Talk:Nitrox

Corrosion dangers of nitrox

The article mentions the dangers of being O2 clean and flamability. May I suggest some information about the corrosive nature of 02 and that o2 compatible materials be used such as 0-rings, seals, and such that could fail with repeated exposure to Nitrox, in addition to just being O2 clean, equipment should be o2 compatible. Also related would be the accelerated rate of pitting and oxydation of metals and greater likelihood of internal tank corrosion. Probably under the Dangers or precautionary headings. Mbeatty 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PADI bashing? Not moi

I know we can't bash PADI on the article page. If they want to ignore the Compressed Gas Association and pump anybody's cylinders, clean or not, full of 40% nitrox, fine with me. I didn't say it was a bad idea in the article, did I? I just put in a reference which all can read.

I love PADI. It really stands for Pals, And Daily Inspiration. The stuff about Pay And Dive Immediately is just jealousy from people who don't make as much money, and have to come up with ideas sooner, before they're, er, mainlined by PADI. But they're a great bunch of guys at PADI. Really they are. XXXX from me. 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharris (talk • contribs)

M26

Do we need to include the new (EU only) BS EN 144-3:2003 standard in this article?? In normal speak, the M26 valve for tanks with an oxygen content greater than 22% which becomes compulsory standard in the EU in august 2008. Scubafish 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We've avoided this, because the nearly universal opinion is that the standard sucks. Nothing prevents you from dirtying up your fancy nitrox tank and its fancy M26 valve by putting air or junk in it, except human attentiveness. Which you should be using anyway when you see the sticker. There is no making systems foolproof because fools are so ingenius. To make this standard work to prevent fools from fouling it, all systems which deliver anything but air would have to be fitted with M26 fittings so they couldn't be used with air and wouldn't accept air at any point-- sort of the way nitrous oxide fittings are different in anesthesia machines. But since air is almost universally used in blending high O2 mixes, especially on live aboard boats, this isn't going to happen, so the whole system is not going to work, except perhaps to connect big and little tanks that never contain anything but pure 100% O2. Which is a very tiny percentage of the total tank number out there. For everything else, if your system accepts air for blending NITROX it can be used to put air into a NITROX tank, no matter what fittings it all has. This is POV. Perhaps if we can find somebody to defend this stupid idea, we could present them both side by side, in neutral language. But good luck on that. Ah, Europeans and their nanny regulations. They love medical and tech regulation as much as Americans love drug laws. I'm surprised it wasn't Canadians who came up with the BS EN 144-3:2003 idea. But no doubt Canadians will love it. (Of course, it's not all one-way--- if we could only get America to accept the 300 bar scuba tank transport standard for steels...). SBHarris 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a share in a dive centre and I know it sucks and I will ignore the issue when it comes to my own tanks. I just thought it would be nice to include it just as the different types of valves are still being revered to in some dive organisations and even on Wikipedia (see J-valve). Scubafish 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cylinder markings

The article states that cylinders containing anything other than air need to be marked. I'd like to point out that this sillyness is advocated by only part of the diving community. Forcing divers to use a certain color for their cylinder depending on contents or forcing people to decorate their cylinders with these silly Nitrox stickers, does of course do nothing to help in determining the contents of a tank. The only thing on backgas cylinders should be a piece of tape with the analysis, date and an MOD for the gas. The only thing on a deco cylinder should be an MOD (and maybe a name). Nitrox stickers and other assorted nonsense only confuse matters and are no help at all.Abiermans (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Most NITROX isn't even used for deco-- it's used as a primary in sport diving. A big green/yellow NITROX sticker is a sign that the tank has been used mostly for Nitrox by the resort (hopefully ONLY for Nitrox). It guarantees nothing, but it's likely to be cleaner than the average tank which has been used for air. Also, the big green stickers make the NITROX cylinders a little easier to find on the rental dive boat. If you're at a nice resort, you certainly analyzed your own gas, but you didn't necessarily haul it all down to the dock and put it onboard. If you're diving NITROX that marker is helpful, as you only have to look at a few cylinders for nametags. A big green sticker is larger than a small tag. (Of course it must have the small personal tag ALSO) SBHarris 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the text, please update if anyone dissagrees with what I wrote. --Stefan ^talk 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The big yellow and green stickers is important for divers not trained in nitrox. They might not notice or understand the smaller blend-tags and accidentally use a tank that is not suitable for them. One can also spot them on a distance. I have personally stopped a customer in a dive shop, that I knew was not nitrox trained, from loading a nitrox tank into the boot of their car... Gorm (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I corrected a minor spelling error as well. Whether Nitrox is used as a backgas or decogas depends mostly on what type of dive is being done. For most recreational divers it is indeed the backgas. I'd like to also add that cylinder cleaning is far more important for decocylinders since it is those cylinders that are seeing O2 contents higher than 36%, but this also depends on how cylinders are filled. Filling with pre mixed gas versus mixing pure components. Abiermans (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Is there any reason this article is called "Enriched Air Nitrox" and not "Nitrox"?

• The Lead talks exclusively about nitrox
• The article states "it can refer to mixtures that are leaner in oxygen than air" - which of course is not "Enriched Air", by definition.
• Wikipedia article names normally capitalise the first word, but not the subsequent words (it helps when you link to, or search for the article). Why use a rule-breaking article name when there is a perfectly good alternative ("Nitrox")?
• 28 pages link to "Enriched Air Nitrox", but 59 pages already link to "Nitrox" (and are then redirected)

I'd like to propose the article is renamed "Nitrox" and the alternate names become redirects - unless somebody can see a good reason not to? --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me. I can see arguments both ways, but on balance "Nitrox" is probably a better name. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Nitrox.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

EAN =

The move to naming it safe-air and enriched-air was IIRC to avoid confusion (or trade mark issues) with nitrous-oxide boosters for racing cars which were also commonly called nitrox in the USA.

Requested move

For the reasons given in the section above, I'm requesting that this article (Enhanced Air Nitrox) is renamed "Nitrox". There seems no dissent over the past week, but I can't move it over the redirect myself since the existing redirect page ("Nitrox") has a non-empty history (an instance of vandalism). --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Probably now non-controversial. Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy move Per article content and WP:COMMONNAME. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MOD for EAN32

(With thanks to 66.142.186.235 for bringing this to my attention:) The article contains the following statement:

EAN32 is common because it is the mixture with the maximum concentration of oxygen that allows the diver to go to the full depth of recreational diving's "No Decompression Limit" for air.

However, EAN32 achieves a ppO2 of 1.4 bar at a depth of 34 metres (112 ft). I have never seen a definition of recreational diving's "No Decompression Limit" for air as 34 metres (112 ft), so I request that a citation is made to support the assertion, or that the statement above is removed from the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how that got in there. The probable reason for the popularity of EAN32, a least as a boat-concentrator supplied gas (and for which I don't have a reference) is that EAN32 doesn't give you a ppO2 over 1.6 bar at any depth you're likely to be at in "sport diving" (130 ft, in turn set by narcosis concerns on air). Or even over 1.4 for any depth you're likely to be at for more than a couple of mintutes. Sport divers hardly ever go below 110 ft (it's dark and spooky and cold) and if they do, it's only for a minute or two (some usually looking a some unusually interested thing on a wall, in very bright sun and very clear water). This makes your wrist computer howl and your buddy and divermaster start buzzing and tapping their tanks, and it's just not something that divers do for long (it also uses gas like mad, so everybody knows it will cut your dive short and make you have to swim shallower than your group for the rest of the dive, trying to conserve gas, thus missing all the interesting reef stuff they are seeing). So EAN32 is extremely unlikely to kill anybody from ox-tox seizures, even if misused and mistaken for air in sport diving as it's usually done in groups. And that is probably why many resorts are so happy to supply it, when supplying gas for refill lines off a main live-aboard. If you screw up and refill with EAN32 for somebody who really isn't nitrox certified, it's very likely that no harm will be done anyway. SBHarris 22:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit - Purpose section

I've slightly edited the Purpose section to clarify the potential advantages of nitrox. In summary, I wanted to remove the implication that use of nitrox is inherently safer with respect to decompression sickness. This is only true when diving short of your dive table (such as diving nitrox on an air table), and is true for any gas. Over diving nitrox will bend one just as well as over diving air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathat (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the article makes no mention of being "safer". It said:

• Reducing the proportion of nitrogen by increasing the proportion of oxygen reduces the risk of decompression sickness

which is absolutely true if you think about it. It doesn't need a comparison with "standard air" (whatever that might be). For example, EAN36 will always reduce the risk of DCS compared with EAN32. If you need a qualifier, then "for the same dive profile" would make sense. You'll also find (as I did some time ago) that the purists will insist that 100% oxygen is not nitrox by definition. Of course, nobody in their right mind would use EAN80 as a deco mix, when pure O2 for a "Baker's Dozen" of reasons (as GIiv put it). Nevertheless, that might as well be removed as, strictly speaking, it's not relevant to a nitrox article. I'll make changes and I'd be happy to see if we can find a consensus here on the best text. --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible wording error?

In the last para of the "Dangers" section, the wording is "Of the three commonly applied methods of producing enriched air mixes (continuous blending, partial pressure blending, and membrane separation systems, only partial pressure blending would require the valve and cylinder components to be oxygen cleaned for mixtures with less than 40% oxygen. The other two methods ensure that the equipment is never subjected to greater than 40% oxygen content." At the end of the first sentance, should "less than" not be "more than"? Apologies if I have misunderstood, but this seemed to be the wrong way around to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.222.2 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (moving to foot of discussion page per convention)

I think the wording is accurate as it stands. For any mixture above 40% O
₂, conventional wisdom dictates that the valve and cylinder be oxygen clean, so the mixing method would be irrelevant. However, for mixtures less than 40% O
₂ only partial pressure blending would expose the cylinder and valve to oxygen fractions above 40% (as the cylinder is normally partially filled from 100% O
₂ before topping off with air). So it is true to say that filling a cylinder with mixes less than 40% O
₂ by continuous blending or membrane separation systems do not require oxygen clean cylinders and valves. That is, I believe, what the sentence you are querying states. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade to B-class

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. There are some minor items which remain uncited.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article. If anything important is missing, I didn't notice the lack.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content is organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly. The Manual of Style has been followed fairly closely.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are included where they are relevant and useful to the content and available.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with a broad audience in mind. The article does not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms are explained where necessary.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nitrox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060426185643/http://www.andihq.com:80/pages/mainpage.html to http://www.andihq.com/pages/mainpage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nytrox

I've just reverted the addition of a section about the use of a nitrous oxide–oxygen mixture (called Nytrox) as a rocket fuel. The source https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.B34768 is interesting, but I feel that it properly belongs in the Nitrous oxide fuel blend article, not here. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just reverted the same mistaken addition again. For avoidance of doubt:

• Nitox is a mixture of two gases: nitrogen (N₂) and oxygen (O₂.
• "Nytrox" is a mixture of two other gases: nitrous oxide (N₂O) and oxygen (O₂.

The two mixtures are not the same and "nytrox" is off-topic for the nitrox article. --RexxS (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)