Well, alright maybe not as dangerous from asphyxiation but it's definitely toxic.
I have designed and installed halon systems for commercial premises and the requirement was to allow 30 seconds, after the alarm sounds, to evacuate the room before the release of the halon gas.

This link may help with this question.

http://www.trivenimarketing.com/ceas...chemistry.html

Larry

Originally Posted by Larry4911

Well, alright maybe not as dangerous from asphyxiation but it's definitely toxic.
I have designed and installed halon systems for commercial premises and the requirement was to allow 30 seconds, after the alarm sounds, to evacuate the room before the release of the halon gas.

This link may help with this question.

http://www.trivenimarketing.com/ceas...chemistry.html

Larry

hi Larry.
It depends which of the Halon gas types you are working with.

Extract:

Halon flooding systems do NOT displace enough air so as to be
a hazard of suffocation. CO2 systems, by contrast, lower the oxygen
content of the room to a level which supports neither combustion nor
human life.

http://yarchive.net/chem/halon.html

Very true Eric.

Larry

Moreover, CO2 at relatively low levels stimulates the respiratory system to hyperventilate. That is discomforting in itself, and if continued can lead to respiratory alkalosis, which is quite dangerous.

Bottom line, next time I have an on-board fire in an aircraft, I will put it to a vote of the passengers -- would you rather have a little discomfort or be burned to a crisp?

It is not a question of something one does as part of every flight. It is done to save lives in relatively rare circumstances. The approved Halons (and maybe Halotron) are the best things we currently have for that purpose.

BTW, the concept that a pressurized airplane is like a closed bottle is a bit misleading. The pilot can control the control the ratio of outside air to recirculated air.

Originally Posted by jpanhalt

Moreover, CO2 at relatively low levels stimulates the respiratory system to hyperventilate. That is discomforting in itself, and if continued can lead to respiratory alkalosis, which is quite dangerous.

hi,
As a side issue, which I am sure you are aware of, carbon monoxide does not stimulate the respiratory system, so a person is unaware of the danger until its too late and they passout.

BTW: I would also opt for the fire extinguisher being used onboard.

Originally Posted by eblc1388

I for one would support the banning of CO2. Don't hold your breath though.

Sure. All you need to do is ban the use of all hydrocarbon fuels and coal. Piece of cake. Of course the increase in the use of horses to replace all the cars could lead to another kind of odoriferous pollution.

Originally Posted by ericgibbs

hi,
As a side issue, which I am sure you are aware of, carbon monoxide does not stimulate the respiratory system, so a person is unaware of the danger until its too late and they passout.

That's true. But are you confusing carbon monoxide (CO) with carbon dioxide (CO2)?

Originally Posted by crutschow

That's true. But are you confusing carbon monoxide (CO) with carbon dioxide (CO2)?

No I am not.


Carbon Monoxide CO, is colourless and odourless.

Originally Posted by crutschow

All you need to do is ban the use of all hydrocarbon fuels and coal. Piece of cake. Of course the increase in the use of horses to replace all the cars could lead to another kind of odoriferous pollution.

Interesting concept. Consider this: horses eat hay, which is cellulosic. That is, like sugars C6H12O6. In other words, the carbon is partially oxidized already. Now, assume your horsey converts that to energy by oxidative metabolism (you hope). That gives C02!

It is somewhat less efficient than a good IC engine overall, and in terms of CO2/BTU* is considerably more (i.e., bad) than a good engine burning a fully reduced fuel like gasoline or diesel. So much for horse sense. It will make the "problem" worse for the same amount of power.

John

*Almost wrote horsepower, but I know how you Brits like your units.

Originally Posted by jpanhalt

Interesting concept.
John
*Almost wrote horsepower, but I know how you Brits like your units.

hi John,
Horsepower is good, I'm comfortable with 33,000 ft-lbs/min.

An American researcher recently did a 'carbon footprint' calculation for the American Cheesburger,,,
its a staggering 200 million metric tonnes of CO2 per annum.

He did a full audit of all it takes to produce the burgers.!!!!