A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bad Week for Airbus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 26th 07, 08:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default Bad Week for Airbus

On Nov 26, 11:31 pm, Stefan wrote:
george schrieb:

Point out to me where I am wrong...


Your mistake is, that the quantity of gas which can be solved in water
is proportional to pressure. So you mustn't think in absolute
quantities, but in relative.


Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
the bloos stream.
The only time that becomes a factor is if the subject has been SCUBA
diving and using decompression time.


Example: At flightlevel 360 (give or take a few) the atmospheric
pressure has dropped to roughly a quarter. So, solutionwise, climbing
from sea level to FL360 has roughly the same effect as a diver which
climbs from a water depth of 100ft to the surface (at sea level). Now if
you're saturated at 100ft (and we are saturated!), and then suddenly go
up to the surface, you *will* encounter serious decompression disease. I
would expect the same in a sudden pressure loss at FL360.


The pressure at 100 feet (to use your figures) is approx 4 atmospheres
= 56 psi
The barometric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi.
A change of pressure of 44 psi. or about 4048 mb

Decompression at altitude is covered in the Regs that specify the
longest permitted time before descent has to be initiated.

The pressure difference between Fl30 and Fl10 is about 30 mb.

Of course the two situations are not exactly the same, because in
aviation there is a much smaller quantity of gas involved. (Besides that
the cabin pressure is usually not equal to sea level but to something
like 7000ft.) I would expect some air forces to have seriously studied
this, and plenty of literature to be available, because the climb rate
of fighter jets allow for such critical pressure changes. But frankly, I
don't know anything about it, except that your reasoning was wrong. But
then, at the climb rate my glider gives me, I guess that I needn't to
worry anyway, even in strong wave.


The Diamond height is yet to come eh :-)

  #2  
Old November 27th 07, 06:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Bad Week for Airbus

george writes:

Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
the bloos stream.


It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
tissues.
  #3  
Old November 27th 07, 06:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Bad Week for Airbus

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

george writes:

Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
the bloos stream.


It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
tissues.


nope

Bertie
  #4  
Old November 27th 07, 04:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Bad Week for Airbus

Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).



Sco Bertie 2,531 Mx 1


On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :



Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases in
the bloos stream.


It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and body
tissues.


nope

Bertie


  #5  
Old November 27th 07, 04:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Bad Week for Airbus

Tina wrote in
:

Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).



I know, we had to do that in piloty school

He's still worng.


Bertie


Sco Bertie 2,531 Mx 1


On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:



Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases
in the bloos stream.


It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and
body tissues.


nope

Bertie




  #6  
Old November 27th 07, 10:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Bad Week for Airbus

I understand mx being wrong even when he happens to be correct. It's
the principle of the thing.


I will retract and correct the scoring, based on that.

On Nov 27, 11:32 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Tina wrote :

Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).


I know, we had to do that in piloty school

He's still worng.

Bertie





Sco Bertie 2,531 Mx 1


On Nov 27, 1:41 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:


Going from a short exposure of low pressure to a longer period of
exposure to a higher presure will have no effect on soluble gases
in the bloos stream.


It will, however, add a bit more gas in solution to the blood and
body tissues.


nope


Bertie- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


  #7  
Old November 28th 07, 09:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Bad Week for Airbus

Tina wrote in
:

I understand mx being wrong even when he happens to be correct. It's
the principle of the thing.



Xachery.


I will retract and correct the scoring, based on that.



Thenk yew.

At least it;s one bit of history that will be accurate.

Bertie
  #8  
Old November 28th 07, 07:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
WJRFlyBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Bad Week for Airbus

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).


Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
  #9  
Old November 28th 07, 11:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Bad Week for Airbus

Well, it IS a good reference and reminder, isn't it?


On Nov 28, 2:18 am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:
Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).


Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!


  #10  
Old November 28th 07, 09:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
WJRFlyBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Bad Week for Airbus

No doubt, still use it, feeling older by the nanosecond now.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:40:31 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

Well, it IS a good reference and reminder, isn't it?

On Nov 28, 2:18 am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:
Sorry, Bertie: exposure to higher ambient pressures does in fact drive
gasses into solution in our blood and tissue. See Strong's Physical
Chemistry text (God, I'm dating myself -- that might have been
published in the 60s!).


Jeez, I still have the text on my shelf
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!



--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
airbus - Latest Plane From Airbus.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 14 June 26th 07 09:41 AM
Which is easier: Boeing to Airbus, or Airbus to Boeing? Mxsmanic Piloting 9 February 21st 07 01:58 AM
What a week.. Capt.Doug Piloting 11 February 20th 07 03:25 AM
No NYC Fleet Week TFR? Marco Leon Piloting 8 June 1st 06 10:59 PM
This week DHeitm8612 General Aviation 0 January 21st 05 01:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.