3 ms·

It would be interesting to hear what would happen if you had an emergency oxygen supply, like one of those miniature scuba tanks. How would that change the surv

It would be interesting to hear what would happen if you had an emergency oxygen supply, like one of those miniature scuba tanks. How would that change the survival range?

torstesu 13y ago
Breathing pressurized air in vacuum is not such a good idea.
- brazzy 13y ago
  Pure oxygen at low pressure might actually work. I'm pretty sure the lungs can take 0.1 atm pressure differential, and it should be enough oxygen to stay conscious indefinitely.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    The numbers I found were that people can blow about 1-2 PSI (obtained by random people on the internet blowing into their scuba gauges), which implies that you could probably handle at least 0.07-0.14 atmospheres of positive pressure in your lungs without exploding. The peak of Mount Everest is about 1/3 atmosphere, and base camp is in about 1/2 atmosphere. This means the partial pressure of oxygen at those locations is about 0.07 and 0.1 atmospheres, respectively. People who have not acclimated to high altitudes (by spending 2 months at base camp) will pass out on the peak (and it still sucks pretty hard even if you're acclimated). So, it seems like pure oxygen at 0.1 atmosphere should work, although I suspect it'd be hella uncomfortable even without the vacuum, since it'd probably feel like you were trying to blow up the worlds largest balloon while standing on Mount Everest. But it does let us move on. So you're standing in a vacuum (on the Moon, maybe) sucking on 0.1 atmosphere of pure oxygen. How long can you survive for?
    - wikiburner 13y ago
      That's what's interesting to me - the emergency scenario where the oxygen situation is (uncomfortable but) survivable. How long would it take for the exposure to kill you?
- jws 13y ago
  Didn't we just have an article about a liquid, injectable oxygen for emergency medical use? How about skipping the lungs as O2 input, keep them just for CO2 removal, and take an IV containing the liquid oxygenator? You might need to keep a small amount of lung pressure (say, less than that used to blow up party balloons) to slow the egress of oxygen through the lungs. The next problem is likely that your lungs catch fire as the O2 concentration builds up in them. One thing at a time though.
eloisius 13y ago
You'd probably injure yourself with an air tank. I wonder if hyperventilating yourself before exposure would help though.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I think it wouldn't. I believe your lungs in a vacuum will de-oxygenate your blood regardless, so you only have as much time as it takes for that blood to hit your brain. Hyperventilating is good for removing CO2 from your blood, which reduces your "I really need to breath" reflex (turns out that is, at least largely, cause by the presence of CO2 rather than the absence of O2). From personal experience I can tell you this can allow you to push yourself further without breathing, but you also run the risk of blacking out because you pushed too far (I don't have experience with that part).

It would be interesting to hear what would happen if you had an emergency oxygen supply, like one of those miniature scuba tanks. How would that change the survival range?

torstesu 13y ago

Breathing pressurized air in vacuum is not such a good idea.

brazzy 13y ago
Pure oxygen at low pressure might actually work. I'm pretty sure the lungs can take 0.1 atm pressure differential, and it should be enough oxygen to stay conscious indefinitely.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  The numbers I found were that people can blow about 1-2 PSI (obtained by random people on the internet blowing into their scuba gauges), which implies that you could probably handle at least 0.07-0.14 atmospheres of positive pressure in your lungs without exploding. The peak of Mount Everest is about 1/3 atmosphere, and base camp is in about 1/2 atmosphere. This means the partial pressure of oxygen at those locations is about 0.07 and 0.1 atmospheres, respectively. People who have not acclimated to high altitudes (by spending 2 months at base camp) will pass out on the peak (and it still sucks pretty hard even if you're acclimated). So, it seems like pure oxygen at 0.1 atmosphere should work, although I suspect it'd be hella uncomfortable even without the vacuum, since it'd probably feel like you were trying to blow up the worlds largest balloon while standing on Mount Everest. But it does let us move on. So you're standing in a vacuum (on the Moon, maybe) sucking on 0.1 atmosphere of pure oxygen. How long can you survive for?
  - wikiburner 13y ago
    That's what's interesting to me - the emergency scenario where the oxygen situation is (uncomfortable but) survivable. How long would it take for the exposure to kill you?
jws 13y ago
Didn't we just have an article about a liquid, injectable oxygen for emergency medical use? How about skipping the lungs as O2 input, keep them just for CO2 removal, and take an IV containing the liquid oxygenator? You might need to keep a small amount of lung pressure (say, less than that used to blow up party balloons) to slow the egress of oxygen through the lungs. The next problem is likely that your lungs catch fire as the O2 concentration builds up in them. One thing at a time though.

eloisius 13y ago

You'd probably injure yourself with an air tank. I wonder if hyperventilating yourself before exposure would help though.

jlgreco 13y ago
I think it wouldn't. I believe your lungs in a vacuum will de-oxygenate your blood regardless, so you only have as much time as it takes for that blood to hit your brain. Hyperventilating is good for removing CO2 from your blood, which reduces your "I really need to breath" reflex (turns out that is, at least largely, cause by the presence of CO2 rather than the absence of O2). From personal experience I can tell you this can allow you to push yourself further without breathing, but you also run the risk of blacking out because you pushed too far (I don't have experience with that part).