Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On3/16/99 7:14 AM, RLucas1013@ao*.co* wrote: >Bill, >Wouldn't the 104's be a better option with an alum back plate?.The cave >manual >has them listed as close to -3# each? I haven't tried it but some have said >they could not swim up 104's ? Your diving aluminum 80's with an 8# >V-weight, >-14# back plate and a -6# canister light if your really diving the system. I >would think the 104's and an alum back plate with no weight my be better for >me, since I am not as physically fit as you. At depth you have compressed >your >wet suit almost nil and have to swim up an - 8# V weight, 14 back plate 6# >canister light and extra-2 # for trim. Really seems like a lot of weight to >start an accent from 180' with a BC failure and a compressed wet suit. >BOB > Bob - Looks like I wasn't clear in my original message: with my 80s I'm using a -6# backplate and a -8# v-weight (for -14# in *total* nonditchable weight). I'm also not regularly using a cannister light -- my apologies to NJ and Seattle divers, but the water down here is actually *clear* If I were, I'd lose the v-weight since the cannister and a few extra pounds around the waist are more than sufficient. As far as using 104s instead of the 80s and the v-weight, the NSS Cave Diving Manual lists 104s as -3 empty; 80s are +4 empty -- a difference of 7 lbs per tank. (More depending on the vintage of your 104s). If I were diving twin 104s and an ABS -- not aluminum -- backplate, I'd still be more negative than in my present configuration and probably beyond my ability to swim out in an emergency. Best regards -- Bill -- 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]