Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Here's how it works. There are a lot of different specs for O2 for different purposes. These specs originate from different agencies, but most gas suppliers get them out of CGA publications and good practice guidelines (and may not even be aware of where they originate). These specs set minimums - for example, med O2 must be at least 99% pure, and welding O2 must be at least 99.5% pure and aviators must have less than 7ppm of water in it. Now, that doesn't mean that the welding O2 is really any cleaner than the medical, or the aviators really any drier - the stuff out of the vat tends to run drier than the minimums for aviators and purer than the minimums for everything - about 99.8% on the average where I buy it. So the difference is usually academic. However, the lab does the tests necessary to qualify the gas for what it is being sold for. So if you read the specs, you can reach all kinds of odd conclusions, like welding O2 being purer than medical, or aviators being drier, but in the real world they are not because no one in the US at least is bottling gas to the minimums. Usually the only reason a tank of O2 would fail to meet any particular standard is because someone screwed up in the bottling stage - for example, my supplier tells me the only time they have a bottle fail is an occassional bottle of aviators due to putting it in a freshly hydroed tank that had miniscule amounts of water left in it from the hydro. When that happens they throw a vacuum on it an couple times, refill and retest. So for our purposes, it's all the same. If you are mixing for yourself, buy whatever is cheapest and easiest. If you are mixing commercially you probably better buy aviators. >See, this is part of the problem. The story I get from our gas supplier is >just slightly different than the one that others get. *ALL* 02 comes from >one big tank. The biggest difference (to the best of my limited knowledge) >is the analysis, documentation, and tracking of the containers. > >I could easily be wrong. > >Scott > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jess Armantrout <armantrout@wo*.at*.ne*> >To: Scott <scottk@hc*.co*>; Sean M. Cary <smcary@mi*.co*> >Cc: Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 2:19 PM >Subject: Re: Oxygen Perscription > > >> ironically, the FAA has no regs re.:ABO quality. >> >> Jess >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott <scottk@hc*.co*> >> To: Sean M. Cary <smcary@mi*.co*> >> Cc: Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >> Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 1:26 PM >> Subject: Re: Oxygen Perscription >> >> >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Sean M. Cary <smcary@mi*.co*> >> >To: Scott <scottk@hc*.co*> >> >Cc: Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> >> >Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 12:13 PM >> >Subject: Re: Oxygen Perscription >> > >> > >> >Ahhh. Around here, (Washington state) USP is <$20.00 a bottle. >> > >> >Not to rehash the old, dead, pounded like a piece of cheap veal, thread, >> but >> >as far as I know, the *only* difference between ABO and USP is that the >ABO >> >has been tested, and the test *documented* according to FAA regs. >> > >> >Scott >> > >> > >> >>Aviators Breathing Oxygen...Avitor Grade >> >> >> >>It's dryer then the med o2 also.. >> >> >> >>Sean >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >> >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]