Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Banner Advert

Message Display

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:20:13 -0700
To: Andrew Drapp <andrew@ce*.co*.jp*>
From: Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>
Subject: Re: isolation valve == hogarthian ??
Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com
Andrew - 

As pointed out, the isolation valve is NOT "more", it is just "there" a
necessary piece of safety equipment.  Contrast this with something like
double bladders:  Not necessary for the safe execution of the dive.  Extra
point(s) of failure.  You are now overly redundant if diving dry.  

The isolation manifold provides the necessary safety (when operated
properly) when dealing with a tank oring or burst disk failure. (before the
valve).  

If the hogarthian system relied solely on the "less is better" tenant, it
would consist of one large tank, one first stage, and one second stage,
that is all.  This, I'm sure, we can agree is too "less".

You may conclude anything you want about the hogarthian system, but I would
bet you either haven't tried it, you don't understand it properly, or more
likely, both.


At 12:18 PM 8/20/97 +0900, you wrote:
>It is my understanding that in a hogarthian rig, less is better, and only
>bring along something if not having it signifigantly decreases you chances
>of survival.  By signifigantly, I mean, you can ignore the 1 in a million
>chance of failure.  So, the question of manifold == hogarthian is, does
>leaving it at home decrease my chances of survival?  First question is,
>how likely is a failure that will eliminate half my gas?  In my
>experience I have never seen (or heard of) this happen.  But then again,
>my experience is lacking.  Additionally, If I am using the rule of thirds, 
>at any point during the dive, I can lose half my gas and still have enough
>to surface.  
>
>>From this, I now conclude that a manifold is not hogarthian.  Once again,
>I am not saying a manifold is bad.  Just that it is not hogarthian.  An
>isolation manifold has many advantages.  Enough in my opinion that it is
>good idea to use one.  My point is that the reasoning behind using one is
>based on considertations other than hogarthian values.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>

Northwest Labor Systems
http://www.nwls.com
Bellingham, WA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send list subscription requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

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]