidon's position, nor has one been offered.
    Bottom line, literally millions of dives in many different environs and communities with zero incidents.

    Bottom line, there is a non scuba specification of 23.5% that exists without proffered evidence of issues if it is not followed, but even stipulating that there is exists a non-SCUBA REGULATOR issue, it is the SCUBA REGULATOR issue we are addressing here; ANDI argues about something that it has neither knowledge of nor experience with (e.g., NOAA's operational "conditions", but, as always, ANDI keeps it's eyes on the prize ... your wallet; Elliot Forsyth, a engineer from an understandably gun-shy NASA, states:

    "The faction of the recreational diving industry that holds fast to the “40 percent rule” for special-cleaning of nitrox systems references the OSHA document 29 CFR 1910.430 as its basis. Because this threshold is significantly higher than the others traditionally adopted by other industries and because it has such wide subscription in the recreational industry, it bares further study. First, all of 29 CFR 1910 subpart T applies to commercial diving operations. In section 1910.430, under “Equipment,” and specifically under section (i) “Oxygen Safety,” the standard states that equipment used with oxygen or mixtures over 40 percent shall be designed and cleaned for oxygen service. The validity of its application to the recreational diving industry can be debated, and has been debated for some time. This is because the standard contains much information not practiced by the recreational diving industry, does not directly address systems with equal to or less than 40 percent oxygen, and is considered such a “black sheep” compared to other oxygen-enrichment thresholds in other industries. Furthermore, the rationale behind the 40 percent value has been lost, though it is believed to be based on the commercial diving industry’s experience with standard scuba equipment many years ago at the time the standard was written."

    "Despite these factors, the 40 percent oxygen-cleaning threshold may not be unreasonable
    for the recreational diving industry. It may be that the industry concludes that the risk of fire
    without cleaning systems up to a 40 percent oxygen threshold is “tolerable.” This argument can
    only be supported, however, if individuals truly understand the level of risk that they deem
    “tolerable,” and if the risk is properly communicated to others in the industry, including the fact
    that fires are still possible in this environment."


    Actually the the rationale behind the 40 percent value has not been lost, though Elliot Forsyth may believe it to to be based on the commercial diving industry’s experience with standard scuba equipment many years before the OSHA standard was written, my understanding is that the 40% rule is a product of Morgan Wells work at the NOAA Experimental Diving Unit. If memory serves, they did quite a bit of testing and 40% is a conservative reduction from where they actually found problems in SCUBA REGULATORS occurring.

    Elliot Forsyth continues:
    "Is cleaning required? The unsatisfying but truthful answer to this question is a definite “maybe!” Because of the number of factors that contribute to a fire and the inherent risk of ignition in most nitrox systems, it is very difficult to specify a single value where special-cleaning is required for all scuba and fill systems, especially if the only factor considered is oxygen concentration. There may well exist systems that are well designed and are properly operated and maintained that can tolerate reasonable amounts of contamination without incident, even in a 40 percent oxygen environment. This must be true to some degree, in fact, or the number of fire incidents in the recreational diving industry would be higher. However, not all systems are this way."

    Again, as I understand it the number of REGULATOR fires in the recreational, scientific and military diving communities, is zero.

    Elliot Forsyth continues:

    "More test data and scientific study are needed before we can ultimately predict when and where a fire will occur. Standard industry practice is to be conservative in applications where scientific data and understanding are limited. This explains why most industries set their oxygen enrichment threshold values close to that of standard air. They have used technical understanding and judgment as a rationale for decisions, not just experience."

    But, the testing was done, and the operational experience is there, thus the suggestion that more data or study is required is silly. Clearly, when applied to SCUBA REGULATORS the "technical understanding and judgment" either does not apply or (I suspect more likely) never did apply, even in the other industries and applications.

    There is no empirical evidence of any fire hazard when using 40% or less in a conventional SCUBA REGULATOR.

    Elliot Forsyth claims that:

    "Though the frequency of nitrox fires, especially those in environments with less than 40 percent oxygen, is fewer than those in 100 percent oxygen, many have been reported."

    But then he amends that claim:
    "Perhaps the most common equipment experiencing nitrox fires in the recreational diving industry is fill stations. Fire incidents in systems using le ss than 40 percent oxygen are known to have occurred in aluminum and carbon steel compressor blocks, aluminum-bodied filter towers, fill station panel valves and regulators, and some pre-compression nitrox generating equipment used for continuous blending. The cause of these fires varies, but many are related to hydrocarbon or particulate contamination, be it from poor maintenance or otherwise, that may have been avoided through proper cleaning."

    and he closes with the tragic and inaplicable absurdity:
    "Hyperbaric chambers are other nitrox systems that have experienced fires. One of the most tragic chamber fires occurred in a 1.8-atmosphere air chamber (21 percent oxygen) in Milan, Italy, in 1997, killing 11 people."

    I might point out this chamber was not a nitrox system, that high ppO2 is rarely delivered in any way but through a BIBS (except in monoplace chambers) and that, BTW, there are lots of forest fires and house fires in 1.0 ATM (and less) at 21 percent oxygen.

    In any case, none of these are relevant to SCUBA REGULATORS, the topic of our conversation.
     
  9. SDAnderson

    SDAnderson Dive Charter

    # of Dives:
    Location: On a good day, Lake Michigan
    3,305
    77
    0
    Thal, you're setting an example for us of just how ugly the process of senescence can be. For pity's sake, crawl back under that stinking pile of uh-oh you crawled out from and stop the endless quibbling demonstrations of what a really super duper smart guy you are about everything.
     
  10. Thalassamania

    Thalassamania Diving Polymath ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: On a large pile of smokin' A'a, the most isolated
    22,171
    2,770
    113
    If you have something to say about the topic, please do ... if you want to pretend you're a "big guy" by saying nasty thing to me, go ahead ... I'm glad to be of service.
     

Share This Page