Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Banner Advert

Message Display

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:49:04 -0800 (PST)
To: "William M. Smithers" <will@tr*.co*>,
From: Jeremy Downs <dcrco@jp*.ne*>
Subject: Re: Accelerated O2 ( Was Why we do not use 80/20
Cc: donn@le*.ne*.au*, techdiver@aquanaut.com
Your right Will, why the hell would anybody with that bad of bouyancy be
even thinking about advanced diving practices???? 

I have also heard the lame arguement that it allows you to do a 30' stop on
the same gas, but that just negates the first arguement they use - that it
allows the 20' stop to be safer - you end up right back in the same PPO2
range. Obviously this practice was never really thought out!

At 09:33 PM 11/24/97 -0500, William M. Smithers wrote:
>
>On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, John Dunk wrote:
>> Would someone explain' the "fantasy" of holding an accelerated ppo2
>> on a rebreather  throughout a deco ' and why it's a fantasy?Are we
>> talking tox here or what?And how does  80/20 supposedly help divers
>> with poor buoyancy control? Hope I didn't come inb too late on this
>> one.  Also, someone mind listing the claimed benefits of 80/2?.
>> Thanks
>
>I have to agree on the point about rebreathers, particularly 
>closed-circuit rebreathers.  If you purge a couple of times and
>shut off the diluent add valve, you have a 100% o2 rebreather.
>The amount of N2 that's being offgassed into the loop is
>inconsequential.
>
>80% "helps" (if such a word is appropriate) a diver with
>poor bouyancy skills by not putting them in the rapid
>tox zone at 25 or 30ft.  
>
>The actual benefits of 80/20 (besides the above) are nil.
>The poorly thought out reasons for use are:
>
>[1] The tox-depth relation thing, as noted.  And I *do*
>    believe this has a place in training, as long as it
>    is explained as such.  But if the student doesn't have
>    their bouyancy under control at the end of training,
>    the instructor has done a very bad job.  Or the student
>    is an idiot, in which case, they shouldn't have been
>    certified.
>[2] You run less tox risk with 80/20, as calculated by
>    the NOAA "CNS clock" values.  This thinking simply reflects
>    a lack of education.  As noted in previous posts, air-breaks
>    will extend your real tox probability by 50% or more.
>
>-WIll
>
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe 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]