Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
When I re-read my mail, I realised I hadn't worded it quite right --- I didn't mean to imply that I thought isolation manifolds were dubious, just that the time factor in turning valves off was a concern for me, and is what keeps me with independents, at the end of the day. Ronnie Bell, in mail to me (Ronnie, did you mean to just mail me or the group?) pointed out that you can keep the isolation valve nearly closed, which would slow air loss from the "OK" cylinder. He also pointed out that you can always close the isolation valve and effectively get independents, and therefore independents had no inherent advantages over a manifold with backmounted cylinders. Looking at it this way, this is of course true (except that I'd have to *buy* one :-). Douglas Stetner writes: >This is only valid if you switch regs every 5 minutes so that your >independent tanks have equal amounts of air in them. If you breathe >one down first, switch to the other and then have a second or first >stage fail, you are left with a near empty tank and a rapidly emptying >tank. My understanding of the philosophy of independent tanks, from my cave diving background, is that you ensure that each has enough air to get you to safety (where safety is sump pool/ocean surface/stage tanks/deco tanks/whatever) if you lose one. So you shouldn't be in such a situation with a near empty tank, surely? Off to Yorkshire tonight, to crawl around in 30cm-high murky sumps :-) Neal Dr. Neal Harman Department of Computer Science University College of Swansea Singleton Park Swansea SA2 8PP TEL: +44 792 295394 FAX: +44 792 295708
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]