On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
We now have an oxygen concentrator in our house and it is noisy. What have any of you seen or done to reduce the sound output
from one of these machines?

www.invacare.com/Platinum_10_Concentrator

Thanks.

Have a couple of friends on oxygen. In a bible study or church, their machines are very disturbing to those around them by preventing them from hearing the speaker(s. Certainly don't want to discourage their participation, but would like suggestions on reducing their sound of operation.

On 1/19/2020 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
We now have an oxygen concentrator in our house and it is noisy. What have any of you seen or done to reduce the sound output
from one of these machines?

www.invacare.com/Platinum_10_Concentrator

Thanks.

Have a couple of friends on oxygen. In a bible study or church, their machines are very disturbing to those around them by preventing them from hearing the speaker(s. Certainly don't want to discourage their participation, but would like suggestions on reducing their sound of operation.


Shut them off and let the people pass out. A little CPR after and they
will be back to normal

Machines make noise. Deal with it. If they could be made quiet the
engineers would have done it so they could brag how quiet they are.

What a bunch of compassionate hypocrites at a bible study. Evidently
you never learned anything from it. WWJD?

On 01/19/2020 05:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
What a bunch of compassionate hypocrites at a bible study. Evidently
you never learned anything from it. WWJD?

Heal them...

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:21:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Machines make noise.

This brings to mind something I've wondered about the past few years.

We can increase efficiency in internal combustion engines by supercharging.

Would it not also increase efficiency by a factor of 5 by eliminating the
~80% inert nitrogen in the intake manifold? For sure, an oxygen
concentrator would take away some power, but then superchargers do so as
well. They seem to be worth the extra weight as well, all things
considered.

wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
We now have an oxygen concentrator in our house and it is noisy. What
have any of you seen or done to reduce the sound output
from one of these machines?

www.invacare.com/Platinum_10_Concentrator

Thanks.

Have a couple of friends on oxygen. In a bible study or church, their
machines are very disturbing to those around them by preventing them from
hearing the speaker(s. Certainly don't want to discourage their
participation, but would like suggestions on reducing their sound of operation.

A muffler. A blanket, bag, something that does not block any venting. If a
vent, a hand sewn vent extension right angle to vent, made out of a quilted
cloth.

Greg

On 1/19/20 5:41 PM, wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
We now have an oxygen concentrator in our house and it is noisy. What have any of you seen or done to reduce the sound output
from one of these machines?

www.invacare.com/Platinum_10_Concentrator

Thanks.

Have a couple of friends on oxygen. In a bible study or church, their machines are very disturbing to those around them by preventing them from hearing the speaker(s. Certainly don't want to discourage their participation, but would like suggestions on reducing their sound of operation.

Set the concentrators in something like a wicker laundry basket or
clothes hamper?

On 1/19/20 6:41 PM, wrote:
Have a couple of friends on oxygen. In a bible study or church, their machines are very disturbing to those around them by preventing them from hearing the speaker(s. Certainly don't want to discourage their participation, but would like suggestions on reducing their sound of operation.


Maybe pray they will be healed and no longer dependent on the oxygen concentrator? Or doesn't praying actually work?

On 1/20/2020 1:04 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:21:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Machines make noise.

This brings to mind something I've wondered about the past few years.

We can increase efficiency in internal combustion engines by supercharging.

Would it not also increase efficiency by a factor of 5 by eliminating the
~80% inert nitrogen in the intake manifold? For sure, an oxygen
concentrator would take away some power, but then superchargers do so as
well. They seem to be worth the extra weight as well, all things
considered.


What exactly to you think a concentrator does? In concentrates oxygen
by eliminating nitrogen. So you are suggesting a concentrator feeds a
concentrator?

There are silent portable systems that can go 8 hours on a small tank.
Given to Medicare reimbursement to the supplier most are not going to
give an additional $3500 in equipment and get nothing back.

There is also liquid tanks but they have to be filled about every 7
days, not at all profitable.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:25:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What exactly to you think a concentrator does? In concentrates oxygen
by eliminating nitrogen. So you are suggesting a concentrator feeds a
concentrator?

I'm not clear on your point. I suggest that the air intake for the engine
take in straight oxygen instead of air (21% oxygen). If you wanted, you
could also compress the oxygen with a supercharger. Is that what you are
getting at?

Supercharged or not, with 100% oxygen, for the same size of cylinder you
can inject 5 times the amount of fuel. That should give 5 times the
horsepower for the same engine weight.

Probably there will be other engineering considerations, like burning holes
through the pistons. But it seems an avenue worth exploring. I'm just
curious about why nobody has ever tried it.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:04:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:21:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Machines make noise.

This brings to mind something I've wondered about the past few years.

We can increase efficiency in internal combustion engines by supercharging.

Would it not also increase efficiency by a factor of 5 by eliminating the
~80% inert nitrogen in the intake manifold? For sure, an oxygen
concentrator would take away some power, but then superchargers do so as
well. They seem to be worth the extra weight as well, all things
considered.


AFAIK, they just get more power out of the same size engine by getting
more air/fuel mix into the same displacement. But if that's the efficiency
effect, ie getting more power from the same size engine, then yes,
feeding it pure oxygen should do the same thing. You could put more
fuel/air mix in the same space.

On 1/20/2020 10:58 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:25:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What exactly to you think a concentrator does? In concentrates oxygen
by eliminating nitrogen. So you are suggesting a concentrator feeds a
concentrator?

I'm not clear on your point. I suggest that the air intake for the engine
take in straight oxygen instead of air (21% oxygen). If you wanted, you
could also compress the oxygen with a supercharger. Is that what you are
getting at?

Supercharged or not, with 100% oxygen, for the same size of cylinder you
can inject 5 times the amount of fuel. That should give 5 times the
horsepower for the same engine weight.

Probably there will be other engineering considerations, like burning holes
through the pistons. But it seems an avenue worth exploring. I'm just
curious about why nobody has ever tried it.

OK, misunderstood you. Would be interesting to see. Theoretically you
may be right but getting that much oxygen for a sustained time is
probably the biggest obstacle to overcome.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 10:58:10 AM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:25:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What exactly to you think a concentrator does? In concentrates oxygen
by eliminating nitrogen. So you are suggesting a concentrator feeds a
concentrator?

I'm not clear on your point. I suggest that the air intake for the engine
take in straight oxygen instead of air (21% oxygen). If you wanted, you
could also compress the oxygen with a supercharger. Is that what you are
getting at?

Supercharged or not, with 100% oxygen, for the same size of cylinder you
can inject 5 times the amount of fuel. That should give 5 times the
horsepower for the same engine weight.

Probably there will be other engineering considerations, like burning holes
through the pistons. But it seems an avenue worth exploring. I'm just
curious about why nobody has ever tried it.

Probably because there is no practical, cost effective way to produce
the required oxygen. What would the required flow rate have to be
compared to the flow rate from one of those portable O2 units?
IDK what you're gaining for common applications, eg powering cars.
You'd be getting a smaller engine size in return for space, cost and
power taken up by an O2 generator, another system. I guess one place
to start would be to see how much O2 one of those portables makes and
if you used it to just replace some of the air, how much more power you
could get from the same engine. If it's some reasonable amount, then
maybe it has merit.

On 1/20/2020 11:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 10:58:10 AM UTC-5, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:25:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What exactly to you think a concentrator does? In concentrates oxygen
by eliminating nitrogen. So you are suggesting a concentrator feeds a
concentrator?

I'm not clear on your point. I suggest that the air intake for the engine
take in straight oxygen instead of air (21% oxygen). If you wanted, you
could also compress the oxygen with a supercharger. Is that what you are
getting at?

Supercharged or not, with 100% oxygen, for the same size of cylinder you
can inject 5 times the amount of fuel. That should give 5 times the
horsepower for the same engine weight.

Probably there will be other engineering considerations, like burning holes
through the pistons. But it seems an avenue worth exploring. I'm just
curious about why nobody has ever tried it.

Probably because there is no practical, cost effective way to produce
the required oxygen. What would the required flow rate have to be
compared to the flow rate from one of those portable O2 units?
IDK what you're gaining for common applications, eg powering cars.
You'd be getting a smaller engine size in return for space, cost and
power taken up by an O2 generator, another system. I guess one place
to start would be to see how much O2 one of those portables makes and
if you used it to just replace some of the air, how much more power you
could get from the same engine. If it's some reasonable amount, then
maybe it has merit.



I think you have to carry LOX and have limited range. Could make a hell
of a dragster though.

In article , says...

I think you have to carry LOX and have limited range. Could make a hell
of a dragster though.




They have been injecting nitrous oxide in engines for years. Stock
engines can take a small bost and engines with heaver duty parts can
take more. As always the problem is storing enough in the car to go for
a long distance. The nitro seems to be stable and not flamable before
it reaches over 500 deg F and then the oxygen seperates out and you can
inject more fuel in the engine for more power.

The concentrators seperates the oxygen in air from the nitrogen.
Probably would take a big concentrator to be useful in a car.

On 1/20/2020 12:00 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...

I think you have to carry LOX and have limited range. Could make a hell
of a dragster though.




They have been injecting nitrous oxide in engines for years. Stock
engines can take a small bost and engines with heaver duty parts can
take more. As always the problem is storing enough in the car to go for
a long distance. The nitro seems to be stable and not flamable before
it reaches over 500 deg F and then the oxygen seperates out and you can
inject more fuel in the engine for more power.

The concentrators seperates the oxygen in air from the nitrogen.
Probably would take a big concentrator to be useful in a car.


I think size is the problem as the car would need far more oxygen than a
human. I can't find the different requirements but it does sound
interesting. There are large concentrators. Power for the concentrator
would come off the engine.

On 01/20/2020 08:58 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
Probably there will be other engineering considerations, like burning holes
through the pistons. But it seems an avenue worth exploring. I'm just
curious about why nobody has ever tried it.

It's easy enough to destroy your engine and drivetrain with nitrous
without getting that exotic.

On 01/20/2020 10:25 AM, Frank wrote:
I think size is the problem as the car would need far more oxygen than a
human. I can't find the different requirements but it does sound
interesting. There are large concentrators. Power for the concentrator
would come off the engine.

And might consume as much power as it produced.

On 01/20/2020 09:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I think you have to carry LOX and have limited range. Could make a hell
of a dragster though.

I imagine somebody tried it and found it wanting.

https://www.dragzine.com/news/flashb...led-hydrazine/

Hey, if it works in a Titan II rocket it ought to work in a fuelie. Or
maybe they were emulating a Me-163. Hydrazine, methanol, and 80%
hydrogen peroxide. What's not to like?

My physics TA was a drag racing fan. He liked to point out the textbook
illustration of the maximum coefficient of friction and linear
acceleration was getting bent at the strip. He also mentioned that if
you were trying to adjust the CG on a commercial airliner depleted
uranium was just the stuff.

https://wise-uranium.org/ruxcw.html

Another good reason not to fly.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:27:23 -0700, rbowman wrote:

And might consume as much power as it produced.

Might? I decided to perform a simple first order estimation:

From
https://www.usa.philips.com/healthca...specifications
we get some basic specs on the concentrator:

4.1 Kg, 2 litres/min O2 produced, 120 W power consumed. (Also specified is
O2 concentration 87% to 96%; I use 91% for calculation below marked with
"&".)

From https://www.gregraven.org/ho****er/c...irflow-hp.html we get
(for a 1600 cc engine) the relation of 54 cubic feet per minute of normal
air to make 78 horsepower.

First, we figure out how many of the O2 concentrators we need:

54 cubic feet per minute = 1530 litres / min. If one O2 concentrator
produces 2 litres / min, we need the equivalent of 765 O2 concentrators.

These (or one big one) will weigh in at 3.1 metric tons (4.1 kg * 765), and
require 120 W * 765 = 92 Kw = 122 hp.

The power from the engine though, is 5 * 78 hp * 0.91 (&) = 335 hp. (The
factor of 5 is the gain from using pure oxygen instead of air). But we need
to subtract the 122 hp used by the concentrator, thus 233 hp. Effective
'gain' is 233 / 78 = 3.0

From
http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/14...ehensive-list/

We get an entry for a 1600 cc engine:

VW flat-4 Type 1 250 1600cc dual port

I have no idea of the actual power rating of this engine; I am only
interested in the weight of 250 Kg.


So the entire contraption (concentrator + engine) ends up wighing 3.35
metric tons (3.1 + 0.25).

Total power available to wheels is increased by a factor of 3.
Total weight is increased by a factor of 13.5

So on first glance, probably it won't work. But then again, one big
concentrator should be more efficient than 765 small ones. If it could be
made 4 or 5 times more efficient (13.5 / 3), we reach the break-even point.

Then, we need to work out how not to burn holes through the engine head.

On 1/21/2020 1:48 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:27:23 -0700, rbowman wrote:

And might consume as much power as it produced.

Might? I decided to perform a simple first order estimation:

From
https://www.usa.philips.com/healthca...specifications
we get some basic specs on the concentrator:

4.1 Kg, 2 litres/min O2 produced, 120 W power consumed. (Also specified is
O2 concentration 87% to 96%; I use 91% for calculation below marked with
"&".)

From https://www.gregraven.org/ho****er/c...irflow-hp.html we get
(for a 1600 cc engine) the relation of 54 cubic feet per minute of normal
air to make 78 horsepower.

First, we figure out how many of the O2 concentrators we need:

54 cubic feet per minute = 1530 litres / min. If one O2 concentrator
produces 2 litres / min, we need the equivalent of 765 O2 concentrators.

These (or one big one) will weigh in at 3.1 metric tons (4.1 kg * 765), and
require 120 W * 765 = 92 Kw = 122 hp.

The power from the engine though, is 5 * 78 hp * 0.91 (&) = 335 hp. (The
factor of 5 is the gain from using pure oxygen instead of air). But we need
to subtract the 122 hp used by the concentrator, thus 233 hp. Effective
'gain' is 233 / 78 = 3.0

From
http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/14...ehensive-list/

We get an entry for a 1600 cc engine:

VW flat-4 Type 1 250 1600cc dual port

I have no idea of the actual power rating of this engine; I am only
interested in the weight of 250 Kg.


So the entire contraption (concentrator + engine) ends up wighing 3.35
metric tons (3.1 + 0.25).

Total power available to wheels is increased by a factor of 3.
Total weight is increased by a factor of 13.5

So on first glance, probably it won't work. But then again, one big
concentrator should be more efficient than 765 small ones. If it could be
made 4 or 5 times more efficient (13.5 / 3), we reach the break-even point.

Then, we need to work out how not to burn holes through the engine head.


Good analysis. I am also reminded of a Scotty Kilmer video reminding
that if you turbocharge an engine you must remember they you need a
beefed up drive train to adequately handle the extra power.

On 01/21/2020 06:52 AM, Frank wrote:
Good analysis. I am also reminded of a Scotty Kilmer video reminding
that if you turbocharge an engine you must remember they you need a
beefed up drive train to adequately handle the extra power.

One of the down ticks for the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ is the 2 liter
engine. When asked why they don't turbocharge it Toyota answers it is
well balanced as it is and more power would mean a redesign. Even the
tuners say any engine work will need a beefier clutch.

i wonder what the current trend towards smaller engines with boost will
mean in longevity. It's not like a few decades ago when cars were
over-engineered.

On 1/21/2020 9:50 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/21/2020 06:52 AM, Frank wrote:
Good analysis.Â* I am also reminded of a Scotty Kilmer video reminding
that if you turbocharge an engine you must remember they you need a
beefed up drive train to adequately handle the extra power.

One of the down ticks for the Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ is the 2 liter
engine. When asked why they don't turbocharge it Toyota answers it is
well balanced as it is and more power would mean a redesign. Even the
tuners say any engine work will need a beefier clutch.

i wonder what the current trend towards smaller engines with boost will
mean in longevity. It's not like a few decades ago when cars were
over-engineered.

Did a quick google on this and engines are apparently OK for longevity
but adding more parts like the turbocharger means more stuff that might
break down.

In article , "frank says...

Did a quick google on this and engines are apparently OK for longevity
but adding more parts like the turbocharger means more stuff that might
break down.



For common on the road usage I have always though the turbocharges and
such was just more stuff to cause trouble. Just make the engine larger.

I can see them for race cars where you want max performace for minimum
weight and plan on rebuilding them after almost every race.

On 1/21/2020 12:04 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...

Did a quick google on this and engines are apparently OK for longevity
but adding more parts like the turbocharger means more stuff that might
break down.



For common on the road usage I have always though the turbocharges and
such was just more stuff to cause trouble. Just make the engine larger.

I can see them for race cars where you want max performace for minimum
weight and plan on rebuilding them after almost every race.


Some people like those jackrabbit starts but not for me. Car and Driver
may not like my non-turbo Subaru but Consumer Reports loves it.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:04:14 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , "frank says...

Did a quick google on this and engines are apparently OK for longevity
but adding more parts like the turbocharger means more stuff that might
break down.



For common on the road usage I have always though the turbocharges and
such was just more stuff to cause trouble. Just make the engine larger.

I can see them for race cars where you want max performace for minimum
weight and plan on rebuilding them after almost every race.

I think the advantage is that the turbo is there to boost power when
needed, but when not, the smaller engine gets better fuel economy.
If you put a larger engine in to get the peak power, it would burn
more fuel even at lower power output. And apparently reliability
isn't that much of an issue. They are essentially two fans on a shaft
and should last the life of the engine.