Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Reply to: RE>>O2 vs 50/50 deco ------------------------------ Date: 6/24/94 9:26 AM To: Hogan, Steve From: Greg Dawe >Carl Heinzl wrote: >> >> The different deco models alone could easily account for *any* >> differences, but, ok, this is the type of information that I >> wanted to hear about. Can you site the source of your data? >> >My data source was simple observation on two different occassions on a dive >boat. Explanation: A friend owns/operates a high-tech diving supply business >that markets a popular brand of doppler bubble detector. Last year he began >using the detector to validate the tables he generates. Of course, everybody >else on the boat wanted to be "dopplered" too. The two occassions I mentioned >involved air divers flying their computers and decompressing on EAN50. They >had some bubbling - nothing severe, but they didn't come up "clean". >POINT: I began to wonder about the supposedly comparable decompression > efficiency of EAN50 after two divers showed minor bubbling following > a single 20 minute air dive to 180 FSW using reasonable decompression > tools (monitor2, I think) and EAN50 for added decompression efficiency. At what depth did these divers decompress/saftey stop. If they were at twenty feet or above then they probably had bubble formation BEFORE using the EAN50. If the stop was deeper than 30 ft. the bubbles would be more likely to stay in solution. If the stop was deeper than 30 ft. I would be real curious about thier profile and dive history. Steve Hogan Steve_Hogan@qm*.sp*.tr*.co*
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]