Effectiveness of oxygen concentrator for supplemental o2

If you read the user manual, the particular one posted by the OP is rated to 10,000’. I dont know what that means, it’s probably a legal limit to protect the company.

All concentrator are going to lose flow once they get into higher altitudes. The question is when and by how much. No way to tell as it may vary by individual machine since you’re talking about pushing it to the limits of its own mechanics.
 
The unit quoted only puts out 1L/Min. That's even marginal for a patient at sea level with a cannula that needs supplemental oxygen. Most aviation units feeding regular canulas are set for 2L/Min (and in fact, this is what we set our patients on when we use bottled oxygen).
 
If it fails at altitude, best have lugged the O2 tanks with you.
 
I went with the 79 +29 cu ft approach, two tanks. The concentrator is essentially a molecular sieve at 15,00 there is about half an atmosphere so you get half as much concentration. No bueno.
 
bbchien said:
I went with the 79 +29 cu ft approach, two tanks. The concentrator is essentially a molecular sieve at 15,00 there is about half an atmosphere so you get half as much concentration. No bueno.
Click to expand...

Half the concentration by fraction of the O2% as a percentage of the resulting "air" or half the quantity of oxygen as opposed to what you'd get using the unit at sea level? Being ignorant of the workings of the device, I would assume the latter.
 
Sieve of absolute # of molecules. so as the ppO2 decreases and you need more of your molecules from the device, it's output falls off.
 
...and as I pointed out, this one was lousy to begin with. Only a liter/min flow. That's not even enough for one person.
 
flyingron said:
...and as I pointed out, this one was lousy to begin with. Only a liter/min flow. That's not even enough for one person.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure you indicated a standard cannula in a earlier post...however if it was the oximizer/oxisaver variant then 1 lpm should be more than adequate for a single person and perhaps just enough for two.
 
a friend of mine is hiking at 210 (everest) next week.
I said, 'my 02 became disconnected at 190 a couple of weeks ago and I thought I was going to pass out!'
I hope she is safe (pulmonary oedema). And isn't there only 50% PO2 at 180?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
a friend of mine is hiking at 210 (everest) next week.
I said, 'my 02 became disconnected at 190 a couple of weeks ago and I thought I was going to pass out!'
I hope she is safe (pulmonary oedema). And isn't there only 50% PO2 at 180?
Click to expand...
At about 15-18,000 feet, you see ~1/2 sea level atmospheric pressure. Assuming the composition of the air remains the same, you also get ~1/2 the partial pressure of oxygen (or any other component of air) at that altitude compared to sea level.
 
Sinistar said:
I am pretty sure you indicated a standard cannula in a earlier post...however if it was the oximizer/oxisaver variant then 1 lpm should be more than adequate for a single person and perhaps just enough for two.
Click to expand...

That was about what I was thinking...
 
Oxygen tank is really simple technology. Not a whole lot to break. I'm big on simple in airplanes. Cheap too.

The US military went with the oxygen concentrators. Hasn't worked out terribly well.
 
steingar said:
Oxygen tank is really simple technology. Not a whole lot to break. I'm big on simple in airplanes. Cheap too.

The US military went with the oxygen concentrators. Hasn't worked out terribly well.
Click to expand...
Deadly as I understand it. Its funny they didn't go for some type a pulsed system. I suppose they always need the mask saturated with 02 so maybe pulsed wouldn't work. Plus it still needs a ground fill.
 
steingar said:
Oxygen tank is really simple technology. Not a whole lot to break. I'm big on simple in airplanes. Cheap too.

The US military went with the oxygen concentrators. Hasn't worked out terribly well.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear what Nauga, EvilEagle, Hindsight, and a few of the others who fly military equipment think of the oxygen concentrators. Every article I read on the subject seems to be chocked with fuzzy (i.e. not definitive) information...
 
kyleb said:
I would love to hear what Nauga, EvilEagle, Hindsight, and a few of the others who fly military equipment think of the oxygen concentrators. Every article I read on the subject seems to be chocked with fuzzy (i.e. not definitive) information...
Click to expand...
Yeah, to be honest I’m pretty disappointed in the responses so far. Long on opinion short on fact.
 
Salty said:
Yeah, to be honest I’m pretty disappointed in the responses so far. Long on opinion short on fact.
Click to expand...

I think the comments on this specific unit are reasonable. It doesn't generate much O2. But with the better cannulas, it might work. Alternately, it might not.

But I'd like to hear the overall thought from the military guys with first hand experience of how well concentrators work. Obviously, the ones they have are far different than what you or I would buy on Craigslist, but how does the concept work and what are the real problems in the field (to the extent they can discuss).
 
kyleb said:
I would love to hear what Nauga, EvilEagle, Hindsight, and a few of the others who fly military equipment think of the oxygen concentrators. Every article I read on the subject seems to be chocked with fuzzy (i.e. not definitive) information...
Click to expand...
I've read over and over again in the news about pilots suffering symptoms of hypoxia. Only common thread are the concentrators. Then again, I'd love to hear from the military aviators as well.
 
bbchien said:
Sieve of absolute # of molecules. so as the ppO2 decreases and you need more of your molecules from the device, it's output falls off.
Click to expand...

Hi Bruce,

Mine puts out 95% O2 up to 18,000'... ppO2 is going to decline no matter what the source, unless you pressurize your lungs...

My sats are ~95%

Paul
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top