Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
In a message dated 7/16/98 10:51:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
zimmmt@au*.al*.co* writes:
> Diver is diving wet. Is the backup bladder a benefit or a liability.
> The conditions are such that a dry suit is not required but is
> an alternate form of backup buoyancy. The diver wants _a_ form of
> backup buoyancy. How does the backup bladder in OMS wings present
> more failure points than a drysuit?
MIke,
Two questions: how much weight on the diver and what type of tank?
You shouldnt dive tanks too heavy for a wet suit. Your diver has redundant
floation for emergency purposes in the wet suit, provided he is not using
steel lp type tanks.
If your in a wet suit with steel tanks too heavy for you to swim up with
out floation then you might think you need an extra bladder. I would say you
need to re evaluate your choice of tank.
If you have chosen the right tank /suit combo, you dont need an extra form
of redundant bc with all the extra failure points that it entails. ( inflator
hose, shrader valve, opv dump)
I would bet your diver uses too much weight to sink his wet suit, and then
exerts during the dive to move that extra lead. Then he gets steel lp tanks
because he needs the tank volume(b/c he is hoovering due to that lead), and
then the lp's are too heavy so he wants an extra bladder, because he knows he
cant swim with those lp's.
But now we are moving away from a pure bc discussion.
Regads,
Al Marvelli aka KybrSose@ao*.co*
--
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]