Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> Furthermore others on this list have opined as to the longevity of the > schraeder valve and the reliability of the standard oms inflator system. I > would ask any of the bondage wing owners who have responded( paging Tom Easop, > mr. tom easop) as well as those who have not, to let us know their > observations with regard to the inflator system. My repsonse would be first to caution about opinions gotten from this list. I'm still waiting to see people admit that DiveRite didn't shut down the original cavers list. :-) Looking for the real owners and asking them the questions is exactly the right idea IMO. And hey, EVEN IF the inflator sucks rocks, so what, if the idea of the dual bladders is sound, replace the inflators. I was simply trying to discuss the concept of a backup bladder. Blanket statements were made insinuating there was NOTHING worthy in the design of the OMS wings in a manner that to me did not seem like a real debate, but more of a high school popularity contest. I don't think that serves anyones best interest, I was trying to stimulate the debate to center on real facts on the merits (or lack thereof) of ways in which the OMS wings design differs from others. These difference include (among other things) the dual-bladder and the bungees. Each design difference can be eliminated by the owner and should be independently debated IMO. > I am really just looking for facts here and not seeking to blast others. I > dont have an oms wing so I cant perform any tests myself. I don't either. Don't see a need for them. Then again no one is convincing me they are the end-all be-all idiot product that some would have us believe. I'd just like to see a debate were it doesnt downgrade to who knows the most acronyms so they can flame someone else out the fastest (POS, FAS, HFS... yadda yadda yadda). As for your reply, I have never seen an AL tank > 100 cu ft. That's not to say they do not exist. But assuming your dive calls for such air capacity, and assuming there is no concern for exposure, THEN given that to obtain that capacity you must use slightly negative tanks, wouldn't backup buoyancy not be such a bad thing? And ignoring exposure, wouldn't a 2nd bladder be much less task loading than going to a dry suit? Seems to me like a properly constructed set of dual-bladder wings would fit that situation quite well. Now as for how we defing "properly", we can pursue that if you want. I saw a one-sided debate.. can't stand those. Nobody learns anything that way. Mike -- 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]