![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There really is very little debate about the narcotic properties of oxygen and the issue was largely settled years ago. Have a look at Nitrogen narcosis where the references are pretty copper-bottomed. Bennett & Elliot surveys the topic and finds that the relationship is complex because oxygen is metabolised and the partial pressure of oxygen in tissues varies. On page 304 (5th Ed) they report that subjects breathing 96% N2 4% O2 at 91 metres were more affected than those breathing air. (But I'd be so far out of my brain at that depth I'm amazed they were able to test anything.) Then they state: "However, reduction of the oxygen partial pressure at a constant nitrogen partial pressure does decrease the narcosis."
If you want a non-medical reference, there's the NOAA Diving Manual (2002 [16.3.1.2.4]): "since oxygen has some narcotic properties, it is appropriate to include the oxygen in the END calculation when using trimixes (Lambersten et al. 1977,1978). The non-helium portion (i.e., the sum of the oxygen and the nitrogen) is to be regarded as having the same narcotic potency as an equivalent partial pressure of nitrogen in air, regardless of the proportions of oxygen and nitrogen."
If you redo your calculation assuming the non-helium fraction has the same narcotic properties as air, then you get a more conservative estimate of the equivalent narcotic depth. It should be obvious that in these cases, the more conservative method will be preferred.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Everything so far is metric. The differences in the American/Imperial system are so fundamental I dont know how best to accommodate them, and sometime it will have to be done. Two ways seem possible.
I am not sure which one is most likely to cause confusion in the long run. Any thoughts? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
B |
![]() No obvious omissions. ![]() Structure looks appropriate. ![]() Looks OK to me. ![]() Not a lot of images, but looks sufficient. ![]() Looks OK to me. ![]() |
All good, promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
From the list in the opening paragraph:
"Estimation of gas required for the planned dive, including bottom gas, travel gas, and decompression gases, as appropriate to the profile."
Bottom gas? Travel gas? Some definitions needed, I think. "Travel" gas is sort of explained by context much later in the article, but the definition really should be with the first ocurance of the term.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scuba gas planning's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Bozanic1997":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
There really is very little debate about the narcotic properties of oxygen and the issue was largely settled years ago. Have a look at Nitrogen narcosis where the references are pretty copper-bottomed. Bennett & Elliot surveys the topic and finds that the relationship is complex because oxygen is metabolised and the partial pressure of oxygen in tissues varies. On page 304 (5th Ed) they report that subjects breathing 96% N2 4% O2 at 91 metres were more affected than those breathing air. (But I'd be so far out of my brain at that depth I'm amazed they were able to test anything.) Then they state: "However, reduction of the oxygen partial pressure at a constant nitrogen partial pressure does decrease the narcosis."
If you want a non-medical reference, there's the NOAA Diving Manual (2002 [16.3.1.2.4]): "since oxygen has some narcotic properties, it is appropriate to include the oxygen in the END calculation when using trimixes (Lambersten et al. 1977,1978). The non-helium portion (i.e., the sum of the oxygen and the nitrogen) is to be regarded as having the same narcotic potency as an equivalent partial pressure of nitrogen in air, regardless of the proportions of oxygen and nitrogen."
If you redo your calculation assuming the non-helium fraction has the same narcotic properties as air, then you get a more conservative estimate of the equivalent narcotic depth. It should be obvious that in these cases, the more conservative method will be preferred.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Everything so far is metric. The differences in the American/Imperial system are so fundamental I dont know how best to accommodate them, and sometime it will have to be done. Two ways seem possible.
I am not sure which one is most likely to cause confusion in the long run. Any thoughts? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
B |
![]() No obvious omissions. ![]() Structure looks appropriate. ![]() Looks OK to me. ![]() Not a lot of images, but looks sufficient. ![]() Looks OK to me. ![]() |
All good, promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
From the list in the opening paragraph:
"Estimation of gas required for the planned dive, including bottom gas, travel gas, and decompression gases, as appropriate to the profile."
Bottom gas? Travel gas? Some definitions needed, I think. "Travel" gas is sort of explained by context much later in the article, but the definition really should be with the first ocurance of the term.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scuba gas planning's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Bozanic1997":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)