#1
|
|||
|
|||
Naval LOX usage?
It's a bit OT, but someone here must know this sort of thing.
Catching up on another newsgroup, I find a discussion of LN2, and someone being very enthusiastic about anecdotes for it - they never had a chance to play with it, only to be trained to handle it. And, likewise, trained to handle LOX. (in a gratuitously paranoid manner - up to and including mandating white clothing) This was, apparently, in the US Navy, probably in the context of flight-deck (or at least NAS) operations, circa 1990. I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why? I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me? -- -Andrew Gray |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote:
I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why? I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me? Pilots breathe O2 through their masks; could it be stored as LOX in some aircraft? Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. .. It's a bit OT, but someone here must know this sort of thing. Catching up on another newsgroup, I find a discussion of LN2, and someone being very enthusiastic about anecdotes for it - they never had a chance to play with it, only to be trained to handle it. And, likewise, trained to handle LOX. (in a gratuitously paranoid manner - up to and including mandating white clothing) This was, apparently, in the US Navy, probably in the context of flight-deck (or at least NAS) operations, circa 1990. I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why? I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me? Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in military aircraft (navy and air force). -- Alan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" writes: Andrew Gray wrote: I'm sure you can see the question that immediately came to mind... why? I can't think of a practical reason for them to be trained to handle this sort of thing, outside of some highly specialised circumstances; is it likely to be a holdover from the days when cryofuelled liquid missiles were still in service? Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me? Pilots breathe O2 through their masks; could it be stored as LOX in some aircraft? Indeed it is. To my direct knowledge, the F-4 and A-5 both stored their breathing oxygen as LOX. (As do many other aircraft - F-16s use LOX as well) It makes a lot of sense, if you can carry your LOX jenny with you - it doesn't take up a lot of colume within the airplane, and doesn't need to be stored at high pressure. Aviator's Breathing Oxygen has to be incredibly pure & dry to avoid both physiological and mechanical problems in flight. It's a lot wasier to make pure LOX, since pretty much all of the contaminants freeze out as you squeeze the LOX out of the air. While LOX can be fairly dangerous to handle, it's not any less safe than Big Honkin' Pressure Bottles. Those don't take damage well, and cause all sorts of evil when they explode. The use of LOX in aviation goes back to the 1930s at least. The Martin B-10 bomber of the mid '30s used LOX as a means to store its breathing oxygen (A fiarly new wrinkle, at htat time) Servicing a B-10s LOX system consisted of dipping a pail into a Dewar (Fancy name for Thermos) of LOX, and pouring it by hand into a container in the airplane. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Erskine wrote:
Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in military aircraft (navy and air force). I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't know if it's been deployed in aircraft. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote:
Is there a perfectly logical reason naval technicians would have to handle LOX that just hasn't occured to me? The O2 systems in the aircraft are charged with LOX, not HP GOX as you might think. Why? Dammifino. Googling on "CVN LOX" yields several interesting pages. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
... Alan Erskine wrote: Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in military aircraft (navy and air force). I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't know if it's been deployed in aircraft. Not sure either. I know there's a nitrogen enrichment device on the C-17 for the fuel tanks, but I don't know what they do with the 'waste' gas - mostly O2. -- Alan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Alan Erskine" writes: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ... Alan Erskine wrote: Because of the altitudes military aircraft fly at and also because of the size and mass of compression equipment, it's simply easier to use LOX in military aircraft (navy and air force). I have heard something about a zeolite O2 enrichment device, but I don't know if it's been deployed in aircraft. Not sure either. I know there's a nitrogen enrichment device on the C-17 for the fuel tanks, but I don't know what they do with the 'waste' gas - mostly O2. Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't know what technology they're using. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote: Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't know what technology they're using. LOX is used by combat aircraft because of the amount of oxygen that can be stored in a small area at low pressure by the use of cryogenic liquefaction; during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal, everyone was _very_ lucky that the shrapnel from the bombs that cooked off didn't puncture the carrier's onboard LOX storage tank (she could manufacture LOX while underway), as the contact between the LOX and burning JP-4 would have led to an severe explosion; the shrapnel missed the tank by a few feet. This was discussed on the History Channel (or Discovery Channel) show about the fire on the Forrestal. The use of LOX in regards to breathing at high altitudes goes clean back to World War 1; it was used by the German dirigible crews for high altitude Zeppelin attacks. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pat Flannery writes: Peter Stickney wrote: Some airplanes are carrying onboard oxygen generators, but I don't know what technology they're using. LOX is used by combat aircraft because of the amount of oxygen that can be stored in a small area at low pressure by the use of cryogenic liquefaction; during the fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal, everyone was _very_ lucky that the shrapnel from the bombs that cooked off didn't puncture the carrier's onboard LOX storage tank (she could manufacture LOX while underway), as the contact between the LOX and burning JP-4 would have led to an severe explosion; the shrapnel missed the tank by a few feet. Uh, Pat, I mentioned that upthread in my reply to Paul Dietz's post. The interesting part is, that despite LOX's dangers, it's actually safer than storing compressed O2. My statement above, which should have been more clear, was in reference to the Onboard Oxygen Generating Systems used in the latest airplanes. Those systems don't require much in the way od storage - they pull O2 out of the ambient air as they go. I'm not sure what technology those use. It may be Zeolites, but it could also be some manner of Osmotic Membrane. This was discussed on the History Channel (or Discovery Channel) show about the fire on the Forrestal. Then a fact may, by some accident, have slipped past their researchers. (Not a slap at you, Pat. But I've found Disovery/History/Whatever the Other Channe;'s Called to be sorely lacking in readsonably well researched content. I'm not the only one, either most of us in the AvHistory world have had to deal with their "Fact Checkers", and found it to be pointless. (And yes, I know that they don't produce most of theri content, but use stuff from independants. That still doesn't absolve them from checking things out.)) The use of LOX in regards to breathing at high altitudes goes clean back to World War 1; it was used by the German dirigible crews for high altitude Zeppelin attacks. I thought they'd used compressed O2. But, thinking about it, the best way to get that, back then, would have been to liquify the O2 out of the air. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Naval Research Laboratory and Carnegie Institution Scientists Examinethe Life Cycle Of Stars Encoded In Tiny Grains Of Dust (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 8th 04 12:57 AM |
The Second U.S. Naval Observatory CCD Astrograph Catalog (UCAC2) | no way | Misc | 5 | July 27th 04 03:16 PM |
Bechtel Nevada: Control of the World's Largest Nuclear Weapons Facilities | * | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 2nd 04 05:29 PM |
Maximum magnification and optimum usage | ^MisterJingo^ | UK Astronomy | 2 | December 12th 03 07:12 AM |
11th Boeing-Built UHF Naval Satellite Arrives in Florida for December Launch | dave schneider | History | 13 | November 24th 03 09:29 PM |