You've got this right, plus they forgot about the 20 ( and 10) which
are now done with a low ppo2 and not much of a window. They forget the
concept of oxygen window, and do not understand why oxygen by itslef at
any pp works better.

 The funny part is that this is practiced by the same fat slobs who get
out of the water and THEN breath pure oxygen. Maybe they should just
breath air from a tank on the surface so they don't set their beards on
fire.

 The more you look at technical diving from the prospective of somebody
like me who does it for real, the more you want to get out the vicane
and the tent and start over.

  The true acid test of a really stupid idea, like 80/20 ,is the legion
of horrifying strokes who immediately latch onto it. Maybe when these
morons go to the chambver with a type 2 hit, like the dead one did, they
can ask for 80/20 in the cahmber because it is more "technical".

  There is no excuse for the abject farm animal stupidity that is being
spread around in cave and "tech"diving, and the only explanation is
found in the instructor base of mail order, annoited by red neck
training dircector buddy, or annelid stupid regeneration ( turds of a
feather).  


Jeremy Downs wrote:
> 
> 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'.
--
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]