UKC

Calling all users of supplementary oxygen, both in the past and at present!

My name is Alex, and I am a final year Industrial design student at Loughborough university (UK). I am working on a research project, as part of my final year major research project, that is looking into the use of supplementary oxygen at high altitude. I have have explored the possibility of how supplementary oxygen systems might be improved to become both safer and more efficient, as well as being mush more sustainable.

I am looking for information from uses of such equipment with regards to the equipment they currently use:
-Whats good about current open circuit breathing systems?
-What are the issues you currently have with the equipment you use? weight, efficiency, design etc
-What kind of equipment do you carry with you to high altitude at the moment other than your oxygen system?
-Does the Oxygen system take up a lot of room / get in the way of other equipment you carry?
-What are the specifics on the size and weight of the equipment that you use?

Any information on this I would be extremely grateful for, as will help with the progression of the project. Or if anyone may be able to point me in the direction of a person / group / forum that may be able to help me with this research, I would be very grateful

Many thanks in advance,

Alex Fleming
Industrial design Student
Loughborough University

In reply to Alex Fleming:
It's cheating and since Messner and Habler's ascent of Everest in 1978 is not acceptable IMHO

Sorry this is not helpful to you.

In reply to Pedro50:

Exactly.

"Where in your bike frame is the best place to install the electric motor?"

In reply to Pedro50:

Hi,

Yes I understand there is a strong stigma against the use as many feel it is cheating to use supplementary oxygen. But I am trying to tackle the issue from a safety perspective. As the equipment is used, how can it be improved etc.

Have you climbed at high altitude yourself?

In reply to Alex Fleming:
My thoughts, but I am in no way an expert:

I doubt you could find many big improvements in such systems TBH. The defence sector has been pushing the developments for the last 70 years. A regulator is a regulator and there is probably not much you could do that would make it better without making it less bombproof. The same with masks I would imagine.

I believe that the main weight savings are probably in cylinders, but then you want them to be strong enough not to burst falling off a pack mule, it is a fine balance.

In reply to Alex Fleming:


Only Kilimanjaro, was panting a bit. Good luck with your research.

In reply to Pedro50:

I wouldn't fancy being trapped above 7000m by say a storm without supp oxygen.
I could imagine once hypoxia sets in you think at least I'm not a cheat haha.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

I ran up Mount Fuji a couple of months ago. About a hundred metres below the summit, we passed three fit-enough-looking chaps in their early twenties wheezing into their O2 cans. It was an eye-opening experience.

In reply to Davidwi:



That's a mountaineering judgement each individual must make. Not to mention that carrying said O2 to 700m will have slowed the whole trip down making the onset of a storm more likely.

In reply to Pedro50:


Haha that made me laugh :-D Panting just a bit!

In reply to Alex Fleming:

This is a really interesting question. I'm afraid I can't be of much more help than a simple Google (because that is where my knowledge is from). I've only been a little over 6000m myself so never been high enough to use supplemental oxygen (although did see a couple of people using it on Kilimanjaro's summit once with simple nasal cannulae). I've carried oxygen for emergencies on trips but just taken simple masks or nasal cannuale rather than the clever masks. I have been thinking of trying to write an essay on this topic myself but found it difficult to get detailed technical info from the internet (not surprising given that the masks are proprietary and developed for profit).

My little research on the topic has shown that the principles of open circuit oxygen delivery at high altitude are not disimilar to normal medical oxygen delivery systems - a cylinder, a regulator, a tube, a reservoir, and a mask. The clever bits are in regulating oxygen flow to the climber's needs, and preventing leaks with valves to maintain efficiency whilst not letting bits of the system freeze and break.
Does anyone actually use closed circuit oxygen systems? Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen if anything fails (much more so than if an open circuit fails!).

I'd love if you could share some of the knowledge you have / get from this.

P.S. you will have to tolerate unhelpful comments on this forum - they are tongue in cheek, I'm pretty sure! I don't think many people here have actually climbed 8000m+ peaks without oxygen...

In reply to zimpara:

Thanks Zimp, someone managed to dislike it!

In reply to Pedro50:
And two people disliked my comment. Haha some people.

Here's a question,
On the summit of mont blanc, I opened a half bottle of E-cigarette juice to top my stick up, and the bottle was under so much pressure it literally blew the lid off.

What does altitude do to sealed containers/glycerol?
And do o2 canisters increase in pressure the higher they go?

In reply to zimpara:

O2 cylinders are already at many atmospheres pressure so the difference of half an atmosphere drop in pressure is negligible. If your bottle is at 1 atmosphere at sea level, a pressure drop of half is very significant.

In reply to ModerateMatt:


bag of crisps on an airplane is another perfect example.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

http://www.topout.co.uk/clinical-reports

In reply to Pedro50:
How is it cheating as long as you appreciate the supreme effort of doing it without oxygen. I have climbed for over 30 years, completed an ultra marathon, done a marathon in under 3 hours and managed according to you"cheat" my way up Everest this year. Even with oxygen it is very hard work. I would never try to say I had achieved the same as those who have gone without supplementary oxygen. How is it cheating when you acknowledge the style of your ascent. Is a modern ascent without oxygen cheating when you have warmer, lighter kit, better forecasts compared to that in the late 1970s...IMHO

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Alex- I used oxygen this year on Everest. I can give you my experience on the above. My mobile number is 07984604269 if you want first hand experiences of it.

In reply to Alex Fleming:
Not a high altitude mountaineer, but have a passing interest in oxygen delivery.

How about investigating liquid oxygen as a source rather than compressed - if you could design a sufficiently small, light and efficient storage system you could perhaps get improved performance in terms of carried mass vs amount of oxygen supplied.

In reply to Alex
http://www.summitoxygen.com

In reply to Alex Fleming:

I vaguely remember reading an article on the effects oxygen-free ascents of Everest had on the brain, if I remember correctly all the subjects had a certain degree of brain damage.

Not surprising really, it's like when as kids we'd play the 'who can hold their breath the longest' game. Bound to kill a few neurons.

In reply to Alex Fleming:
The curreent standard for Himalayan trips is Poisk. Have a look at those and see where weight could come out and valves be better prevented from freezing.

A breath-activated valve (rather than constant flow into a bladder) might also be worthwhile.

In reply to Andy Taylor:

It's all good dude. If you claimed you climbed E3 on a topper it would cool too, but your E3 claim would not be taken too seriously either...

In reply to Removed User:

Hey, if it's hard work then it can't be cheating

In reply to Andy Taylor:

Cheating is probably wrong word, especially regarding oxygen.

However, if it's combined with pre-placed camps, jugging up fixed ropes along most of the route along with the cast from Ben Hur, accompanied by guides as nanny's (no idea whether your ascent falls into this category, so not directly aimed at you?) then that kind of ascent probably falls into the 'getting up' as opposed to 'climbing' Everest category, and certainly reduces the amount of cock waiving that should be displayed

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Cant really believe people think supplementary oxygen in low barometric pressure is cheating. If you were divers you'd go deep and insist on only compressed air even though it would kill you. Alex - go speak to some companies that guide at that level and leave the ignorant alone to go and read about respiratory physiology at altitude.

In reply to jepotherepo:


But we're not. The analogy does not apply just because you made it up. Everest has been done without O2 (let alone all the lower 8000ers on which it is now commonly used) so it is not absolutely essential to live (extremely tough and very dangerous, yes).

Given that the great challenge of Everest is its height ASL, not its climbing difficulty, then by imbibing a substance to artificially bring that physiological height down by over 1000m is cheating - you're cheating Everest of its defence and you're cheating yourself of the essence of Everest's challenge - the height.


Company guides are hardly an objective or independent source, are they? Not to mention the use of bottled O2 for guiding is a separate issue to the use of it for an independent personal climb.

In reply to jepotherepo:

Yes I agree.

There seems to be a direct inverse relationship between the some of the responders experience and how critical their comments are on assistance used at extreme altitude.

In reply to Andy Taylor:
OK cheating is a loaded word, ethically unsound might be better. Climbing is about ethics and style. No one doubts that your ascent was hard work but once it has been done without O2 then all further ascents using it are invalid. No one pegs London Wall anymore do they

In reply to jepotherepo:


Of course it's cheating. Bear Grylls used supplementary oxygen therefore it must be cheating.

In reply to m0unt41n:


That is a straw man argument - though there is in fact rather a lot of 'experience' within this forum.

However, the simple fact of the matter is this, ascents of Everest without suplementary oxygen have been going on since 1979, therefore the inconvenient fact is that it plainly isn't needed.

The fact that the majority of people can't get up Everest without suplementary oxygen, therefore it's use is justified, holds no more water as an argument, than someone justifying using aid on London Wall because they can't climb E5.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Have a look at closed circuit rebreathers used in cave diving.

They wouldn't have to be triple redundant, as failure won't result in drowning, although a duplicated system or critical components might be worth considering.

This would reduce the weight/ bulk, and it would further be compensated by the increase in efficiency and reduced oxygen canisters.

Typically these rebreathers scrub co2 out of the air, whilst topping up the air from a liquid oxygen cylinder.

In reply to Goucho:


What about all the people using aid on Salathé Wall and the Nose because they can't free 5.13?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I've done both these routes, and whilst your point is valid, most people who climb them accept that they've made an aided ascent, and don't try and dress it up as something else.

In reply to Goucho:


Well needed is an interesting term. Because everything I've ever rock climbed has almost certainly been soloed or down climbed by someone, does that mean my rope and rack and nearly everyone elses isn't 'needed' ? of course it doesn't. It is needed for me to climb in the style I choose to do routes - it brings the safety margins into acceptable limits for me. Its not a choice on ethics: by and large I expect not to change the environment I'm operating in and I don't impact the experience of others.

Where you can argue an ethical standpoint is on the use of pre-equiped lines.

In reply to GrahamD:


Or the huge amount of discarded O2 bottles littering a route?

Your point regarding impacting others experience of a route is a good one, and this is where the Everest circus falls flat on its oxygen mask.

Because the South Col route and North Ridge are now geared totally for commercialy guided ascents, anyone wanting to climb the mountain in a pure style via these routes is completely fucked.

These routes have been permanently dragged down to lowest common denominater, and IMHO now represent the complete antithesis of the spirit of mountaineering.

Everest is now just a commodity for guiding companies to make money - on the backs of the people who do the real work and take all the risk's, the sherpas - and enable the Facebook generation to grab that crucial summit selfie.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Lesson to OP: In alpinism, apparently everything can become an ethics issue, hah.

In reply to GrahamD:

And the increased endangering of economically disadvantaged locals to carry all that extra O2 under the seracs of the icefall because its users are too weak to do it themselves. Or those and other locals spending even more time in those danger zones - Khumbu Icefall, K2 Bottleneck, Annapurna north face - fixing ropes for the clients who can't climb without them.

In reply to Damo:

That is a seperate argument to the style of ascent with or without O2, though. That applies to all porterage and guiding activities not just O2.

In reply to Damo:

I should also add that obviously massively improves the ability to mount a rescue at altitude.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Apologies for co-hijacking your thread Alex. If you haven't seen it already, check out this (slightly outdated) page:
http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/oztech.htm

and, again if you haven't already, Google the terms - Poisk, Ted Atkins, Top Out, Summit Oxygen, canula

In reply to Goucho:

I know very little about high altitude climbing but I don't understand what's wrong with supplementary oxygen? I understand it's less of a challenge to use it but surely it's just a choice for the mountaineers in question? I don't really see it having any ethical impact on anyone else.

I mean people have soloed flying buttress direct but that doesn't mean I shouldn't trad it.

In reply to Goucho:

You are mixing up the reactions of some (and really a few in overall numbers) peoples response to "their achievements" with the paying others to assist you do something you cannot by yourself. You could same the same about almost every activity, whether taking a bus instead of walking, using a printer instead of handwriting, frozen peas instead of shelling.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


This isn't the same.

Whether you solo or lead FBD doesn't alter the physical or technical skill challenge of the route. The only difference is if you fall.

Using supplimentary O2 directly effects the physicality of climbing at altitude - indeed it reduces one of the biggest challenges of climbing at altitude. Combine this with fixed ropes, and you have completely changed both the physical and technical challenge of the route.

In reply to Goucho:
Pretty sure 'climbing' Everest with oxygen is the same as 'climbing' the Nose with aiders.

Saying using oxygen is cheating is ridiculous. The notion that oxygen is removing the height challenge of Everest is like saying wearing clothes is removing the cold challenge of Everest.

All this talk of pure ascents is fine, but it's just all ego driven bravado. If you want to climb in a certain way that's fine, but doing it a certain way simply to impress others - how lame is that. The challenge should always be with yourself, and nobody here should be sneering because someone wanted to see the view from a summit without getting brain damage or risking stroke.

The Everest commercialisation problem is a bigger discussion, but if you're honest about your ascent and haven't damaged the mountain then why does it bother you what someone else is doing?

In reply to m0unt41n:


If you're going for straw man argument of the year, you've just won

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

> I mean people have soloed flying buttress direct but that doesn't mean I shouldn't trad it.

That's not a fair analogy. A trad ascent is considered legitimate. Pulling on gear would not count according to the "rules"

In reply to Pedro50:

His question is a university study on the safety of the systems in use, not the ethics of the use of supplemental oxygen.

Likewise i've only been to 6400m mate so can't comment, but I would suggest you maybe contact an expedition company by phone, perhaps adventure peaks or someone. They may be able to give you more info on how the systems could be improved.

In reply to Chris Huntington:


I know. I did apologise in my first post for the hijack

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:


You're not comparing apples with apples here.


I don't think I said it was cheating. I pointed out that saying O2 is necessary is incorrect.


I think accusing people of wanting to climb routes in a pure style because of ego driven bravado, demonstrates an innate lack of understanding climbing.


This comment further highlights the lack of understanding as to how regarding Everest, the predominant style of ascents do both damage and effect the way others might want to climb it.

In reply to Goucho:



But not as a direct result of O2. Its as a result of the whole commercial circus. If someone carried their own O2 up Everest in no way have they done damage or affect the way others might want to climb it.

In reply to Goucho:



Rubbish, soloing is clearly better style than leading. (Arguably, leading in the original style in Woolies pumps with a hemp rope tied around your waist and no meaningful gear is better style than leading with lightweight modern half ropes and a rack full of cams as well.)

The point is that "it's cheating to climb things in a worse style than the best style they've been climbed in" is a totally spurious argument. People climb in whatever style they find appropriate because that's the experience that they want to have, and if they don't damage anything then fair play to them. As far as I can tell, no-one pretends that they did Everest unsupported, without oxygen, bollock-naked or anything else, they just blather on about what an incredible experience it was.

The environmental argument is a lot more sound. This is presumably the real reason that no-one pegs London Wall any more. I've not seen it myself, but if people are genuinely littering the place with discarded oxygen bottles to avoid carrying them down then that's poor form. But surely that'd be the case regardless of what style anyone's done it in in the past?

In reply to Pedro50 and Goucho:

OK so I think I understand a bit more now, thanks.

The thing I still don't get is what the problem is with other people using supplementary oxygen? It makes it less of an impressive ascent but surely because it has no bearing on the mountain or on other climbers it's a decision for the individual mountaineer?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Its awfully controversial I agree. The environmental aspect is certainly an issue, and that does have a bearing on the mountain, with hundreds of empty bottles left up there. I would ask the question why should Sherpa do these Everest clean up climbs and put themselves at risk. just to tidy up after people who dumped there used cylinders up there after summitting/giving up.

The bottom line is (and this is based on my experience at lower altitudes and a lot of books I have read on various accounts), some people could never climb the mountain without supplemental oxygen (I would probably include myself in that). And also, if you have paid £30k to climb the hill, and oxygen was available, wouldn't you want to give yourself the best chance (30 thousand pounds remember). I'm not saying this is my opinion folks, I'm just posing the question as to why people do it.

In reply to Goucho:


It's all just bringing the mountain down to your level.


I didn't say all pure ascents are driven by ego. It's talking about it that is. If you go on about how special you are because you climbed Everest only hopping on one leg, or criticise others for not doing it your way - obviously not including criticism for damaging the mountain - then the only motive for doing this is ego surely?


I said commercialisation was a separate issue. How does using O2 specifically damage the mountain? If the government issue permits to every guy that's wandered up Snowdon that's not the fault of the alpinist who chooses oxygen...

In reply to TheFasting:


No. In alpinism, anything goes! Pulled on gear? Great, that's an onsight. And then stood on it? Onsight.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I do like your style.

But some people will toprope, some will lead, and some will solo.

It might mean less to you if you have done it in a better style, but it shouldn't mean less to them.

In reply to Alex Fleming:

Found the article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-into-thin-air/

Are summits only for people content to suffer brain damage? Not a scientist so can't comment on the science, but is it really surprising?

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I think too many people are conflating the use of O2 with the guided circus and its pitfalls. The ethical issue isn't the use of O2 (which is actually a matter of style of ascent) but about the littering of mountains and the exploitation of locals

In reply to GrahamD:


They are inextricably linked, hand in hand. Parsing is irrelevant.

How many non-commercial expeditions use bottled O2? Almost none, a few remaining Korean and Japanese expeditions maybe.

How many commercial-guided expeditions to the 8000ers use bottled O2? Most, now.

Carrying loads on 8000ers (which I have done) is hard enough without carrying O2 as well. If you need O2, you need Sherpas - there are very few exceptions to this now. One means the other.

300 clients on south side Everest means at least 1500 O2 bottles need to be carried through the Khumbu Icefall by local workers.

Without multiple bottles of O2 used at 4l/m carried and swapped out by Sherpas, very few of those thousands of clients would make it up (and down) Everest. Ask any experienced Everest guide.

If someone carried and used their own O2? Fine. But almost nobody does this.

In reply to GrahamD:


Suplimentary O2 is what the whole Everest circus hinges on.

Get rid of suplimentary O2, and you get rid of the Everest circus.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
From the research I have carried out, I have come across various studies that climbers who reach altitude without the use of supplementary oxygen are highly likely to suffer in the long term from brain damage. No real surprise when you are starving your body of the essential O2 it needs to function properly in an environment where (above 8000m) the O2 levels are around a 1/3 of what that they are at sea level.

In reply to Goucho:

Or get rid of fixed ladders or get rid of expeditions above a certain size or restrict numbers. There are all sorts of things that can be done which are a lot more policeable than O2

In reply to GrahamD:


True, but the vast majority of the people using these aids are guided commercial expeditions, and need them because their clients invariably don't have the technical skills and experience to climb the mountain without them, even though technically, the South Col route is a glorified snow plod.

If people choose to use O2 on Everest (I think the majority of independent 'non commercial' teams don't in fact use bottled O2?) that's their perogative, but at least carry the bottles yourself, and bring the buggers back down with you.

The damage is being caused by the industrial scale useage of O2 by commercial teams, who just abandon them when they're empty.

In reply to Alex Fleming:


I know a few people who've climbed 8000 metre peaks - including Everest and K2 without supplementary O2, and their brains seem to still be functioning fine - though maybe I'm not the best person to judge that?

In reply to Alex Fleming:
I'm thinking an 'access on demand' rather than trickle supply of oxygen like somebody else has suggested could be an interesting/fruitful avenue to explore, with this kind of thing (I'm guessing) being as much about how you approach something, there could be scope to be creative with it.

My Dad for his thesis designed/explored a jeep which could also work as a hovercraft, it was something proposed already by another party I think, he described it as a solution looking for a problem.

In reply to Goucho:


Now there's something worth researching.....bio degradable canisters.

...


...

Although now I think about it, I suppose everything is biodegradable given enough time.

In reply to Goucho:

Both the damage and the revenue to the local economy revolve around guided trips. O2 is generally an aspect of that (for both guide and punter) but its not exclusive to guided expeditions. Leaving litter (bottles, discarded tents, bodies) is, again, not exclusive to guided to guided parties.

In reply to Goucho:

The brain has a remarkable ability to recover, that is true. What I would be worried about if I subjected my brain to repeated extreme hypoxia is that when I got older all that accumulated scar tissue would lead to, or increase the risk of, degenerative brain disorders. It's a baseless worry as there is no research into hypoxia induced dementia, but still.

In regard to the point about O2 damaging the mountain by the way it affects tourism, it's a fair comment. But I don't think you can blame O2 directly for that, and I don't think it's fair to knock climbers that choose to climb with it when up until recently the governments were issuing permits to kids and octogenarians, which to me is much worse.

In reply to ThunderCat:

It's a nice idea in principle, but the extreme conditions of the environment mean very little will biodegrade. Even in peak climbing season (May/June), temperatures at night can drop as low as -19 degrees C