[Method] Exit bag and inert gas megathread

  • Welcome to Sanctioned Suicide, a pro-choice forum for the discussion of mental illness, suicide, and the moral implications of the act itself. We do not encourage or aid suicide, the information offered is for educational purposes only. For more information read our FAQ.
    For immediate help, consider calling the Samaritan's hotline: (877) 870-4673. Be aware they may call emergency services if they believe you are at imminent risk of death. We also have a recovery subforum if you wish to get support.
    You can close this box by clicking the top right "X".
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
I can kind of see that for the type of mask pictured with the debreather, it doesn't look like it's attached very securely to your head at all. But I can't see that for a proper scuba mask for example.

Also, is there actually a source for this claim other than it being repeated here in the forum over and over? It's really frustrating that people keep reposting it without specifying what kind of setup is being talked about and what the source of the claim is. It's kinda like with the "fact" that you can't get pure helium anymore, when that only applies to a subset of the helium sold specifically for inflating balloons, which nobody here recommends you buy anyway because you can't even fit a flow regulator to those tanks.
I myself don't have any other more authoritative source for the claim about the mask losing its seal around the face as unconsciousness sets in. Here on SS is the only place I've seen that assertion made before and as I noted I was simply repeating it.

ADDITIONAL EDIT: This technical article discusses the issue of the debreather mask losing its seal as the people wearing it lost consciousness:

 
Last edited:
Hush Sweet Charlotte

Hush Sweet Charlotte

Member
Dec 25, 2018
82
165
ADDITIONAL EDIT: This technical article discusses the issue of the debreather mask losing its seal as the people wearing it lost consciousness:

Yes, this is where I got the information. On page 311 it reads:

'At the start of the debreather protocol, a client may be able
to position the mask to prevent ventilation from outside, but once
unconscious the relaxation of facial muscles and slacking of the jaw
will compromise the seal. There are also issues for those who have
facial hair, or wear dentures. A leak as small as a 15-gauge needle
will alter substantially the gas composition inside a closed breathing
system (see Hamilton & Eastwood, 1955).'

This is the reason the method was abandoned in favour of the exit bag. I've no idea how small a 15 gauge needle is, but it sounds.. pretty small. I really hope they have solved the problem in this new version.
 
dreamsofdestruction

dreamsofdestruction

Inadequate
May 9, 2019
288
495
Germany
Yes, this is where I got the information. On page 311 it reads:

'At the start of the debreather protocol, a client may be able
to position the mask to prevent ventilation from outside, but once
unconscious the relaxation of facial muscles and slacking of the jaw
will compromise the seal. There are also issues for those who have
facial hair, or wear dentures. A leak as small as a 15-gauge needle
will alter substantially the gas composition inside a closed breathing
system (see Hamilton & Eastwood, 1955).'

This is the reason the method was abandoned in favour of the exit bag. I've no idea how small a 15 gauge needle is, but it sounds.. pretty small. I really hope they have solved the problem in this new version.
Yeah, that's interesting. Might not apply to a full face mask that's attached more securely though.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
I need a way to remove the SI-factor. I don't talk about removing the bag before unconsciousness, but in a semi-unconscious state. Which could be dangerous. Anyone with ideas how to tie down hands quick after pulling down the bag?

Regarding the Debreather and other masks, I think that's really dangerous. Why? because a variation of this method is not tried out enough times.
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
Might not apply to a full face mask that's attached more securely though.
This was a big concern with our SCBAs, in fire service, and part of why we weren't allowed to have beards: beards cause air leaks, even with the mask strapped on very securely.
 
dreamsofdestruction

dreamsofdestruction

Inadequate
May 9, 2019
288
495
Germany
This was a big concern with our SCBAs, in fire service, and part of why we weren't allowed to have beards: beards cause air leaks, even with the mask strapped on very securely.
The beard aspect, yes. Also a thing with gas masks and the military.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
Hi all,

I'm new to this forum and I would like to get some opinion on argon and cars/bath tubs.

Cars have the big advantage that you can move them + equipment around and thereby move away from places, where friends and family live. This makes it easier for them to continue living in that place, because it is not directly connected to an exit. Moreover, cars or bath tubs are more open space and therfore more suitable for people who want to avoid using masks. Of course, argon has to be used in these cases because it is heavier than air and will accumulate on the floor.

SUVs and many other cars (except limousines) have big trunks that are separated by a back seat row from the rest of the car. It should be easily possible to line the trunk sides and floor with pool liner or other foil. The trunk sides can be lined as high as the backseat row goes.

Next, a 10 litre bottle (200 bar) of argon (make sure that it's pure argon and not some mixture with CO2) is placed on the floor of the trunk. The filling normally equals 2,100 litres of argon when released. This should be more than enough, since the volume of average car trunks ranges between 400 and 800 (SUV) litres but since we only line until the height of the backseats, we need less. Trunk volume could be checked in the car manual but car manufacturer often cheat and report higher numbers by including all kinds of smaller spaces and convexities in the trunk.

Argon is around 40% heavier than air and when the valve is opened, it starts filling the trunk from the bottom. It will replace the air by pushing it upwards into the rest of the car.

The trunk compartment cover should now be replaced with foil but a 50cm/20inch space should be left open, for the normal air to get out and for the person to get in later.

Please correct me, if I'm wrong:
  • Using a standard pressure regulator with 50 mbar results in 1.5 kg/h flow rate with a standard argon bottle (10 litres, 200 bar)
  • The density of argon is 1,784 kg/m3
  • So after 30 minutes, 0.75 kg of argon should equal around 0,42 m3 or 420 litres, enough to fill a 400 l trunk
Once the 30 minutes are over, a person could slowly enter the trunk through the open space in the foil from the backseat. The person will probably push out some argon and push in some air by his/her movement but he/she can wait 5 more minutes with head above the foil to add another 66 litres, and then slowly enter the trunk where the argon will have accumulated on the floor again.

The bottle is open all the time and will ensure that for the next 2 hours, another 1,600 litres of argon will be released, ensuring the exit.

The same principle can be used for a bath tub, where the plughole and other openings are sealed with duct tape and some transparent foil (including a small space for the air to exit and the person to enter) is spread/attached on top. Bath tubs only have around 200 litres and should therefore be filled within 15 minutes.

Do you guys think that this is a valid approach or would you improve something? I was looking for an instrument to measure argon content but couldn't find one. Are there instruments to measure direct oxygen content of the environment? This could be used to ensure that the oxygen has been replaced in the trunk.

Please feel free to comment, great community.

Hello,

I'm new to the forum and thanks again to the Admin/s to let me join!

English is not my first language and so I hope you can forgive mistakes. Before asking for registration to the forum, I read all of the entries about Carbon dioxide and Helium/Nitrogen/Argon as well as the PPH.

And just to confirm: Information here is only for educational purpose. I do not encourage, advise or aid suicidal behavior. It is up to you if you use the information else then for the educational purpose. Therefore, please be responsible and consult the laws of your own country. Please also consult the FAQ section of this forum should you have any questions.


However, at some point reading through this thread here, I realised that no one has replied to the above post #271584 as of yet, which I find somewhat interesting because this approach/method eliminates what would make - at least - me very hesitant about using a bag-method or a mask-method. A bag-method (as well as any of the mask-methods) does have strong supportive points and still, it also has strong points against it/them.

I understand that one of the strongest points of the bag-method is or is supposed to be the very quick effect i.e. turn unconscious within just a minute, which would be very welcome and yet, on the other hand I could imagine that this factor of knowing in advance that I would be rendered unconscious=incontrollable quickly plus the hyperventilation-thing before would create and contribute lots of stress to the allover psycological- and technical process perhaps leading to,
a) making one or more mistake/s during the final step/s, or
b) causing stronger behaviour/reactions during the early stage/s of subconsciousness due to the increased fears/stress before, or
c) interrupting the procedure altogether due to SI with the SI additionally fed by the before mentioned increased fears/stress).

I hope it is understandable what I mean.

However, post #271584 indicates a method that I was thinking through the last couple of days. It would perhaps be only for those who,
a) do not want to have that hyperventilation thing but "just" stand up/sit down/lay down and breath and fall asleep peacefully as a high mountain climber would,
b) can save a bit more money to buy/construct a little bit more equipment than "only" gas + regulators + tube + bag + tape + flexible.

I would though not use a car trunk unless it can be sealed in the same way a wood- or plastic box could (and would have to be). With a car trunk, I would consider that more difficult to reach.

Now, depending on what preferred position the ctb shall take place - laid down or sit down or stand up -, that would possibly determine the gas of choice:

***Nitrogen is almost as heavy as air and would disperse allover/throughout the given (still O2-filled) room/space and would hence not be the gas of choice in this method unless you can afford "tons" of N2.

***Helium is a lot lighter than air and would build up a layer/column at the top of a sealed room/space (with the area below that Helium layer not being supportive because filled with air/O2). This fact of the Helium layer at the top of the room/space would support a stand up position e.g. enclosed in a room/space like e.g. a wardrobe or other box (of wood or plastic) could be.

Of course this wardrobe or box would have to be narrow/tight enough to hinder a subconscious body from slipping down and out of the Helium layer zone once the muscles do not support a stand up position anymore). Leaving that Helium layer at the top of that room/space by slipping out of it would mean slipping down into the air/O2 zone within the box. Unless the tightness/narrowness of that room/space absolutely prevents such slip down, this way is not recommendable.

A better position in this method could be to place the sealed box in a diagonal position e.g. leaning it safe against a wall. Such position of the box would likely prevent a slip down of an unconscious body and thus keep its head safe within the Helium layer at the top of the box as long as the gas lasts.

Such a (similar or comparable) position is used by Australian Dr Dead and his apparatus called "VICE" that can be seen here: w w w.vice.com/en_us/article/434yaj/a-doctor-built-a-machine-that-helps-people-die


***Argon is a lot heavier than air and would build up a layer/column at the bottom of a sealed room/space while leaving the room/space above that Argon layer non-supportive. This gas-behavior would support a laid down or sitting position e.g. enclosed in a wide/long enough room/space like e.g. a wardrobe or other box (of wood or plastic) could be.

I would not consider a bathtub a good room/space since it may happen that the seal on top (e.g. the foil) could easily be broken by any unconscious/involuntary upward movement of the body/head. But a sealed box (of wood or plastic) long/wide/high enough could well do if I don't err.


Now, with such method the amount of gas required would of course be bigger than with the bag-method or any mask-method. Depending on the position and room/space, it would be necessary to calculate the m3 to be covered/layered either in the upper zone of the chosen room/space (upstanding position) or in its lower zone (laying or sitting down position). Perhaps a 10 liters regulated tank would suffice, rather 20 Iiters are assumable.


And the procedure would be comparably easier and less stressful I guess. Standing/sitting/laying inside the room/space just going on breathing completely normal not scared/stressed by any hyperventilation-thing and not restricted by any bag or mask and doubts/fears that it could get displaced during unconsciousness or the like; open the bottle in a steady stream, just wait for the layer building up, continue breathing normal all the while and with the gradual buildup of the layer in the head-zone fall asleep.


You see any mistake with that purely hypothetical assumption/s?


And just to reconfirm: Information here is only for educational purpose. I do not encourage, advise or aid suicidal behavior. It is up to you if you use the information else then for the educational purpose. Therefore, please be responsible and consult the laws of your own country. Please also consult the FAQ section of this forum should you have any questions.

Thank you for all your input. This is a great community!
 
Last edited:
color_me_gone

color_me_gone

Sun is rising
Dec 27, 2018
592
5,498
67
Centreville, Virginia
@jolly_well_fed_up
Could you provide the post sequence number (upper right hand corner of the post), for the post to which you refer. (271584). The number you provided requires a link, which also requires knowing which page it is on.
Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilAngelGoddess
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
@jolly_well_fed_up
Could you provide the post sequence number (upper right hand corner of the post), for the post to which you refer. (271584). The number you provided requires a link, which also requires knowing which page it is on.
Thank you!
No need for page.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
Hello color_me_gone,

The number you asked for is #333 and that post is currently on page 12 of this thread (but that may change I assume). However, I had quoted that post, which I referred to. Can others perhaps not see that quote (above my entry)?

Kind regards to you!

--

Hello MG_49,

Thank you for your quicker support! :)

--

Another idea I had on mind, which is kind of comparable to the above described box method. What about using a full-body dress made of stable plastic with even a hood. The complete thing should be closable by/with an appropriate zipper. Imagine it be like a cosmonaut dress. Should be pretty easy and cheap to get such a dress produced/sewed and sealed. It shouldn't be tailored too close to the body though to leave/have enough space for the breath-out CO2 to escape to.
On any place the tube could be let in and that hole/inlet be fixed/sealed well. This way as well, one could avoid that bag- and hyperventilation-thing but in the same time need be conscious about and accept that it would take longer to fall asleep and pass.

Another input for educational purpose only.
 
Last edited:
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
If I'm going with this method, I would find it easiest to choose Argon, because I have experience with welding and it wouldn't feel strange to buy Argon as opposite to Nitrogen.

Can someone explain the meaning of narcotic? "Argon (Ar) is an inert gas that is more narcotic than nitrogen, so is not generally suitable as a diving breathing gas"
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
If I'm going with this method, I would find it easiest to choose Argon, because I have experience with welding and it wouldn't feel strange to buy Argon as opposite to Nitrogen.

Can someone explain the meaning of narcotic? "Argon (Ar) is an inert gas that is more narcotic than nitrogen, so is not generally suitable as a diving breathing gas"

Hello MG_49,

1)
I copied the below quote from another page:

"Although no one knows exactly why some gases are narcotic, it is believed that the physical properties of the gases play a role (recent evidence suggests that the narcotic gases might be exerting their effect through binding to intracellular enzymes). An increase in molecular weight is roughly associated with an increase in narcotic effect but this is certainly not true for the lighter gases (see table) and could be a result of the increasing density of the gas. It has been clearly shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) increase the narcotic effect. As the gas becomes more dense/viscous as a result of increasing molecular weight, the gas becomes harder to move in and out of the lungs. This causes an increase in the level of CO2 in the body and thereby an increased narcotic effect. Increased CO2 does not fully explain the differences in narcotic effect of the various inert gases."

(author: unknown; source: w w w.scubaboard.com/community/threads/narcotic-values-of-different-gases.160176/page-3)

Perhaps it still can give you some insight.

2)
Which method did you refer to when you wrote, "If I'm going with this method..." ?


Thank you for your reply and answer!
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
Hello MG_49,

1)
I copied the below quote from another page:

"Although no one knows exactly why some gases are narcotic, it is believed that the physical properties of the gases play a role (recent evidence suggests that the narcotic gases might be exerting their effect through binding to intracellular enzymes). An increase in molecular weight is roughly associated with an increase in narcotic effect but this is certainly not true for the lighter gases (see table) and could be a result of the increasing density of the gas. It has been clearly shown that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) increase the narcotic effect. As the gas becomes more dense/viscous as a result of increasing molecular weight, the gas becomes harder to move in and out of the lungs. This causes an increase in the level of CO2 in the body and thereby an increased narcotic effect. Increased CO2 does not fully explain the differences in narcotic effect of the various inert gases."

(author: unknown; source: w w w.scubaboard.com/community/threads/narcotic-values-of-different-gases.160176/page-3)

Perhaps it still can give you some insight.

2)
Which method did you refer to when you wrote, "If I'm going with this method..." ?


Thank you for your reply and answer!
Thank you,

Exit bag with inert gas. But even though this method is rather safe, I'm still scared of a failure which result in a vegetative state.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
Thank you,

Exit bag with inert gas. But even though this method is rather safe, I'm still scared of a failure which result in a vegetative state.

Hello MG_49, Thank you for your reply and answer!

I can well understand this point! I hope it doesn't offend anyone or is considered super insensitive when I add for consideration whether such vegetative state may be a rather "abstract" fear ... able to hold back (and reconsider ones plan to ctb, which is not in general a bad thing)? Reads terrible but I don't know how to express that in a different way. Perhaps such vegetative state would be more bad for the ones left behind? Because the person being in such state may not at all realise anything about that state as brain doesn't allow anymore to reflect (about) it? I don't know whether this is completely true; at least a total absense of brain function would support that neither the state itself can be reflected about nor any feelings be felt (e.g. of pain or the like), which (too) would be meassured and displayed by brain function measuring technique/devises I think. Very difficult to overcome such doubts and fears but if true indeed, then such thoughts and fears are very prone to be increased even more by ones own mind/thoughts.
 
CareOfCell44

CareOfCell44

One Foot on the Gas, One Foot in the Grave
Jul 26, 2019
28
47
Wherever I May Roam
Would this method be possible with a breathing mask? or small enclosed space roughly the size of a car?
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
Would this method be possible with a breathing mask? or small enclosed space roughly the size of a car?
Hello CareOfCell44,

May I ask which method you are referring to exactly? I'm asking this because I see two similar but still two different methods here, the EB with inert gas and e.g. a body-sized bag with inert gas.

After all I have read, I would not opt for any mask for the same reason I would not opt for an EB.
But if I was forced to choose between mask with inert gas and EB with inert gas, I would opt for EB with inert gas.
And if I was forced to choose between an "normal" breathing mask with inert gas and a full-face scuba/diving mask with inert gas, I would opt for the full-face scuba/diving mask with inert gas.

About your second point: A small enclosed space yes, but I would consider the space of a car a far too big of a space unless you can afford "tons" of inert gas. I'd opt for an enclosed space as it would be given in the case of an airtight full-body dress or an airtight body-sized bag in combination with a 20 liters regulated tank of inert gas.

This information for educational purpose only.
 
Last edited:
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
Because WTFarley won't sell the click-style nitrogen regulator to individuals, does anyone know other online resources in the U.S. who WILL sell to individuals? Alternatively, reading through the forums, I see two dial-type regulators mentioned:
Olson $69.99 https://www.harborfreight.com/co2argon-flow-gauge-regulator-63787.html
Hobart $79.99 https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/hobart-flow-gauge-mig-regulator
My eyes glazed over when trying to learn enough about gas regulators (e.g., https://chemistry.osu.edu/sites/chemistry.osu.edu/files/Guide to Regulators.pdf) to make an informed choice. Can someone (TiredHorse?) recommend one or discuss pros/cons for one over the other? Both of these provide L/min but I have no idea how to achieve that flow rate using two dials. The click-style seems so simple (set the dial to 15 L/min) but even if I can find one, cost is a consideration.
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
@Eweforia, the two dials are simple:

One dial reads tank pressure --typically the one closer to the cylinder, marked in PSI-- which tells you how much gas is in the cylinder. It is, in effect, a fuel gauge, and since you'll be starting with a full tank and using the entire tank in one go, you can pretty much ignore it.

The second dial is your flow rate --this is the important one for our purposes-- and should read in liters per minute (LPM).

The way it works is that you hook up the regulator (thread the stem of the regulator into the cylinder valve and tighten it with a wrench), make sure the regulator valve (that's the big knob or T-handle on the regulator body itself) is closed (typically this is by loosening that knob/T-handle), and open the tank valve all the way. There will be a short hiss as the pressurized gas fills the connector between cylinder valve and regulator valve, and the pressure gauge will jump to register whatever pressure is in the cylinder. The flowmeter will read zero.

You then slowly open the regulator valve (typically by tightening that big knob/T-handle). The gas will start to hiss out of the regulator and, as you increase the flow by adjusting the valve, the needle of the flowmeter will rise and register the rate at which the gas is flowing out of the regulator. Think of it as a click-style without the clicking. The pressure gauge will not move noticeably, in a glance, but over time will show the tank being emptied.

Once you get the flow rate adjusted to where you want it (15 LPM), you can, if you want, ignore the regulator valve, close the cylinder valve, and the regulator will hold its setting. The next time you open the cylinder, it will then immediately begin to dispense gas at 15 LPM; regulators are designed to hold their flow settings even when the cylinder valves are closed.

All a click-style regulator does is give you pre-set flow rates with no pressure gauge to tell you how much gas is in the tank.

As for recommending a regulator, it looks like either of those you link to will work. The critical element is whether the flowmeter goes high enough (some regulators don't reach 15 LPM) and it appears both of those have the necessary range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWL and Eweforia
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
Hello MG_49, Thank you for your reply and answer!

I can well understand this point! I hope it doesn't offend anyone or is considered super insensitive when I add for consideration whether such vegetative state may be a rather "abstract" fear ... able to hold back (and reconsider ones plan to ctb, which is not in general a bad thing)? Reads terrible but I don't know how to express that in a different way. Perhaps such vegetative state would be more bad for the ones left behind? Because the person being in such state may not at all realise anything about that state as brain doesn't allow anymore to reflect (about) it? I don't know whether this is completely true; at least a total absense of brain function would support that neither the state itself can be reflected about nor any feelings be felt (e.g. of pain or the like), which (too) would be meassured and displayed by brain function measuring technique/devises I think. Very difficult to overcome such doubts and fears but if true indeed, then such thoughts and fears are very prone to be increased even more by ones own mind/thoughts.
As a lot of people here, I hope to find a way where I don't need to ctb. The choice of method is far from easy. Most people want a peaceful way out, but a lot of peaceful ways are methods with more risks involved.

What fears most regarding the vegetative state, is a situation where I'm stuck in a non function body with both physical and mental pain. But of course a vegetative state with absense of brain function would also be bad in regards of the people left behind.
 
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
@Eweforia, the two dials are simple: <snip>
As for recommending a regulator, it looks like either of those you link to will work. The critical element is whether the flowmeter goes high enough (some regulators don't reach 15 LPM) and it appears both of those have the necessary range.
Thank you, @TiredHorse. That was immensely helpful.
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
Eweforia after looking at the pics of the two regulators you posted it seems they're shaped differently which could pose a problem for you. I haven't read up on the inert gas/exit bag method for awhile so I could very well be wrong but here are the things I see:

1) The Olson regulator has a cylindrical connector with INTERNAL threads on it. This won't connect to a nitrogen tank without an adapter.

2) The Olson regulator doesn't appear to have the barbed connector on it that allows you to attach one end of a length of vinyl tubing to the nitrogen tank with the other end being taped to the inside of the exit bag so that nitrogen can flow into it once it's pulled down over your head.

3) The Hobart regulator has a rounded, bullet-shaped connector with EXTERNAL threads that would allow it to be attached to a tank of nitrogen.

4) The Hobart also DOES have the barbed connector on it that you could attach a length of vinyl tubing to.

Here's a pic of a nitrogen tank from a place in the U.S. called Cyberweld that's been recommended here on SS:

turbotorch-inert-gas-cylinder-20-cubic-foot-0916-0145-48.jpg

If you look at the larger attachment "collar" (not sure what else to call it) on the leftside of the neck of the tank you can see it has INTERNAL threads. The Olson regulator will not connect to it without an adapter.

The Hobart regulator WILL connect to the tank because its connector has EXTERNAL threads that will fit INSIDE the collar on the nitrogen tank shown.
 
Last edited:
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
As for recommending a regulator, it looks like either of those you link to will work. The critical element is whether the flowmeter goes high enough (some regulators don't reach 15 LPM) and it appears both of those have the necessary range.
Okay, here is the next question in my quest to simplify the complex issue of regulators. I found the Olsen regulator at Amazon for $60 (https://tinyurl.com/yyj9h3qe) I searched Amazon for nitrogen regulators but could not find one with a flow meter that measured L/min. So my question is will the Olsen regulator designed for CO2 and Argon work for Nitrogen? If not, can someone provide a link to a regulator that will?
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
Eweforia I think the best thing you could do right now is go to the Resources thread at the top of the main forum, scroll down til you see the book "Five Last Acts". Download it and read all of Section 1 on helium and nitrogen. This will give you a good grounding in how to get set up with this method and answer many of your questions.
 
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
Eweforia after looking at the pics of the two regulators you posted it seems they're shaped differently which could pose a problem for you. I haven't read up on the inert gas/exit bag method for awhile so I could very well be wrong but here are the things I see: <snip>

3) The Hobart regulator has a rounded, bullet-shaped connector with EXTERNAL threads that would allow it to be attached to a tank of nitrogen.
4) The Hobart also DOES have the barbed connector on it that you could attach a length of vinyl tubing to.

The Hobart regulator WILL connect to the tank because its connector has EXTERNAL threads that will fit INSIDE the collar on the nitrogen tank shown.
@pane , that is EXACTLY the kind of information that I was hoping someone could provide. I am just not sensitive to these kind of differences and don't know what to look for. So will the Hobart flow meter work for measuring Nitrogen? And as a secondary question, will it work for Helium? I presume that calibration of these meters is critical for welding and other industrial uses, but for the purposes used in this thread, does it matter that the meter be calibrated specifically for the gas being used?
Eweforia I think the best thing you could do right now is go to the Resources thread at the top of the main forum, scroll down til you see the book "Five Last Acts". Download it and read all of Section 1 on helium and nitrogen. This will give you a good grounding in how to get set up with this method and answer many of your questions.
Pane, I've read the Five Last Acts and remained very foggy about regulators and nitrogen. That is why I've asked these questions here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sirius
Sirius

Sirius

Veteran
Jul 10, 2019
142
126
@pane , that is EXACTLY the kind of information that I was hoping someone could provide. I am just not sensitive to these kind of differences and don't know what to look for. So will the Hobart flow meter work for measuring Nitrogen? And as a secondary question, will it work for Helium? I presume that calibration of these meters is critical for welding and other industrial uses, but for the purposes used in this thread, does it matter that the meter be calibrated specifically for the gas being used?

Pane, I've read the Five Last Acts and remained very foggy about regulators and nitrogen. That is why I've asked these questions here.
i TOO, NOT HAVING ANY MECHANICAL BACKGROUND, HAS GOTTEN VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THE SIMPLEST OF EQUIPMENT NEEDS. I HAVE AN OLD SCHOOL HOOD FROM GLAAD THAT I'M PRETTY SURE WILL WORK WITH NITRO; HAVE THE NITRO FROM CYBERWELD; SI I NEED THE HOBART REGULATOR AND I'M SET WITHOUT HAVING TO PURCHASE FROM AUSTRALIA? ANY SPECIAL TUBING NEEDED?
aNYONE HAVE ANY INFO ON NITRO AND CONVULSIONS?
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
@pane , that is EXACTLY the kind of information that I was hoping someone could provide. I am just not sensitive to these kind of differences and don't know what to look for. So will the Hobart flow meter work for measuring Nitrogen? And as a secondary question, will it work for Helium? I presume that calibration of these meters is critical for welding and other industrial uses, but for the purposes used in this thread, does it matter that the meter be calibrated specifically for the gas being used?

Pane, I've read the Five Last Acts and remained very foggy about regulators and nitrogen. That is why I've asked these questions here.
1) I *believe* the Hobart regulator should work with a nitrogen tank even though it's marked as an "Argon/CO2" regulator although I can't say with total certainty because it's been awhile since I last read up on the inert gas method.

As an example, Dr. Nitschke's Max Dog Brewing company sells a "nitrogen" regulator for over $300 which is actually an oxygen regulator for oxygen tanks sold by WT Farley.

Several people have bought it and talked about this here on SS because they were upset over having paid so much money for something they could've bought straight from the original source at a much cheaper price (before Farley apparently banned the sale of regulators to individuals)

2) I don't know if a regulator is even needed with helium. In the inert gas method as originally done with helium using those balloon tanks, I thought you just opened up the flow valve on the tank and let the helium flow through the tubing into the exit bag to cause death. As I said, I haven't kept up with this method and can't recall the exact details of how to do it properly.

3) Yes, as you point out, for the purpose you intend I don't think it matters that much as long as you have an inert gas regulator that can do at least 15 LPM, can attach to a nitrogen tank and has that barbed extension on it to attach vinyl or rubber tubing to go into the exit bag.
i TOO, NOT HAVING ANY MECHANICAL BACKGROUND, HAS GOTTEN VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THE SIMPLEST OF EQUIPMENT NEEDS. I HAVE AN OLD SCHOOL HOOD FROM GLAAD THAT I'M PRETTY SURE WILL WORK WITH NITRO; HAVE THE NITRO FROM CYBERWELD; SI I NEED THE HOBART REGULATOR AND I'M SET WITHOUT HAVING TO PURCHASE FROM AUSTRALIA? ANY SPECIAL TUBING NEEDED?
aNYONE HAVE ANY INFO ON NITRO AND CONVULSIONS?
Regarding the tubing, you'd have to buy a regulator with that barbed extension on it like the Hobart one has and you'd need to know what the diameter of the barbed extension is.

Once you have that piece of info, you'd need tubing which has an inside diameter slightly bigger than the outside diameter of the barbed extension so the tubing fits snugly around it. The tubing itself you simply get at a hardware/building supplies store. The tubing can be either rubber or vinyl and you need I think about a six-foot length of it.

I don't know anything about nitrogen possibly causing convulsions. The Five Last Acts book says that during nitrogen asphyxiation the body may twitch and jerk somewhat but this is an instinctive reaction during the death process and shouldn't be strong enough to interfere with the exit bag on your head.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TiredHorse
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
As a lot of people here, I hope to find a way where I don't need to ctb. The choice of method is far from easy. Most people want a peaceful way out, but a lot of peaceful ways are methods with more risks involved.

What fears most regarding the vegetative state, is a situation where I'm stuck in a non function body with both physical and mental pain. But of course a vegetative state with absense of brain function would also be bad in regards of the people left behind.
Hi MG_49,

Thank you for your reply and insight/s!

Me too, I wish everyone here would not need to think about to ctb. :(

Choice of method ... yes ... definitely not an easy one since access to N is kinda denied to many or even most. However, aside from the easiness/difficulty of access to N, even this way of leaving doesn't come "for free" as we realised before, e.g. time until sleep/unconsciousness can be shorter but also longer, which leaves enough time for regret and even panic because the N once swallowed cannot be undone and "you" are fully aware of that fact.

I think the bag-method is pretty safe although - when saying this - I do rather not refer to the EB-method due to the exact risk you spoke about i.e. the risk of ripping it off in the early stage/s of unconsciousness. I would rather vote for "my" body-sized bag-method, i.e. using e.g. a zippered mattress cover made of strong plastic and 20 regulated liters of pure helium. Around the hip a belt could be dressed or a rope be knotted to make the given space/room a bit smaller and thus hasten the effect. I mean, the quick effect in the EB-method is good but it is countered by the risk of ripping the EB off as you say. So with the body-sized bag it would take a bit longer to lose consciousness but since there is nothing around the head, nothing can be ripped off or displaced here. That may be considered a "fair deal". And if sleep-deprived for 1-3 days and/or perhaps assisted by some "sleep booster", one would even not realise that it took a bit longer to lose consciousness.

I think, if someone is in such vegetative state, one cannot realise about mental or physical pain. But of course, I'm simply not sure about that. But if that was the case, at least here in Europe we do have what is like a written statement (personal directive), which "you" can leave at "your" doctor's office proving that "you" do not want machines "keep the wheel going" should "you" be in such a (vegetative) state. In such case, doctors in hospital would switch off those machines and end that vegetative state and thus also "shorten" the suffering for the ones left behind ... if that can be a word of comfort. Do you have something similar in the US or elsewhere (outside Europe)?

I was doing some calculations throughout the weekend and found that a 20 liters 200 bar inert gas tank should "cover" 3.340 m3, which by itself would "cover" for almost 8 hours of "breathing" on a "normal" 1 bar level. To give an appropriate example for an appropriate "picture on mind" - A balloon of 210 cm filled with Helium would contain just 5 m3. "You" could blow up an est. 668 ballons of this 210 cm size with a 20 liters 200 bar tank of.

Perhaps someone can show any error or add further input?

Wish you can all enjoy a good day!


Information provided for educational purpose only!
 
Last edited:
Sirius

Sirius

Veteran
Jul 10, 2019
142
126
1) I *believe* the Hobart regulator should work with a nitrogen tank even though it's marked as an "Argon/CO2" regulator although I can't say with total certainty because it's been awhile since I last read up on the inert gas method.

As an example, Dr. Nitschke's Max Dog Brewing company sells a "nitrogen" regulator for over $300 which is actually an oxygen regulator for oxygen tanks sold by WT Farley.

Several people have bought it and talked about this here on SS because they were upset over having paid so much money for something they could've bought straight from the original source at a much cheaper price (before Farley apparently banned the sale of regulators to individuals)

2) I don't know if a regulator is even needed with helium. In the inert gas method as originally done with helium using those balloon tanks, I thought you just opened up the flow valve on the tank and let the helium flow through the tubing into the exit bag to cause death. As I said, I haven't kept up with this method and can't recall the exact details of how to do it properly.

3) Yes, as you point out, for the purpose you intend I don't think it matters that much as long as you have an inert gas regulator that can do at least 15 LPM, can attach to a nitrogen tank and has that barbed extension on it to attach vinyl or rubber tubing to go into the exit bag.


Regarding the tubing, you'd have to buy a regulator with that barbed extension on it like the Hobart one has and you'd need to know what the diameter of the barbed extension is.

Once you have that piece of info, you'd need tubing which has an inside diameter slightly bigger than the outside diameter of the barbed extension so the tubing fits snugly around it. The tubing itself you simply get at a hardware/building supplies store. The tubing can be either rubber or vinyl and you need I think about a six-foot length of it.

I don't know anything about nitrogen possibly causing convulsions. The Five Last Acts book says that during nitrogen asphyxiation the body may twitch and jerk somewhat but this is an instinctive reaction during the death process and shouldn't be strong enough to interfere with the exit bag on your head.
Thank you for your detailed reply, Pane. With the HELIUM: back in the day you just needed the GLADD hood or Betty's DIY version with 2 Balloon time tanks-NO REGULATOR.
However I have had those tanks some time and am suspicious of slow leakage.
I witnessed a few Helium hood exits and there was the instance of a major full body "jerk" as the individual feel heavily and suddenly unconscious. No convulsions as I would describe them.
So my concern is the regulator and a hope that the old bag (trusting no perforations) will do the trick. Any data on CO2 build up? How real is that? Using same equipment as i would have with the Helium
How much does this method cost
Nitro canister in US $95; Make your own bag $20ish; Regulator $35
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

  • LMLN