--=====================_26018933==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I am sorry Olivier. It was a joke of sorts for the purposes of 
clarification. I will not bother to argue the semantics of  "inventions" or 
first conceptualizations of a dual breather. It seems beside the point to 
me. You should be known for your pioneering efforts in cave diving and for 
your use of the rebreather. Only time will speak to the relevancy of which 
philosophy makes the most sense. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant 
outside of representing two opposing views for others to gauge their own 
opinions.

As for your tensions over the way that people characterize your diving and 
about the use of breathers without bailout, I do not think that this system 
is the safest option available. Actually I think that given our current 
slice in time it is a very bad idea. Should I pursue it then I would be 
acknowledging a notably greater level of risk as I do with rebreathers in 
general. I do not forsee the need for this risk and have trouble imagining 
it as a general policy. In extreme circumstances people take extreme 
actions. I personally have little need or desire to do this while diving. 
There are plenty of risks and difficulties in these dives without my 
creating additional concerns. Our goal is to establish what we belive is a 
long time sustainable system maximized for safety. What is possible is not 
really the most relevant part of the debate. The language used to argue 
one's point is a matter of personal choice and also somewhat irrelevant. 
Although you and I may have our particular preference others do as well.


When you indicate that we said rebreathers were crazy or that we may 
someday use two breathers in DIR you are again confusing many points. DIR 
is principally about a clean efficient operational paradigm that 
facilitates diving in the safest most streamlined manner. Before 
rebreathers brought us any advantage and before systems existed that were 
in keeping with our philosophy there was no reason to use them. I never 
insinuated that I was disinterested in ever using any rebreather only that 
the systems in use seemed of questionable "benefit". My feelings about the 
use of double rebreathers do not vary from this general paradigm.

Lastly, when you say that team diving is not possible and that our team is 
a pyramid shape with few divers doing big dives I must confess that this is 
what everyone said about our area as well. Funny enough individuals still 
say the same thing. I consider these reasons excuses for not doing what one 
does not desire to do or for avoiding what may require extra effort. It was 
not easy to build a team and it is not easy to manage the resource but it 
is worth the effort. As for the pyramid concern-when we have divers that 
want to do the dives we are doing then we will expand their operations. We 
already have a wide range of people doing dives beyond a mile at 300 and 
others regularly doing dives to nearly two miles at 300. These divers are 
getting ready to move to the next level as we no doubt plan to do as well. 
This may be somewhat of a pyramid in our own group but is hardly much of 
one relative to normal diving operations.

Best,
JJ

At 11:04 PM 10/14/2001 +0200, isler wrote:
>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*'.
>
>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.

--=====================_26018933==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
I am sorry Olivier. It was a joke of sorts for the purposes of
clarification. I will not bother to argue the semantics of 
"inventions" or first conceptualizations of a dual breather. It
seems beside the point to me. You should be known for your pioneering
efforts in cave diving and for your use of the rebreather. Only time will
speak to the relevancy of which philosophy makes the most sense. Whether
we agree or not is irrelevant outside of representing two opposing views
for others to gauge their own opinions.<br><br>
As for your tensions over the way that people characterize your diving
and about the use of breathers without bailout, I do not think that this
system is the safest option available. Actually I think that given our
current slice in time it is a very bad idea. Should I pursue it then I
would be acknowledging a notably greater level of risk as I do with
rebreathers in general. I do not forsee the need for this risk and have
trouble imagining it as a general policy. In extreme circumstances people
take extreme actions. I personally have little need or desire to do this
while diving. There are plenty of risks and difficulties in these dives
without my creating additional concerns. Our goal is to establish what we
belive is a long time sustainable system maximized for safety. What is
possible is not really the most relevant part of the debate. The language
used to argue one's point is a matter of personal choice and also
somewhat irrelevant. Although you and I may have our particular
preference others do as well.<br><br>
<br>
When you indicate that we said rebreathers were crazy or that we may
someday use two breathers in DIR you are again confusing many points. DIR
is principally about a clean efficient operational paradigm that
facilitates diving in the safest most streamlined manner. Before
rebreathers brought us any advantage and before systems existed that were
in keeping with our philosophy there was no reason to use them. I never
insinuated that I was disinterested in ever using any rebreather only
that the systems in use seemed of questionable "benefit". My
feelings about the use of double rebreathers do not vary from this
general paradigm.<br><br>
Lastly, when you say that team diving is not possible and that our team
is a pyramid shape with few divers doing big dives I must confess that
this is what everyone said about our area as well. Funny enough
individuals still say the same thing. I consider these reasons excuses
for not doing what one does not desire to do or for avoiding what may
require extra effort. It was not easy to build a team and it is not easy
to manage the resource but it is worth the effort. As for the pyramid
concern-when we have divers that want to do the dives we are doing then
we will expand their operations. We already have a wide range of people
doing dives beyond a mile at 300 and others regularly doing dives to
nearly two miles at 300. These divers are getting ready to move to the
next level as we no doubt plan to do as well. This may be somewhat of a
pyramid in our own group but is hardly much of one relative to normal
diving operations.<br><br>
Best,<br>
JJ<br><br>
At 11:04 PM 10/14/2001 +0200, isler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Hello Jarrod, <br><br>
Thank you for your interesting message. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<u>Redundancy.</u> <br>
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 ?! <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 ? <br><br>
All my best <br><br>
Olivier Isler <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Jarrod Jablonski a *crit : <br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Hello Olivier, <br><br>
In the few times that I met you I was impressed by your calm demeanor and
<br>
open attitude. I am sure that you are a very nice gentleman. These
comments <br>
are not really befitting your normally reserved attitude. To be 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 of long range
cave <br>
dives I congratulate you on your sheer bravery if on nothing else.
<br><br>
I must, however, take brief issue with your assertion that using dual
<br>
rebreathers is an idea unto yourself. That is a bit like saying that
using <br>
two scooters is our exclusive domain or that using more than one stage
<br>
bottle was "invented". Some things are inherently obvious such
as the idea <br>
that where one rebreather will work, two can be used for redundancy. The
<br>
debate over the desirability of such choices is another issue altogether
<br>
but the reality of the option seems self evident. Consider if the idea
<br>
would hold up as patentable ie "novel and unique and not intuitively
<br>
obvious to someone skilled in the trade." <br><br>
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 that we=20
<br>
resisted rebreathers until a time that we considered useful/necessary we
<br>
will not rush to using dual rebreathers where single units and teamwork
are <br>
safer and more reliable options. I prefer to take my risks in other
areas, <br>
betting my life on ability and the most limited number of uncontrolled
<br>
variables feasible. <br><br>
Most people say that the team approach does not work, that they do not
have <br>
a team, and that it is not good for their area. Of course they said the
<br>
same thing before we built a team and explored Tallahassee. They told me
<br>
the same when I went to Turkey, mounting several substantial exploration
<br>
projects in the absolute middle of nowhere. They say this everywhere and
<br>
will continue where the effort seems not worth the reward. I disagree and
<br>
will use all the tools available toward doing this for as long as
possible <br>
in the most reliable manner feasible. <br><br>
All my best, <br>
JJ <br><br>
At 09:34 PM 10/8/2001 +0200, isler wrote: <br>
>The dive of Reinhard and Michael is reported with a lot of details on
the <br>
>attractive website
<a href=3D"http://www.tekdyk/doux" eudora=3D"autourl">www.tekdyk/doux</a>.
<br>
>Unfortunately, an error appears at the "Welcome" page of
the site. The <br>
>assertion that  "... all dives were directed using the DIR
philosophy <br>
>developped by the floridian cave diving team WKPP..." is NOT
correct. In <br>
>fact, the dive was directed using an intermediate philosophy between
that <br>
>of DIR and the rebreather redundancy developped by myself (as
mentioned on <br>
>the site). <br>
> <br>
>The analysis of their dive in fact shows that they both carried 2 X
20 l <br>
>tanks on their back (return on open circuit in case of rebreather
<br>
>failure). They dived as 2 divers together, as in DIR philosophy.
Beyond a <br>
>distance of 800 m, no safety or relay cylinders were placed in the
sump. <br>
>The reason was that both divers used the double rebreather RB 80.
This is <br>
>undeniably my philosophy of using Redundant Rebreathers. <br><br>
Jarrod Jablonski <br><br>
CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing <br>
President- Global Underwater Explorers <br><br>
Halcyon Manufacturing
<a href=3D"http://www.halcyon.net/" eudora=3D"autourl">www.halcyon.net</a>
<br>
Halcyon manufacturing produces some of the scuba industry's most novel and=
 <br>
robust diving equipment designed by many of diving's most active explorers.=
 <br>
 From the world record Halcyon rebreather to revolutionary lighting and=
 <br>
life support equipment our companies are revolutionizing the manufacturing=
 <br>
of aquatic equipment. <br><br>
Global Underwater Explorers <a href=3D"http://www.gue.com/"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">www.gue.com</a> <br>
Global Underwater Explorers is a non-profit educational, research, and <br>
exploratory organization. GUE regularly engages in international <br>
expeditions and has hundreds of dedicated members around the world. From=
 <br>
entry level technical diver training to advanced exploratory, research and=
 <br>
filming projects GUE is widely considered one of the world's most diverse=
 <br>
and capable aquatic organizations. <br>
<br>
-- <br>
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aq*.co*'. <br>
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to=
 `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'.</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Jarrod Jablonski<br><br>
CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing<br>
President- Global Underwater Explorers<br><br>
Halcyon Manufacturing <a href=3D"http://www.halcyon.net/"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">www.halcyon.net<br>
</a>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. <br>
 <br>
Global Underwater Explorers <a href=3D"http://www.gue.com/"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">www.gue.com<br>
</a>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.<br>
</html>

--=====================_26018933==_.ALT--

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]