Talk:Argox

message: The article states that technical divers use their deco cylinders to inflate their drysuits. Assuming Trimix is used, the suit should not be inflated using backgas because of the thermal properties of He. The most common way to inflate the drysuit is by use of a dedicated 6 or 14 cubic foot argon bottle. The suit is, as far as I am aware, never inflated using a decobottle since the regulator on a properly rigged deco bottle would not have the extra drysuit hose required. Not to mention the fact that each decobottle would then require an extra hose, this would result in a mess. As someone already said, when using Trimix, the suit is inflated by means of a small argon (not argox) bottle. This needs to be changed in the article. Abiermans (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to simply have an octopus and an extra hose on a deco bottle than it is to carry an entire dedicated drysuit inflation bottle. Particularly when the average diver is likely to have several spare standard octos around, anyway. However-much a "mess" the latter is, a separate inflation bottle and hose is even more of a mess, and heavier. And I do know divers who rig their deco bottle with a standard octo and extra hose, for just that reason. You personally might not, but that's fine. We can put that some do, and some don't. SBHarris 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You don't have a forest of hoses on deco bottles. You must have ONE extra hose on ONE of your deco bottles. 80/20 argox is easy to make if you don't care that it's only 2200 psi (you hot shot a bottle to 450 with O2, then fill the rest of the way with argon from a commercial H cylinder of argon-- it requires exactly the same inert gas CGA fitting as your He cylinder). In other words, you need a boat fillwhip with an inert CGA adapter, but if you use He at all, you already have one.  There is NO analogy betweeen 80/20 argox and 80/20 nitrox. 80/20 argox is an inflation gas that can also be breathed in an emergency down to surprisingly low depth (certainly down to any depth you're going to deco at). It is better than air or nitrox as a suit inflation gas, and if people had a way to breathe the gas in their suits it would be more common (in theory in a real emergency you could always move your inflator bottle line to your BC and breathe from it that way-- at least that saves you from having to dive with a bottle of unbreathable gas, even if you're not diving helium; in that case your suit inflation bottle becomes your secondary, and although these are frowned on like spare airs, they have their place in moderately deep dives.) The other possible future use for argox has been pointed out above: argon is cheap and with decent compressors, 50/50 argox may one day it may be the deco gas of choice, to be used at 50 fsw and above. It's slower than N2 to diffuse into tissues, but it lets the He out just as fast. In theory it could be used starting at 60 to 70 fsw (basically a bit over 3 atm), and going right up the depth at which you switch to pure O2 (15 fsw or so = 1.5 atm). That would rid you of deco nitrox entirely. I haven't included this, because no organization recommends it. The Navy looked at it, but not in the right way. So it's all OR. SBHarris 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, proper air management is the answer to everything. Except when it isn't. Or you blow a gasket or your buddy does, or somebody panics or does something dumb. I merely suggest a way to make all the gas you take with you breathable. If you're in a situation where you're handing off one of your deco bottles to somebody else, you surely don't need a suit inflator hose anyway, since you're in trouble and either holding at depth, or ASCENDING. Drysuits work just fine with no hoses, so long as you go one-way up (that's what valves are for). At this point, perhaps you're going to give me some weird artificial OOA scenario in which you have to swim down in a tunnel or ship in order to get up, and my answer in that case is, that if you take the hose out of your BC and use it for just enough gas to get rid of a little emergency chest-squeeze of that sort, trimix back gas is not going to turn you into an instant popsickle. Having the extra breathable gas is still more important. In any case, none of this addresses the very important issue of what to put in your pony bottle if you're using a drysuit in a 100 foot dive in cold water, breathing air from a single standard steel sport tank of 100 or 120 cfu, as I often do (there are a lot of divable ships sited deliberately at 100 fsw). In that case, argox in a pony works very well. And beats hell out of the prospect of breathing from your BC or blowing bubbles and hoping you can make it to your buddy or the surface, if something goes wrong with a main gasket. SBHarris 23:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suit inflation 

message: I would like to propose name change to Argox (breathing gas) as this gas is not only used for diving decompression research. (Example: ) Thanks -- Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose name change to Argox (breathing gas) 

message: Just wanted to comment briefly on a comment which was made during a recent edit on the 2003 study using Argox as a decompression gas for astronauts: "Come on, the NASA studies are comparing Ar/O2 to pure O2 at pressures 1 atm and <1atm. Of course pure O2 is better."
Not wanting to start an argument, but I think the point of the study was to test the hypthesis that if a mix with a ppN2 of 0.0 ATA would have the same effect in eliminating absorbed nitrogen, regardless which specific gases made up the mix.  Clearly that was established not to be the case.  But it was a point worth making as most diving agencies still teach that the rate of off-gassing nitrogen is dependent on the ppN2 of the deco mix, and the implication is that it is solely dependent upon the ppN2.  Which, as the comment points out, is pretty obviously not the case.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 NASA paper on Argox decompression 

message: The viscosity of Argox is going to be much higher than Helium or O2/N2 just because of the higher molecular weight.  That will increase the WoB substantially.  At 66 feet on 80/20 Argox you're also breathing an equivalent narcotic depth of 200 fsw of 21% air.  Presumably since you are bailing out that means that you will be under stress and I know of divers who have built up CO2 at 100 feet on 21% and taken CO2 hits at depth.   The higher WoB of Argox will reduce the effectiveness of the lungs at eliminating CO2 and along with a narcotic potential equal to something like 200 feet of 21% the diver will be under an extreme risk of a CO2 hit at a time when presumably the diver went to the pony/bailout because of stress.  Also, the efficiency of decompression will likely be affected by the higher WoB of the Argox and just like the diver will have a harder time eliminating CO2, they will have a harder time eliminating inert gases and decompressing.  Physiologically this is a terrible idea, placing the diver at great risk of narcosis, CO2 hits, and the gas viscosity will be working against any theoretical decompression "benefit".  Lamontcg (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The dynamic viscosity of argon (at 27 C, 100 kPa) is 22.9 μPa·s and the corresponding dynamic viscosity of air is 18.6 μPa·s and 20.0 μPa·s for helium. So there's much less variation than you might think (helium does help reduce WoB, but at much higher pressures). Argox 80/20 at  (3 bar) will have an END corresponding to air at 2.04 x 3 bar = 6.12 bar - which is . It's still far too much narcosis to expose a stressed diver to, but not quite as bad as you portray it. Nevertheless, the thrust of your argument holds; argox 80/20 is too narcotic for sensible deployment deeper than around . Steve Harris above shows that you can extend that to about  with a 50/50 argox, which is breathable and still better than air as an insulating gas (but not much better). The real problem is that argon is almost 3 times as soluble as nitrogen in blood at body temperature - and 30 times more soluble than helium. I'd be far more concerned about an ICD hit if I were anywhere near saturated in the fast tissues. --RexxS (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No the real problem is that it is pointless.  If you're a recreational diver your exposures are likely short enough to not need Argon, and you should be able to get gas from your buddy or bailout directly to the surface.  If you need to add additional bailout/stage/pony gas, then add a pony bottle of that.  If you need to add Argon, then get a small aluminum bottle to run it off of and dedicate it.  This problem only arises in this hypothetical situation where the diver has a large stage that they can use and need to use to do staged decompression to the surface, but is too cheap to buy a dedicated argon system.  Nobody does this.  Ever.  Rec divers do not need to and the most charitable I can get is that its a "cheap" solution for a technical diver who has already invested tends of thousands of dollars in training and gear. Argox shouldn't be used below 0 feet and has little application above 0 feet.  Lamontcg (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pointless" is a good argument for not using argox, but it's not a description of a problem. It's not true that recreational divers only have short exposures. If you've spent any time diving under the ice in a freezing quarry in the UK, you'll be damn glad of any insulation you can get. When you're instructing trainees, you dare not assume that they are competent buddies and bet your life on them being able to supply you with gas if your equipment malfunctions. If you're teaching, you might as well assume you're diving solo and take precautions to ensure full self-sufficiency. I do agree that best practice is to dedicate an argon bottle and use a separate bailout, but I don't agree with your assertion that every diver must make that their priority for spending when it is possible to make use of argox as a compromise. If you've been spending tens of thousands of dollars on training and gear, then you're a very generous diver. I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you. Over here it's quite possible to get full dir-compliant gear for around GBP 1,000 if you shop around - and training in a club under SAA or BSAC is nowhere near that expense. As I've already explained to you, argox 50/50 is as narcotic at  as air is at . If you'd accept the latter as a bailout, you can't really criticise someone else for accepting the former. Argox is demonstrably usable well below 0 feet and the jury's still out for its use above 100,000 feet ( is one example of such research). --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just posted above that I wouldn't accept bailout onto nitrox at 40m/130ft.   And if you're technical diving it costs $40 a dive, minimum, over here to dive 21/35 and we have cheap helium.  I'm starting to understand where your perspective is coming from though if you're BSAC and you dive low helium mixes, think argox is fine, and are probably teaching the evils of a "primary take" with a long hose even though a whole continent over here has largely switched to that style.  Your just a wikipedia troll, which explains this article and the articles that you've corrupted on DIR and GUE.  Lamontcg (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can understand it if you wouldn't want to bailout to air at . That's ok. But I've got many hundreds of dives beyond that on air from before the 1990s (it wasn't until the 1990s that we were able to start buying helium in J-cylinders and using an oxygen pump in the garage). Would I plan some of the dives we used to do on air nowadays? No chance - helium removes so many of the risks that it's a no-brainer. But then, if an emergency forced me to bailout, would I worry about being on air at ? No, I've been there before and know how to cope, but your mileage may vary. It seems like over there you have cheap helium and expensive middle-men, but that's a discussion for another day. Have another think about my perspective. I'm not BSAC. I've been diving and teaching the long hose since JJ first posted the ideas on rec.scuba in 1997 - and I copied his post onto the web for others to read here. I'm quite happy to plan for END of around  for normal use - but I wouldn't feel constrained to that in the event of aborting a dive. I have no use for argox personally, but you are making basic mistakes in your calculations and assumptions and you're feeling hurt when I point them out to you. You need to cut out the personal shit and take a pointer from George: "Take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth". Now, there's an opportunity for you to apologise and strike your personal attack, and we can go back to debating things with an assumption of mutual respect. I'd love to work with you to restore the DIR and GUE articles to a decent state, and if you bother to read the talk pages, you'll see who is on your side in trying to do that. Or you can make the mistake of thinking you know everything and can lecture folks that you know nothing about as if they know nothing. That would be comical. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viscosity of Argox and CO2 hits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Argox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914174633/http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml to http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified