[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".
Righttodie

Righttodie

Live free or die
Apr 10, 2019
119
284
I have seen tanks that look 100 times worse than that, in use everyday in industry. Most important is that the valve does not leak, which will cause you to lose gas, and it adds up quickly. Sadly, you just can't look at a valve and tell if it leaks.
Hey. Thanks for replying.

I guess I will check with him about any possibility of it leaking.
Is there something we can use to test the leak ?
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
Cylinders are hydrostatically tested on a regular (and regulated) schedule, and cannot be used/sold if they are not "in hydro," so regardless of how shabby it looks, it'll be sound. (A couple of my various cylinders look a lot worse than the one in that photo.)

As @color_me_gone says, the valve may be a different matter, but getting a leaker is pretty rare in my experience. In fact, I don't think I've had that trouble. Gas companies don't like leakers any more than the customer does, so they tend to take care of their valves.

I've heard a good way to test for slow leaks, when there's no regulator attached, is to stretch a balloon over the valve, seize it in place with a bit of twine, and see if it inflates over time. If there is a leak in the valve, you can often make an "end run" around it by attaching the regulator and making sure the regulator's flow valve is closed: any gas that leaks from the cylinder's valve will be stopped by the regulator's valve. This isn't a good long-term solution, as regulator valves are much more prone to slow leaks than cylinder valves (they're mechanically more complex), but it can sometimes do the job for a while.

To test for leaks around the regulator, where it attaches to the cylinder, squirt some soapy water around the connection and see if it bubbles.
 
S

Shamana

Master
May 31, 2019
490
723
I don't think, I have the deftness of hands to reliably set up this and create a proper exit bag. I'm the most clumsy and practical useless guy in the world. It sounds like one of the best way's of going though in terms of peacefullness.
 
  • Hug
Reactions: Righttodie
Righttodie

Righttodie

Live free or die
Apr 10, 2019
119
284
Cylinders are hydrostatically tested on a regular (and regulated) schedule, and cannot be used/sold if they are not "in hydro," so regardless of how shabby it looks, it'll be sound. (A couple of my various cylinders look a lot worse than the one in that photo.)

As @color_me_gone says, the valve may be a different matter, but getting a leaker is pretty rare in my experience. In fact, I don't think I've had that trouble. Gas companies don't like leakers any more than the customer does, so they tend to take care of their valves.

I've heard a good way to test for slow leaks, when there's no regulator attached, is to stretch a balloon over the valve, seize it in place with a bit of twine, and see if it inflates over time. If there is a leak in the valve, you can often make an "end run" around it by attaching the regulator and making sure the regulator's flow valve is closed: any gas that leaks from the cylinder's valve will be stopped by the regulator's valve. This isn't a good long-term solution, as regulator valves are much more prone to slow leaks than cylinder valves (they're mechanically more complex), but it can sometimes do the job for a while.

To test for leaks around the regulator, where it attaches to the cylinder, squirt some soapy water around the connection and see if it bubbles.
Thanks for replying. That solves my worries about the looks of the tank and how to deal with any possible leaks.

That's all for now considering the cylinder itself.

I will need to figure a day when I can go and buy it if I can't get one shipped(which is preferred).

After getting the cylinder I will take it to a hardware store where they can help me find and fix the regulator and the tubing.

Then also need to order a drawstring bag, or get it made by someone who can do tailoring.

With that done, I will be all set. Since the quantity of nitrogen is high in my case(around 50 cubic feet), I will take time to test it before my final act.

My only concern is the possible hissing sound and how to mask it.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
@ TiredHorse

May I ask you if you would mind to let me know what you think about "my" bag-method? Errors, flaws, optimizations, week points that you may see, strengths that you may see as well, etc. Thank you very much ... should you take the time to reply!
(...) My only concern is the possible hissing sound and how to mask it.
Perhaps it's not so loud after all ... when "working" with just ca 15-17 l/min ? You could switch on some music if you like ... to accompany and cover.
Cylinders are hydrostatically tested on a regular (and regulated) schedule, and cannot be used/sold if they are not "in hydro," so regardless of how shabby it looks, it'll be sound. (A couple of my various cylinders look a lot worse than the one in that photo.)

As @color_me_gone says, the valve may be a different matter, but getting a leaker is pretty rare in my experience. In fact, I don't think I've had that trouble. Gas companies don't like leakers any more than the customer does, so they tend to take care of their valves.

I've heard a good way to test for slow leaks, when there's no regulator attached, is to stretch a balloon over the valve, seize it in place with a bit of twine, and see if it inflates over time. If there is a leak in the valve, you can often make an "end run" around it by attaching the regulator and making sure the regulator's flow valve is closed: any gas that leaks from the cylinder's valve will be stopped by the regulator's valve. This isn't a good long-term solution, as regulator valves are much more prone to slow leaks than cylinder valves (they're mechanically more complex), but it can sometimes do the job for a while.

To test for leaks around the regulator, where it attaches to the cylinder, squirt some soapy water around the connection and see if it bubbles.
Very good input.

And if I may add another idea: There's some plastic bags made of very very thin (plastic) material, which rustles at the very smallest movement/s. If you span such a bag over the tank and fix it there with a gum around, you'd hear (and see ) such bag rustle at the slightest movement/s caused by any "wind" coming out of the tank.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Righttodie
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
May I ask you if you would mind to let me know what you think about "my" bag-method? Errors, flaws, optimizations, week points that you may see, strengths that you may see as well, etc. Thank you very much ... should you take the time to reply!
I mostly only skim this thread at this point, occasionally chiming in for straightforward questions, but I assume you are speaking of your full-body exit bag? If so, I would not take that approach.

1) There is no good way to evacuate all extra air from the bag prior to filling it with inert gas. Once you climb into the bag, bringing with you a substantial quantity of air, any gas you then add to the bag would be intrinsically diluted by whatever air exists in the bag. It doesn't matter whether it's the lighter He or the heavier Ar, the differences are not so great that you would not simply create an He- or N2- or Ar-rich air mixture. There would still be plenty of O2 to sustain you.

2) There is no mechanism by which the CO2 can easily be expelled from the inert gas atmosphere you've created. Even if you did somehow manage to evacuate all the air and replace it 100% with inert gas (which I do not see as possible), that inert gas atmosphere would quickly become contaminated with CO2, hypercapnic alarm would set in, and you would involuntarily tear your way out of the bag.

I don't wish to be offensive to you, as you've obviously been putting a lot of thought into your method, but I do not see that your hypothesized method would work very well, if at all. It seems like "a solution looking for a problem." Much as I love tinkering with systems --and I really do!-- I haven't yet seen any improvements on the basic method that don't introduce more problems than they're worth.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
I mostly only skim this thread at this point, occasionally chiming in for straightforward questions, but I assume you are speaking of your full-body exit bag? If so, I would not take that approach. (...)
Hello TiredHorse,

Thank you for your reply, your opinion and your input, very much appreciated! Thank you!

Now, let me add some information, concretize and explain about the full-body-bag-method:

(...) There is no good way to evacuate all extra air from the bag prior to filling it with inert gas. Once you climb into the bag, bringing with you a substantial quantity of air, any gas you then add to the bag would be intrinsically diluted by whatever air exists in the bag. It doesn't matter whether it's the lighter He or the heavier Ar, the differences are not so great that you would not simply create an He- or N2- or Ar-rich air mixture. There would still be plenty of O2 to sustain you. (...)
A) I had recommended to make the available space of the full-body-bag smaller e.g. by attaching a belt or rope around ones hips. The full-body-bag would be kind of an equivalent to a mini-tent, which so many users here think of when playing possibilities through on mind.

B) As I wrote in my entries explaining the full-body-bag-method:

The only good criteria of the regular exit bag-method could be,

* quicker loss of consciousness,
* lesser amount of gas required,
* shorter time to dead,

BUT on the other hand,

a) this beforehand knowledge can even scare people off i.e. to know beforehand that one will loose control over everything that follows so darn quickly, and this scare include/s:

b) the fear that one would/could rip the exit-bag off during those early quick stages of unconsciousness when motoric body-reactions are at their highest/strongest level;

c) the fear that CO2 levels could built up within the exit-bag and trigger a hypercapnic response. This can actually happen when the exit-bag is too small and should definitely be ruled out for a full-body-bag since within the full-body-bag there's lots of space available that prevents any critical build up of CO2 inside;

d) the (individual) objection to putting a bag over one's head.

Resume: These 4 points (a - d) would be eliminated by the full-body-bag-method (as compared to the regular exit-bag).


C) I see your point regarding the Gas/Air-mixture and regarding this I wrote that,

1) taking into account what I wrote above in Ba/Bb/Bc, it would not be necessary to create such a "gas vacuum" to be successful and die safely, peacefully and painlessly. This will be understandable when thinking about the high-mountain climbers who cannot survive long in an environment with too low of an oxigen level but from a certain hight on would get tired and fall asleep without waking up anymore if no one moves them out of the dead-zone.

2) One would - as well - leave a gap/slit for excessive CO2/O2 to be pushed out the full-body-bag by the steady stream of gas from the top into the full-body-bag. It is just that - as I wrote - this method would

a) take longer to achieve unconsciousness and dead (but one would anyway not realise about that because sleeping) and,

b) it would require more gas than a small 5 liter tank could provide, ie a 20 liter tank would be recommended providing a gas-cover for an area/volume of more than 3000 m3 (more than 100000 cubic feet). To compare: A baloon of 210cm has a volume of about 5 m3.


(...) There is no mechanism by which the CO2 can easily be expelled from the inert gas atmosphere you've created. Even if you did somehow manage to evacuate all the air and replace it 100% with inert gas (which I do not see as possible), that inert gas atmosphere would quickly become contaminated with CO2, hypercapnic alarm would set in, and you would involuntarily tear your way out of the bag. (...)
1) The hypercapnic alarm only sets in when a certain level of CO2 has built up within any closed space/bag. In the way you wrote it above the same would hold true for the exit-bag. ;) However, for the exit-bag this CO2-risk is even higher since the space inside the exit-bag is smaller and thus allows for quicker CO2 build-up (as compared to a more voluminous environment such as in a full-body-bag).

2) see point C1 above, ie such a "gas-vacuum" is not necessary to reach ones goal of a safe, peaceful and painless dead.

3) In addition, the gap/slit in the full-body-bag will let O2 and CO2 escape/be pushed out by the bigger inside-gas-pressure.

4) This "plan" would be assisted by either a sleeping pill or by sleep deprivation beforehand so that one would just sleep while passing out and dying, without any risk of ripping off any exit-bag during unconsciousness.


(...) I don't wish to be offensive to you, as you've obviously been putting a lot of thought into your method, but I do not see that your hypothesized method would work very well, if at all. It seems like "a solution looking for a problem." Much as I love tinkering with systems --and I really do!-- I haven't yet seen any improvements on the basic method that don't introduce more problems than they're worth.
A) No worries, you're not being offensive, and I'm interested in receiving new input and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of this full-body-bag-method. 4 eyes see more than 2. :)

B) I think I cannot agree with your "(...) a solution looking for a problem (...)" since the problems are there with the exit-bag as written and described above and many users here have voiced exactly those problems which is why I started to think both methods over, i.e.

1) fear of CO2 build up within the regular exit-bag and hypercapnic response,
2) fear/scared of quick and full loss of control,
3) fear/scared to rip-off the exit-bag in early stages of unconsciousness,
4) rather subjective points like having a bag over ones head, which is not exactly and understandably "everbody's darling", rather of a "cosmetic" nature but still a valid and solid point.


Finally, the survical instinct may be easier to overcome by using the full-body-bag-method due to what I would consider a more supportive, less scary set-up. But everyone has to judge for him-/herself.


If you - and others - feel like, let me know your points and critics. It will be much appreciated! Thank you again!


All information here for educational purpose only!
 
Last edited:
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
I'm not going to pick apart your method point by point, since you seem so devoted to it that my critique appears to make no impression, but I will say that if someone is averse to a method that involves a fast, simple route to unconsciousness/death and (relatively) low material costs, perhaps they shouldn't be looking at inert gas asphyxiation in the first place.

If you want to try it, don't let me stop you, but as an ex-high altitude mountaineer and ex-pilot familiar with the effects of anoxia, an ex-firefighter/EMT familiar with asphyxia, and as someone who has (repeatedly) attempted to CTB with the eb/ig method, I think you're finding problems where they don't exist and vastly overcomplicating (to the point of sabotage) an already effective and exceptionally well refined method.

Reinventing the wheel by making it an octagon, because an octagon is easier to build, does not improve upon the wheel.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
I'm not going to pick apart your method point by point, since you seem so devoted to it that my critique appears to make no impression, but I will say that if someone is averse to a method that involves a fast, simple route to unconsciousness/death and (relatively) low material costs, perhaps they shouldn't be looking at inert gas asphyxiation in the first place.

If you want to try it, don't let me stop you, but as an ex-high altitude mountaineer and ex-pilot familiar with the effects of anoxia, an ex-firefighter/EMT familiar with asphyxia, and as someone who has (repeatedly) attempted to CTB with the eb/ig method, I think you're finding problems where they don't exist and vastly overcomplicating (to the point of sabotage) an already effective and exceptionally well refined method.

Reinventing the wheel by making it an octagon, because an octagon is easier to build, does not improve upon the wheel.
Hi TiredHorse, have you written about your attempts and why it didn't work as planned, was it because of survival instinct?

What's your thought about the choice of gas? Helium, Nitrogen, Argon. I find it easier to buy Argon since it's used for something i'm familiar with (Tig-welding)
I would say personally I don't think it matters which gas as long as it's not diluted with oxygen. I can't see how the weight difference and narcotic properties in Argon would make a difference in this setup.
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
I have written of them (somewhere on the forum), but to synopsize, my failures were entirely due to survival instinct. The method itself, mechanically, is completely sound and exceptionally well thought out. It isn't sudden, but no asphyxiation is, regardless of whatever containment you use for the gas. If you need sudden, you'll need to choose something else entirely.

But the short version is that if you're ready to die, and can overcome SI, I don't think the method can be improved upon for its combination of simplicity, peacefulness, and cost effectiveness.

I chose nitrogen: it's cheap and easily available through welding supply stores. Argon would be my second choice; again, it's cheap and easily available. Welding helium is too expensive and balloon helium is suspect. Another factor is having a convincing excuse to buy ___ gas: N2 is used in welding, brewing, food preservation, and performance bicycles, Ar is used in welding and for paint shops (what I use it for), He is used for welding, but unless you're a welder and can speak convincingly of it, you might attract attention buying a cylinder. But as you say, any will work so long as it's not contaminated with air.

As for narcotic properties, I don't think it's relevant in this application: even if the effect were substantial, which I'm not convinced it is, if you do it right it'll all be over too fast for the narcotic effect to be noticeable. Anyway, I'm not counting on that as an element of the method.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
I have written of them (somewhere on the forum), but to synopsize, my failures were entirely due to survival instinct. The method itself, mechanically, is completely sound and exceptionally well thought out. It isn't sudden, but no asphyxiation is, regardless of whatever containment you use for the gas. If you need sudden, you'll need to choose something else entirely.

But the short version is that if you're ready to die, and can overcome SI, I don't think the method can be improved upon for its combination of simplicity, peacefulness, and cost effectiveness.

I chose nitrogen: it's cheap and easily available through welding supply stores. Argon would be my second choice; again, it's cheap and easily available. Welding helium is too expensive and balloon helium is suspect. Another factor is having a convincing excuse to buy ___ gas: N2 is used in welding, brewing, food preservation, and performance bicycles, Ar is used in welding and for paint shops (what I use it for), He is used for welding, but unless you're a welder and can speak convincingly of it, you might attract attention buying a cylinder. But as you say, any will work so long as it's not contaminated with air.

As for narcotic properties, I don't think it's relevant in this application: even if the effect were substantial, which I'm not convinced it is, if you do it right it'll all be over too fast for the narcotic effect to be noticeable. Anyway, I'm not counting on that as an element of the method.
Thank you for your answer. Even though I understand this method fully, it's still that risk of failure that scares me.
Let me give you an example, and I think you can relate to this also.

When I was young and bought my first car, I had no experience repairing cars, but most jobs where done by reading service manuals, get the correct tools, planning and thinking through everything. If it would fail, let's say the oil pain would leak, it was just to find out what was done wrong and do it again.

The first time I felt scared was when replacing a timing belt, there where no room for mistakes, a mistake could ruin that engine on the car I've spent a long time saving money to buy. Did this stop me from replacing the timing belt? no of course not, and if I would have decided to not take the risk, I could have asked someone else to do it.

When ending your life the fear of failure is of course on a whole other level, just the thought of failure and have to live decades in a situation where I'm not able to end my suffering makes me wanna throw up. Yes I know it's a very slim risk but it's also something that directly correlates to SI when it's time to take the step.
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
I sympathize strongly with your fear of failure. That said, I have come to the realization that there is only one method of ending your life that does not have some small chance of failure: Old age.

Old age is a method I highly recommend for anyone who can possibly accept it. It is not only 100% successful, it is societally sanctioned globally with no chance of legal repercussions.

SI is complex. Even when you're absolutely confident you've got everything set up as perfectly as you can make it, it'll still leap in and make you take the bag off, refuse to allow you to move your finger that 1/4" on the trigger, or freeze you as you stand on the ledge. Again, there's only one method immune to it: old age.

If old age is not acceptible... No matter what method you choose, whether already existing or one you create for yourself, there is a chance of failure. If skydivers can survive multi-thousand-foot falls without a parachute, there is --guaranteed!-- a slim chance of surviving anything. For me, that means that if I do find the strength/drive/courage to try again, I will be looking at a method to balance what is as proven as possible (with minimal modifications) with what I find personally acceptible. Others are welcome to do otherwise, but if you're looking for a method without that chance, there's only the one, and I urge everyone to consider it carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: color_me_gone
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
I sympathize strongly with your fear of failure. That said, I have come to the realization that there is only one method of ending your life that does not have some small chance of failure: Old age.

Old age is a method I highly recommend for anyone who can possibly accept it. It is not only 100% successful, it is societally sanctioned globally with no chance of legal repercussions.

SI is complex. Even when you're absolutely confident you've got everything set up as perfectly as you can make it, it'll still leap in and make you take the bag off, refuse to allow you to move your finger that 1/4" on the trigger, or freeze you as you stand on the ledge. Again, there's only one method immune to it: old age.

If old age is not acceptible... No matter what method you choose, whether already existing or one you create for yourself, there is a chance of failure. If skydivers can survive multi-thousand-foot falls without a parachute, there is --guaranteed!-- a slim chance of surviving anything. For me, that means that if I do find the strength/drive/courage to try again, I will be looking at a method to balance what is as proven as possible (with minimal modifications) with what I find personally acceptible. Others are welcome to do otherwise, but if you're looking for a method without that chance, there's only the one, and I urge everyone to consider it carefully.
Thank you for your insightful thoughts. And I really do agree with your last sentence. A lot of people go through parts of their life when everything feels hopeless. I know people who have been there and now live happy lives. I would give everything I have and live in a tent to get my health back to the point where I can function.
 
J

jolly_well_fed_up

Member
Jul 26, 2019
15
6
I'm not going to pick apart your method point by point, since you seem so devoted to it that my critique appears to make no impression, but I will say that if someone is averse to a method that involves a fast, simple route to unconsciousness/death and (relatively) low material costs, perhaps they shouldn't be looking at inert gas asphyxiation in the first place.

If you want to try it, don't let me stop you, but as an ex-high altitude mountaineer and ex-pilot familiar with the effects of anoxia, an ex-firefighter/EMT familiar with asphyxia, and as someone who has (repeatedly) attempted to CTB with the eb/ig method, I think you're finding problems where they don't exist and vastly overcomplicating (to the point of sabotage) an already effective and exceptionally well refined method.

Reinventing the wheel by making it an octagon, because an octagon is easier to build, does not improve upon the wheel.

Hello TiredHorse,

Thank you again for your reply and appreciated input!

Why do I have the slight feeling that you take my points about the exit-bag somewhat personally? I may easily be wrong, it's just the feeling I got when reading your answer/s.

As I wrote, I see your points and evaluated them. It is not that I am "(...) devoted (...)" to my method as you say, it is just that I was thinking people's arguments through and I can well understand them and their objections. None of the 2 methods is free of any risk and hence, to my point of view, neither is the exit-bag a perfect wheel nor is the body-sized-bag a perfect wheel. If they were perfect wheels, they wouldn't be both "wobbling" because both methods do have their very own specific "weak" points (as any other method does have as well). However, at least to me it appeared pretty obvious to look for a possible, slightly different method that could cover for e.g. the fear to rip off the bag while unconscious, but of course this "cover" in return has its own price, which is that the process takes more time and more gas.

And again I find you writing,
(...) I think you're finding problems where they don't exist (...)
but as noted, it is not me finding problems, it is other people here in this thread, who voiced those problems/objections. And some people in this thread also wrote that indeed they had ripped the exit-bag off their heads during their (test or serious) runs. This is not an invention by me but was clearly voiced by other people in this thread. Therefore, you seem to be shooting the messenger... ;)

Another point: Just see how many people seem to feel totally unsure about how tight or loose the exit-bag should be around their neck/s. I have watched this question coming up a hundred times in this thread, often even repeatedly from the same persons, who (obviously) simply felt the instructions insufficient on that point. An alternative that does not have this problem could be a welcome solution for some of them while all the others can still go with the exit-bag of course because this alternative does not automatically devalue the exit-bag, which may just not be the best tool for them, or they may eventually feel more comfortable with any other method altogether.

However, perhaps you can accept that different methods suit different people. It is completely individual what method someone feels most comfortable with. So I would leave the choice to them to consider all methods and choose the one they feel most comfortable with.

Thank you again for your time and your appreciated input!


All information in here for educational purpose only!
 
Last edited:
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
Why do I have the slight feeling that you take my points about the exit-bag somewhat personally?
Nope; not even a little. I have no personal investment in this method, I have done absolutely nothing to modify it from the information I have found elsewhere, and I started what has become a megathread solely to collect the information in one place. I don't have a dog in this fight, as the saying goes. You asked me what I thought of your variation on the eb/ig method and I told you: I don't think it's a good approach. No hard feelings; just my opinion.

However, given how different your variation is, I suggest you start a specific thread for it, to make it more accessible to the forum. It is considerably different from the traditional eb/ig method, and deserves its own discussion where it can be analysed on its own merits rather than getting divided attention from the original approach.
However, perhaps you can accept that different methods suit different people. It is completely individual what method someone feels most comfortable with. So I would leave the choice to them to consider all methods and choose the one they feel most comfortable with.
I absolutely agree. As I've said many, many times before, and as you have perhaps read in my various posts, people should make their method choices based on their personal needs. If your experimental method appears to provide those needs better than the original, proven method, they should feel free to explore your new method, understanding that it is unproven and comes with its own set of risks.

Again, I suggest you start a thread specific to your method for others to discuss it specifically, on its own merits, and perhaps refine out what I fear may be flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jolly_well_fed_up
Sirius

Sirius

Veteran
Jul 10, 2019
142
126
I sympathize strongly with your fear of failure. That said, I have come to the realization that there is only one method of ending your life that does not have some small chance of failure: Old age.

Old age is a method I highly recommend for anyone who can possibly accept it. It is not only 100% successful, it is societally sanctioned globally with no chance of legal repercussions.

SI is complex. Even when you're absolutely confident you've got everything set up as perfectly as you can make it, it'll still leap in and make you take the bag off, refuse to allow you to move your finger that 1/4" on the trigger, or freeze you as you stand on the ledge. Again, there's only one method immune to it: old age.

If old age is not acceptible... No matter what method you choose, whether already existing or one you create for yourself, there is a chance of failure. If skydivers can survive multi-thousand-foot falls without a parachute, there is --guaranteed!-- a slim chance of surviving anything. For me, that means that if I do find the strength/drive/courage to try again, I will be looking at a method to balance what is as proven as possible (with minimal modifications) with what I find personally acceptible. Others are welcome to do otherwise, but if you're looking for a method without that chance, there's only the one, and I urge everyone to consider it carefully.
@TiredHorse SI is a concern of mine. I had understood that after a couple deep breaths you would be unconscious with death following in a matter of minutes (10 or so?) My interest in this Bag method was how quickly you went under. It was the post blackout loss of control I was concerned about: Convulsions or pulling the bag off completely. Any thoughts? I've never witnessed such during an exit, but.....
 
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
@Sirius, I had the same understanding about how quickly the N2 took effect. And I believe that under ideal conditions it would. However, my experience is that my extreme stress/anxiety while attempting prevented me from breathing as deeply as would have been ideal, meaning it took a lot more time than I expected to become unconscious --long enough for my SI to kick in every time.

I don't consider this "method failure," but it is an aspect of the method that needs to be considered in the same way eb/ig won't work if you have some physical form of breathing difficulty (emphysema, etc.). If you are in a mental state where you can't control your breathing, it takes much longer than expected to become unconscious. If SI becomes too great in that time period, it has every opportunity to win. So while it's a peaceful and effective method for those who are at peace with their decision, for those of us who are agitated there's a lot of time for SI to foil the process.

As for the convulsions, my understanding is that they are a greater fear than they are a reality. "Convulsions" refers more to the post-unconsciousness twitching that's common as the brain's electrical activity ceases. Ever lie there falling asleep, then have one of those half-dreams that jerks you back awake? Slipping on an icy path, or missing the last of a flight of stairs? That hypnic jerk, or a series of them, is more like what I expect, rather than full-on shaking convulsions. Still sudden and sharp enough that you want to secure the gas cylinder so that you don't knock it over, and enough that they could displace the bag from your head if you were lying flat with your head on a pillow and the bag got crumpled up and shoved aside, but my understanding is that you're not going to be flailing about, tearing at the bag (unless there's a CO2 buildup, which is a different problem entirely).

But I haven't witnessed a successful exit either, and I clearly haven't yet managed it myself, so... Take all that with however much salt you like.
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
@Sirius, I had the same understanding about how quickly the N2 took effect. And I believe that under ideal conditions it would. However, my experience is that my extreme stress/anxiety while attempting prevented me from breathing as deeply as would have been ideal, meaning it took a lot more time than I expected to become unconscious --long enough for my SI to kick in every time.

I don't consider this "method failure," but it is an aspect of the method that needs to be considered in the same way eb/ig won't work if you have some physical form of breathing difficulty (emphysema, etc.). If you are in a mental state where you can't control your breathing, it takes much longer than expected to become unconscious. If SI becomes too great in that time period, it has every opportunity to win. So while it's a peaceful and effective method for those who are at peace with their decision, for those of us who are agitated there's a lot of time for SI to foil the process.
TiredHorse would you have any idea based on what you know about this method if whether or not having a higher LPM of nitrogen flowing into the exit bag would induce inconsciousness/death even faster regardless of one's anxiety and/or breathing difficulties, essentially overpowering oneself with nitrogen? Sort of a "blunt force" approach to using the IG/EB method.

The reason I ask is that Amazon sells an O2 regulator made by WT Farley with a barb outlet that goes up to 25 LPM.

Per the new rule I won't link to it directly so to find it do the following:

1) Go to Amazon

2) In the search box type in: Oxygen Regulator Standard Body-CGA540

3) Scroll down a little and you'll see:

"Oxygen Regulator Standard Body-CGA540, 0-25 LPM, barb outlet with green color coded gauge protector"

I know Nitschke in the PPEH recommends 15 LPM as the optimum flow rate based on tests he says he's done but I wonder is that the real reason or simply because most commonly available O2 regulators only go up to 15 LPM?
 
Last edited:
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
I can't say for certain, but I don't think a >15 LPM flow rate would do any good for a situation such as mine. There's a chance I was simply breathing too quickly, contaminating the N2 with semi-expended air and then re-breathing from within the bag a high N2/high CO2/low O2 mixture, in which case a higher flow of N2 might have helped. But my best guess is that I failed because I couldn't breathe deeply, so there was inadequate tidal volume through my lungs to cycle out the air/CO2 and replace it with N2. I could have been standing in an N2-filled shipping container and it would have taken longer than it should have because I was retaining a measure of air in my lungs. Very frustrating.

It was working, though. My vision was greying out at about the time SI took over. But... It is not a fast method when the adrenaline is pumping and time is crawling past.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
Strange my last question disappeared.

I bought a oven bag from Toppits (German brand) made of polyamide, but it's very thin and I feel like it might be to fragile. It also makes a lot noise.
Any brand recommendations in Europe? I''ve seen polyester recommended.

(No direct links to products for sale)
 
Last edited:
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
I have mild COPD. Not bad enough to require O2, but it definitely affects my breathing. I'm wondering if using a Ventolin HFA (albuterol sulfate) rescue inhaler immediately before donning the bag+N2 will enable me to expel sufficient O2 to make the N2 method work. This is discussed in the Peaceful Pill eHandbook. My concern would be that the increase in heartbeat might provoke shallow breathing.
But my best guess is that I failed because I couldn't breathe deeply, so there was inadequate tidal volume through my lungs to cycle out the air/CO2 and replace it with N2.
@TiredHorse , would there be any benefit to taking a tranquilizer prior to using N2 to quiet the jitters and slow the breathing?
 
Last edited:
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
I bought a oven bag from Toppits (German brand) made of polyamide, but it's very thin and I feel like it might be to fragile. It also makes a lot noise.
The ones I bought here in the US are the same way; thin and crinkly. I pulled one out of the box and thought, "Really? This thing can't possibly be strong enough," but it's astonishingly tough. After all, it's designed to carry the weight of a turkey and take being dragged around in a roasting pan. I didn't have any trouble using the same one over mutiple attempts. As for the noise, once it's inflated it doesn't make much noise at all; the pressurized gas tensions it into a silent bubble around your head. The hiss of the gas is by far the noisiest part.
I have mild COPD. Not bad enough to require O2, but it definitely affects my breathing.
Uh-oh. That's the one consistent recommendation I've heard against using eb/ig. I don't know if your med regimen would work or not. If PPeH says it's adequate, I'd trust them, but I just don't know anything about it from my experience with eb/ig or as an EMT. Is it possible to do a test run, without the bag, to see if you get the shallow breathing you're worried about?
would there be any benefit to taking a tranquilizer prior to using N2 to quiet the jitters and slow the breathing?
I don't know. I worry about the timing of the drug, taking it far enough ahead to have it working but not so far that I'm too doped to use the eb/ig set-up accurately. Besides, I know so little about tranquilizers, and my body seems to react strangely or not at all to the weirdest variety of drugs, that I'm reluctant to explore it. Pragmatically, I don't have a pet doctor to get a prescription from, and my last check-up was three years ago, so it might raise red flags to schedule a visit and try and get tranquilizers. Subtlety in such matters is not my strong suit.

And --I know this sounds odd-- I've got a ridiculous reluctance to drug myself for the process. I want to go out as clear-headed as I can. Probably silly, but there it is. I get weirded out by SN and N, and despite fantasizing about Fentanyl I doubt I could bring myself to use it, and while I have a stash of 1,4B, I know I almost certainly won't take that route. Ridiculous, I know. I'll microdose shrooms and LSD, and use cannabis tincture to help myself sleep, but I don't drink and the idea of poisoning myself to CTB gives me the creeps. Laugh all you like; we each have our oddities and mine are as nonsensical and counterproductive as the next guy's.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
The ones I bought here in the US are the same way; thin and crinkly. I pulled one out of the box and thought, "Really? This thing can't possibly be strong enough," but it's astonishingly tough. After all, it's designed to carry the weight of a turkey and take being dragged around in a roasting pan. I didn't have any trouble using the same one over mutiple attempts. As for the noise, once it's inflated it doesn't make much noise at all; the pressurized gas tensions it into a silent bubble around your head. The hiss of the gas is by far the noisiest part.
Thank you. I have a hard time finding polyester versions around here, (Like the one in the picture in PPe) But maybe they are also really thin. I'm going to make a bag and test how it feels when finished.
 
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
Is it possible to do a test run, without the bag, to see if you get the shallow breathing you're worried about?

I don't know. I worry about the timing of the drug, taking it far enough ahead to have it working but not so far that I'm too doped to use the eb/ig set-up accurately. Besides, I know so little about tranquilizers, and my body seems to react strangely or not at all to the weirdest variety of drugs, that I'm reluctant to explore it. Pragmatically, I don't have a pet doctor to get a prescription from, and my last check-up was three years ago, so it might raise red flags to schedule a visit and try and get tranquilizers. Subtlety in such matters is not my strong suit.

And --I know this sounds odd-- I've got a ridiculous reluctance to drug myself for the process. I want to go out as clear-headed as I can. Probably silly, but there it is. I get weirded out by SN and N, and despite fantasizing about Fentanyl I doubt I could bring myself to use it, and while I have a stash of 1,4B, I know I almost certainly won't take that route. Ridiculous, I know. I'll microdose shrooms and LSD, and use cannabis tincture to help myself sleep, but I don't drink and the idea of poisoning myself to CTB gives me the creeps. Laugh all you like; we each have our oddities and mine are as nonsensical and counterproductive as the next guy's.
I wouldn't want to use that damn rescue inhaler except for an emergency. Many years ago a doctor doing a spirometry test had me snort albuterol and I lost a day of work because of the jitters it caused. Plus, I can't figure out how I'd do a test run without the bag. I don't see a way to determine if I'm getting enough N2 and pushing out the O2.
Is there a way to start building a glossary of abbreviations for newbies such as myself to make it easier to understand some of the posts? And pin it somewhere in a megathread? I've read pages and pages of posts and been able to piece together some of the abbreviations (N=Nembutol; N2=nitrogen; etc.) but I confess that I'm lost a lot of the time. I'm new to these kind of forums and know there is a learning curve. As a technical writer, I'm always keen on helping readers understand the message.
I don't know. I worry about the timing of the drug, taking it far enough ahead to have it working but not so far that I'm too doped to use the eb/ig set-up accurately. Besides, I know so little about tranquilizers, and my body seems to react strangely or not at all to the weirdest variety of drugs, that I'm reluctant to explore it.
I have only one experience with a tranquilizer when my doctor gave me one in his office to fix what he believed was an anxiety attack (couldn't breath, excessive heart rate)/ Within 5-10 minutes my breathing and heart rate were back to normal. I was feeling fine, not doped up. He gave me one Lorazepam tablet to keep on hand (as he says, emergency-break-glass-to-use kind of thing). You might be able to get just one tablet from your doctor. (He will not want to prescribe a lethal dose.) You might explain that you are having to deal with a particularly stressful life event right now and you want to stave off an anxiety attack to keep you functioning. It might be worth a try. All he can do is say yes or no.
 
Last edited:
T

TiredHorse

Illuminated
Nov 1, 2018
1,836
8,874
Is there a way to start building a glossary of abbreviations for newbies such as myself to make it easier to understand some of the posts? And pin it somewhere in a megathread? I've read pages and pages of posts and been able to piece together some of the abbreviations (N=Nembutol; N2=nitrogen; etc.) but I confess that I'm lost a lot of the time. I'm new to these kind of forums and know there is a learning curve. As a technical writer, I'm always keen on helping readers understand the message.
There used to be an entire thread on it; in Resources, as I recall. I found it first thing, the first day I got here. Like you, I was bewildered by the various acronyms and abbreviations. Some of them are pretty obscure.
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
Eweforia the following thread covers the lingo used on the forum:

 
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
Eweforia the following thread covers the lingo used on the forum:

Thanks! Got it. I may need to add some of the recent abbreviations to those already mentioned in that thread.
 
M

MG_49

Member
Jul 5, 2019
93
212
You will need 600L of gas.

However, cylinder sizes are based on how many liters of water they will hold, not how many liters of gas. Water cannot be compressed, so a 20L cylinder will hold only 20L of water, while its compressed gas capacity depends entirely on how heavily the gas is compressed --it might contain 20L of gas, if the gas isn't compressed at all, or it might hold 20,000L of gas (an exaggeration, of course) if the gas is compressed to the density of the Sun!

This is apparently one of the most confusing and frustrating elements of creating an eb/ig apparatus: choosing a cylinder size. There are no reliably standard cylinder sizes, largely because different gas companies want to use proprietary sizes for their own inventory control. I can tell you that in the US, a 20cf cylinder will work, but beyond that you'll need to wade through the thread to see what other forum members have learned about gas cylinders in their own regions. It is a subject that has come up many times in the months I've been here, and there has been information posted here, but it has yet to be collated in a dedicated thread on cylinder size.

However, the only genuinely reliable way to know how many liters of gas you'd be getting, in that 20L cylinder, is to call and ask the supplier.
But wouldn't it be rare with a Nitrogen or Argon cylinder with less than 200bar pressure? This way I would say all 5 liters cylinders would be enough? Of course it's important to check the regulator pressure to make sure it's enough pressure, but that something you would have to do anyway.

If this 20l cylinder have 200 bar pressure it would be 3948 liters? 20l*200/1013 = 3948,6l
 
Eweforia

Eweforia

Member
Jul 27, 2019
11
5
My gas supplier sells N2 in a 20lb tank. Before I call him and risk provoking questions, does anyone here know how many liters of N2 are in a 20lb tank?
 
pane

pane

Wise
Apr 29, 2019
248
359
My gas supplier sells N2 in a 20lb tank. Before I call him and risk provoking questions, does anyone here know how many liters of N2 are in a 20lb tank?
Are you sure that tank is 20 POUNDS or 20 CUBIC FEET? If you're in the United States - from what I've seen browsing several tank supplier websites - tanks of inert gasses are listed according to how many cubic feet of gas they contain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: color_me_gone

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 4)

  • hadenough
  • LMLN