This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C15548.27BE1720
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This has gotten ridiculous. You do not understand a word we are saying. You
keep twisting everything around. I will tell you right now, I have no
interest in any of your bullshit, and I can not keep a straight face long
enough to talk to you in person. Your excuses and bullshit are not worth my
time. Do yourself a favor and stay retired.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: isler [mailto:isleroc@sp*.ch*]
  Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 5:05 PM
  To: Jarrod Jablonski
  Cc: techdiver@aq*.co*; Cavers@aquanaut.com; rebreather@nw*.co*
  Subject: Re: Redundant Rebreathers & The Doux de Coly


  Hello Jarrod,
  Thank you for your interesting message.

  Really sorry if my comments are not really befitting my normally reserved
attitude, but when I read intolerant or untrue assertions, I don't want to
have a reserved attitude. let me explain you this in this following message.

  Redundancy.
  I am sure a lot of people have thought, certainly before me of the
redundancy. I am not the "inventor" of this concept, and even if I was, an
idea is never patentable ! In fact, I have developped the philosophy of full
autonomy and rebreather's redundancy in extrem (cave) diving. In fact , that
means to dive 100% rebreathers, without any extra safety open circuit
cylinders. And the RI 2000 was really the first rebreather system thought
and conceived for that. Nobody can contest this fact. You have another
approach, and I perfectly respect it. But, when I read that my philosophy is
suicidal, kamikaze or others insulting assertions, you are right, I have not
a reserved attitude. This intoleranr , integrist attitude is intolerable. I
am exactely the opposit of a suicide man and my concept was extremely
safe.How one who never used this kind of configuration can assert such a
purpose ?!

  If I have well understood, You plane to use double rebreathers in the
future. Congratulations. I should not be surprised to see one of this day
the double rebreather integrated in the DIR philosophy ! A great evolution,
when I think that two years ago, rebreather's redundancy was considered as a
stupidity by some members of the WKPP.

  About the team approach, I am not opposit of this approach. But, don't
forgett that you have enormous potential with Leon sink, Wakulla and other
systems. So you can gather a lot of divers. In Europe and other countries,
it is not possible, so teams are much smaller. Just a little remark who
would like to be positive : Your team looks like a pyramid, with a lot of
support divers and 3 or maybe 2 "top divers" (you and Irvine). It could be
great to have 6 or more top divers with turning top teams for explorations.
A good idea, no ?

  All my best

  Olivier Isler

  P.S. This coming Tuesday, I will be away for a couple of weeks, so, if you
are interested to have new discussions with me, we could take contact at the
end of October.

  Jarrod Jablonski a *crit :

    Hello Olivier,
    In the few times that I met you I was impressed by your calm demeanor
and
    open attitude. I am sure that you are a very nice gentleman. These
comments
    are not really befitting your normally reserved attitude. To be sure,
you
    were a pioneer in your own right. Given my own careful acceptance of
    rebreathers and my understanding of the demanding nature of long range
cave
    dives I congratulate you on your sheer bravery if on nothing else.

    I must, however, take brief issue with your assertion that using dual
    rebreathers is an idea unto yourself. That is a bit like saying that
using
    two scooters is our exclusive domain or that using more than one stage
    bottle was "invented". Some things are inherently obvious such as the
idea
    that where one rebreather will work, two can be used for redundancy. The
    debate over the desirability of such choices is another issue altogether
    but the reality of the option seems self evident. Consider if the idea
    would hold up as patentable ie "novel and unique and not intuitively
    obvious to someone skilled in the trade."

    As for double breathers I would consider them but not likely as a
complete
    elimination of the benefit for team effort. In the same way that we
    resisted rebreathers until a time that we considered useful/necessary we
    will not rush to using dual rebreathers where single units and teamwork
are
    safer and more reliable options. I prefer to take my risks in other
areas,
    betting my life on ability and the most limited number of uncontrolled
    variables feasible.

    Most people say that the team approach does not work, that they do not
have
    a team, and that it is not good for their area. Of course they said the
    same thing before we built a team and explored Tallahassee. They told me
    the same when I went to Turkey, mounting several substantial exploration
    projects in the absolute middle of nowhere. They say this everywhere and
    will continue where the effort seems not worth the reward. I disagree
and
    will use all the tools available toward doing this for as long as
possible
    in the most reliable manner feasible.

    All my best,
    JJ

    At 09:34 PM 10/8/2001 +0200, isler wrote:
    >The dive of Reinhard and Michael is reported with a lot of details on
the
    >attractive website www.tekdyk/doux.
    >Unfortunately, an error appears at the "Welcome" page of the site. The
    >assertion that  "... all dives were directed using the DIR philosophy
    >developped by the floridian cave diving team WKPP..." is NOT correct.
In
    >fact, the dive was directed using an intermediate philosophy between
that
    >of DIR and the rebreather redundancy developped by myself (as mentioned
on
    >the site).
    >
    >The analysis of their dive in fact shows that they both carried 2 X 20
l
    >tanks on their back (return on open circuit in case of rebreather
    >failure). They dived as 2 divers together, as in DIR philosophy. Beyond
a
    >distance of 800 m, no safety or relay cylinders were placed in the
sump.
    >The reason was that both divers used the double rebreather RB 80. This
is
    >undeniably my philosophy of using Redundant Rebreathers.

    Jarrod Jablonski

    CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing
    President- Global Underwater Explorers

    Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net
    Halcyon manufacturing produces some of the scuba industry's most novel
and
    robust diving equipment designed by many of diving's most active
explorers.
     From the world record Halcyon rebreather to revolutionary lighting and
    life support equipment our companies are revolutionizing the
manufacturing
    of aquatic equipment.

    Global Underwater Explorers www.gue.com
    Global Underwater Explorers is a non-profit educational, research, and
    exploratory organization. GUE regularly engages in international
    expeditions and has hundreds of dedicated members around the world. From
    entry level technical diver training to advanced exploratory, research
and
    filming projects GUE is widely considered one of the world's most
diverse
    and capable aquatic organizations.

    --
    Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aq*.co*'.
    Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'.


------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C15548.27BE1720
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409350511-15102001><FONT face=3DArial
color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>This=20
has gotten ridiculous. You do not understand a word we are saying. You =
keep=20
twisting everything around. I will tell you right now, I have no =
interest in any=20
of your bullshit, and I can not keep a straight face long enough to talk =
to you=20
in person. Your excuses and bullshit are not worth my time. Do yourself =
a favor=20
and stay retired. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> isler=20
  [mailto:isleroc@sp*.ch*]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 14, 2001
5:05 =

  PM<BR><B>To:</B> Jarrod Jablonski<BR><B>Cc:</B> =
techdiver@aq*.co*;=20
  Cavers@aquanaut.com; rebreather@nw*.co*<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: =
Redundant=20
  Rebreathers & The Doux de Coly<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Hello
Jarrod,=20
  <P>Thank you for your interesting message.=20
  <P>Really sorry if my comments are not really befitting my normally =
reserved=20
  attitude, but when I read intolerant or untrue assertions, I don't =
want to=20
  have a reserved attitude. let me explain you this in this following =
message.=20
  <P><U>Redundancy.</U> <BR>I am sure a lot of people have thought,
=
certainly=20
  before me of the redundancy. I am not the "inventor" of this concept, =
and even=20
  if I was, an idea is never patentable ! In fact, I have developped the =

  philosophy of full autonomy and rebreather's redundancy in extrem =
(cave)=20
  diving. In fact , that means to dive 100% rebreathers, without any =
extra=20
  safety open circuit cylinders. And the RI 2000 was really the first =
rebreather=20
  system thought and conceived for that. Nobody can contest this fact. =
You have=20
  another approach, and I perfectly respect it. But, when I read that my =

  philosophy is suicidal, kamikaze or others insulting assertions, you =
are=20
  right, I have not a reserved attitude. This intoleranr , integrist =
attitude is=20
  intolerable. I am exactely the opposit of a suicide man and my concept =
was=20
  extremely safe.How one who never used this kind of configuration can =
assert=20
  such a purpose ?!=20
  <P>If I have well understood, You plane to use double rebreathers in =
the=20
  future. Congratulations. I should not be surprised to see one of this =
day the=20
  double rebreather integrated in the DIR philosophy ! A great =
evolution, when I=20
  think that two years ago, rebreather's redundancy was considered as a=20
  stupidity by some members of the WKPP.=20
  <P>About the team approach, I am not opposit of this approach. But, =
don't=20
  forgett that you have enormous potential with Leon sink, Wakulla and =
other=20
  systems. So you can gather a lot of divers. In Europe and other =
countries, it=20
  is not possible, so teams are much smaller. Just a little remark who =
would=20
  like to be positive : Your team looks like a pyramid, with a lot of =
support=20
  divers and 3 or maybe 2 "top divers" (you and Irvine). It could be =
great to=20
  have 6 or more top divers with turning top teams for explorations. A =
good=20
  idea, no ?=20
  <P>All my best=20
  <P>Olivier Isler=20
  <P>P.S. This coming Tuesday, I will be away for a couple of weeks, so, =
if you=20
  are interested to have new discussions with me, we could take contact =
at the=20
  end of October.=20
  <P>Jarrod Jablonski a *crit :=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">Hello Olivier,=20
    <P>In the few times that I met you I was impressed by your calm =
demeanor and=20
    <BR>open attitude. I am sure that you are a very nice gentleman. =
These=20
    comments <BR>are not really befitting your normally reserved =
attitude. To be=20
    sure, you <BR>were a pioneer in your own right. Given my own careful =

    acceptance of <BR>rebreathers and my understanding of the demanding =
nature=20
    of long range cave <BR>dives I congratulate you on your sheer =
bravery if on=20
    nothing else.=20
    <P>I must, however, take brief issue with your assertion that using =
dual=20
    <BR>rebreathers is an idea unto yourself. That is a bit like saying =
that=20
    using <BR>two scooters is our exclusive domain or that using more =
than one=20
    stage <BR>bottle was "invented". Some things are inherently obvious =
such as=20
    the idea <BR>that where one rebreather will work, two can be used =
for=20
    redundancy. The <BR>debate over the desirability of such choices is =
another=20
    issue altogether <BR>but the reality of the option seems self =
evident.=20
    Consider if the idea <BR>would hold up as patentable ie "novel and =
unique=20
    and not intuitively <BR>obvious to someone skilled in the trade."=20
    <P>As for double breathers I would consider them but not likely as a =

    complete <BR>elimination of the benefit for team effort. In the same =
way=20
    that we <BR>resisted rebreathers until a time that we considered=20
    useful/necessary we <BR>will not rush to using dual rebreathers =
where single=20
    units and teamwork are <BR>safer and more reliable options. I prefer =
to take=20
    my risks in other areas, <BR>betting my life on ability and the most =
limited=20
    number of uncontrolled <BR>variables feasible.=20
    <P>Most people say that the team approach does not work, that they =
do not=20
    have <BR>a team, and that it is not good for their area. Of course =
they said=20
    the <BR>same thing before we built a team and explored Tallahassee. =
They=20
    told me <BR>the same when I went to Turkey, mounting several =
substantial=20
    exploration <BR>projects in the absolute middle of nowhere. They say =
this=20
    everywhere and <BR>will continue where the effort seems not worth =
the=20
    reward. I disagree and <BR>will use all the tools available toward =
doing=20
    this for as long as possible <BR>in the most reliable manner =
feasible.=20
    <P>All my best, <BR>JJ=20
    <P>At 09:34 PM 10/8/2001 +0200, isler wrote: <BR>>The dive of =
Reinhard=20
    and Michael is reported with a lot of details on the =
<BR>>attractive=20
    website www.tekdyk/doux. <BR>>Unfortunately, an error appears at =
the=20
    "Welcome" page of the site. The <BR>>assertion that  "... =
all dives=20
    were directed using the DIR philosophy <BR>>developped by the =
floridian=20
    cave diving team WKPP..." is NOT correct. In <BR>>fact, the dive =
was=20
    directed using an intermediate philosophy between that <BR>>of =
DIR and=20
    the rebreather redundancy developped by myself (as mentioned on =
<BR>>the=20
    site). <BR>> <BR>>The analysis of their dive in fact shows =
that they=20
    both carried 2 X 20 l <BR>>tanks on their back (return on open =
circuit in=20
    case of rebreather <BR>>failure). They dived as 2 divers =
together, as in=20
    DIR philosophy. Beyond a <BR>>distance of 800 m, no safety or =
relay=20
    cylinders were placed in the sump. <BR>>The reason was that both =
divers=20
    used the double rebreather RB 80. This is <BR>>undeniably my =
philosophy=20
    of using Redundant Rebreathers.=20
    <P>Jarrod Jablonski=20
    <P>CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing <BR>President- Global Underwater =
Explorers=20
    <P>Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net <BR>Halcyon manufacturing =
produces=20
    some of the scuba industry's most novel and <BR>robust diving =
equipment=20
    designed by many of diving's most active explorers. <BR> From =
the world=20
    record Halcyon rebreather to revolutionary lighting and <BR>life =
support=20
    equipment our companies are revolutionizing the manufacturing <BR>of =
aquatic=20
    equipment.=20
    <P>Global Underwater Explorers www.gue.com <BR>Global Underwater =
Explorers=20
    is a non-profit educational, research, and <BR>exploratory =
organization. GUE=20
    regularly engages in international <BR>expeditions and has hundreds =
of=20
    dedicated members around the world. From <BR>entry level technical =
diver=20
    training to advanced exploratory, research and <BR>filming projects =
GUE is=20
    widely considered one of the world's most diverse <BR>and capable =
aquatic=20
    organizations.=20
    <P>-- <BR>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to=20
    `techdiver@aq*.co*'. <BR>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to =

    =
`techdiver-request@aq*.co*'.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY><
;/H=
TML>

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C15548.27BE1720--

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]