Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

At 11:41 AM 11/12/95, RatDiver wrote:
>I see a "big deal" in putting *air*, hydrocarbon free or otherwise into a tank
>marked for nitrox.
>
>Mis-use is a mislabeled tank with regard to its contents, not the purity of its
>contents.  It's mis-use if the tank is filled with *non* hydrocarbon-free
>nitrox
>or hydrocarbon free air.  I do not see the problem as "what could happen"
>or how
>dangerous is this...   The tank should contain what its identification says.
>That only makes sense.
>
>The fact that someone can create a scenario showing how 21% in a nitrox tank
>might not hurt anyone is specious to the labeing argument.  We can create
>scenarios going both ways all day long.  We dont bend rules simply because no
>one might get hurt.  We adhere to the rules for the unforseen and the
>unexpected.
>
>What can the reasonable person expect to find inside, based on what the outside
>says or doesn't say?

I'd say that a person could reasonably expect to find air in an unmarked
tank, and some unknown mixture of gasses in a marked tank.

The key part of the definition is 'unknown'.  A marked tank must be analyzed
prior to use.  If the analysis reveals 21% O2, and the tank is marked 'nitrox'
it may be reasonable to assume the balance of the gas is N2, but I'm not
too sure about this.  My nitrox tanks have a content sticker with entries
for %O2, %N2 and %He, which kind of implies that they might contain trimix.

I think the purpose of the marking is to alert the user that no assumptions
should be made about the gas content of the tank; it's not a guarantee of
the tank content, at best it's a reminder for the owner.

My $0.2,

Scott.

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]