Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
John, I have to say I was amazed at your post. Clearly, you are looking for any opportunity to argue with any of George's opinions. But John, if you want to argue, do it on a subject where you can at least sound intelligent. You've tried so hard to disagree with George that you are sounding foolish....I almost have to wonder if you really have done more than a handful of technical or cave dives by your comments. Consider your audience on this list for christ's sake....apparently most have far more experience than you (apparent by your comments on long hoses alone) and will know you are F.O.S. ...If you want to argue with George, give yourself half a chance---try argueing about something like what temperature is best for diving.....at least this will be an area where you have a right to an opinion. When we see you doing one or two dives even half as extreme as George does routinely, then maybe you will have less of us laughing at you when you pontificate. And before you start flaming back at me too hard, I'll be at DEMA, and you can save any angry responses for what you might want to say to me in person. Dan >I would like to comment on the recent post regarding the long hose method and >the pro's an con's. I must admit that I reluctdent to do so for fear that >personal attacks or other non-topic issue will be posted. The long hose >method is a topic that has been discussed many times in the past, but >one I feel never hurts in discussing again so I'll give it a try. > >>Stuffing the long hose is not safe< > >Safety is really not a issue, I don't believe having a long hose neatly >stowed away (not stuffed) would create an unsafe situation. Where as the >long hose that was wraped under a light canister and then crossing over the >chest and finally around the neck is any "safer" "Safer"in what way?? I >don't think any method is safer than the other ( "free from risk, danger, >harm, or injury") > >>Stuffing is not optimal< > >"Optimal" is certainly an issue: for favorable or desirable condition of use >would have to come down to personal choice and task at hand. The diver who >does not have a light canister or other item on his waist that the long hose >can easily be wrapped under might feel that stowing the long hose behind his >head or along side his cylinder would be more "optimal". Where as the >diver who routinly shares gas with his dive partners and then switches back >to a stage bottle might feel that breathing from the long hose would be >opitmal. > >>Unstowing the long hose< > >If the long hose is stowed neatly the time difference in deploying is minute >if any. If a chest strap or other piece of equipment where to be placed over >the long hose by accident this could hamper the deployment, if the donor >where in fact breathing from the long hose. > >>Stressed diver ripps yours from your mouth, now pinned to you because of >the shortness of the hose< > >So what! The hose isn't any shorter than what 99% of all divers learned >their basic air sharing skills on. The merits of the long hose is for ease >of sharing gas while passing threw retrictions and to make moving easier >for both divers. Once the stressed diver calms down the correct regulators >can be switched (how much time is really lost?). I think there would be a >serious problem if the diver also stowed the second stage behind his head or >along side his cylinder (which would be stupid, but yes I have this). But if >the back-up regulator is stowed on the chest area than there shouldn't be >problem. > >>Forced compromise of some other part or your gear< > >How? If the hose is neatly stowed behind head, along side cylinder or >inside of back-plate it's out of the way of everything else. What is being >compromised? > >>Stuffed hoses get caught on things< > >What THINGS? It would be very difficult to catch a hose on anything that >was neatly place along side a cylinder and almost impossible if it were >stowed on inside of the back-plate. If the hose was stowed behind the head >with big loops that ran beyond the divers shoulder width then there "might " >be a problem. > >> They are hard to free up, they are confused and messy< > >That could go for just about any piece of equipment. > >>They clutter your dive gear< > >HOW? > >>There is no convenient way to stow the hose where to second stage is >protected< > >Stow the hose behind your head and bring the second stage over your right >shoulder and secure to harness. What's hard about that?. > >>It generally takes two to restuff< > >True but not always. But who says the hose has to be "restuffed"? Why not >simply run the hose under your arm, around your head and put the second stage >back into position on the right side, the excess hose can be put under your >waist strap. > >>Not good planning< > >Planning for what? > >>Back-up reg should be a lower performance model, so as not to lose gas< > >Now that's a safety issue. If anything the back-up reg should be the best >performer or the two, not the least. The diver could use side exhaust >regulators and have them both set for peak performace without the worry of >freeflow that is common with front exhaust regulators. Or the diver could >install an inline shut off valve located at the second stage,, and keep the >second stage off when not in use. > >>causes excess drag< > >I doubt that with all the gear technical divers are carrying hose placement >would be a concern of "drag". Has this theory ever been really tested in a >controlled environment?. > > >>Not the safest< > >Again this not a safety issue > > > > John Comly > > > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. >Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. > > Dan Volker SOUTH FLORIDA DIVE JOURNAL "The Internet magazine for Underwater Photography and mpeg Video" http://www.florida.net/scuba/dive 407-683-3592
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]