Tommy, you are once again showing exactly where you are coming from. It
really is perfect that a stroke like you who thinks the worst of the
worst are great divers thinks I am not much of a diver. I am sure that
makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. I am sure everyone believes
you.

You have no idea. Jeez, just think what I could do if I were any good
like some of your all time greats, like that dead whale the cops fished
out of the Gulfstream last year after he and two others killed
themseleves in Palm Beach. I forgot the word you used to describe his
great skill. 

In my opinion, you and your organization represent the absolute worst in
this sport. You have a limited grasp of anything scientific or mathmatic
in my experience with you, you are illiterate, dyslexic, malapropic to
the point of embarrassment, ignorant, and basicly one of the single
stupidest human beings I have ever met in my life, to put it nicely.
'
In addition, you are a blubbering goob full of martial arts bravado and
baloney ( like the Tai Chi breathing) , concocted bafflegab, foundless
discombobulation based on hearsay, half truths, mysticism and slop, and
as Sheck Exley told me, you never did anything but talk, even when you
were thirty years old ( your current "excuse" for never having done
anything but talk is your age). He told me this in front of witnesses,
and he said that is why he and the rest of that era called you Tom
"Mouth". He also said that the absolute worst "stroke" of all time was
your pal Jim Lockwood. The other guy who told me the "Mouth" nickname
was Bill Main. You seem to forget that I dove with Sheck for the last
four months of his life. Ask Zumrick or Main or one of those guys. I
would love to take credit for naming you the "mouth", but it was not me.

Tommy, you can discuss my diving when you or any of your BOA or anyone
who subscibes to your black hole of abject stupidity can duplicate ANY
of it anytime anyplace. Your little buddies at the usdct spent over a
million dollars trying to do better than me but they were unable to do
in 90 days of diving what I did in one, and what JJ and I went back and
did in one more. 

Funny that anyone who is serious sbout this game eventually realizes
that you are "chopped liver", and I am the real thing.Everyone knows I
am not in the dive business, that I run a project that basicly disallows
everything you teach ( and has the track record to prove it) , and it
seems that with everyone sooner or later, what I am saying and doing
makes the most sense. In the meantime, you keep right one establishing
just how right I am with every thing you say and do.

It is pretty funny that the guy who runs the project with the longest
running best track record in diving that has made the most contribution
to this sport for free is the one and only person whom you try to malign
.. You are real credible , Tommy, and everyone can see your personal
hubris is driving this insanity. Anyone who listens to a word you say is
kidding themselves, in my opinion. 

You need to get out of the business. You are a disgrace.

Tom Mount wrote:
> 
> George
> I did not say anything about 20 feet. We do use EAN 80 at 30 feet on some of
> the tables.  PO2 at 30 feet is 1.53 ata vs po2 at 20 feet is 1.61 ata on
> oxygen.
> 
> On EAN 80 you do not reach 1.6 until you are at 33 feet.
> 
> George, I'm rather tired of your calling me  mouth crap (and it is a
> downright lie that Sheck said that and you know it as Sheck and I were
> friends)
> 
> You may be the record holder on cave dives ( I guess that must be your
> definition of success)but you certainly are not the best of divers and most
> of us really do not care what you do or do not do Sheila(as some of the
> Ozzies refer to George as)
> 
> Our concern is safety for training dives and dives that the majority of
> people do. We feel the tables we use provide this.
> 
>  To the deco list I do not normally engage in Georges ravings and will not
> subject you to these childish games George likes to play in the future. My
> apologies for this current reply.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> Tom Mount
> CEO IANTD World HQ
> http://www.iantd.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kirvine@sa*.ne*>
> To: Bill Mee <wwm@sa*.ne*>
> Cc: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>; Tom Mount <TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>;
> "Decompression List" <deco@de*.or*>
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: A question about training practices
> 
> > Bill, to make matters worse, Mouth is telling this guy to use the 80% at
> > 30 feet due to the higher po2. Well he just told us it was "safer" at 20
> > due to the lower po2? What gives? The fact is the while the 30 foot stop
> > shortens a tad, the oxygen window at 20, 15, 10 or any other depth on 80
> > is pitiful and amounts to wasting your time.
> >
> > As you point out, if the deco is done correctly below this level, the
> > rest is merely effective management of the o2 window with the increased
> > gradient for speedy egress.
> >
> > Mouth has gone to great lengths to do anything that is other than what
> > the most successful project in diving has learned. He just can't stand
> > the fact that we are the leaders in this kind of diving and he is not.
> >
> > Also, the what they are doing with the fill pressures is actually to use
> > STEEL low prssure stages and then fill them to 3000 area, or whatever
> > they can to give them their 80%. The original genesis of Mouth's 80/20
> > stupidity was to get more gas for his hooves and to keep them from
> > toxing while bobbing and weaving at deco.
> >
> >
> > Bill Mee wrote:
> > >
> > > >>When I have doplered EAN 50 we get significant bubbles, while we do
> use
> > > EAN
> > > >>50 in advanced eANx we prefer teh 80 for technical programs it is
> cleaner
> > > >>fro a bubble standpoint
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > The use EANX 50 by itself has nothing to do with bubbles. The question
> is
> > > what were you doing before you got to the EANX 50 gas change? Like what
> > > gases were you breathing and what were your actual bottom times?
> > >
> > > It is well known that the latter phase of the decompression is
> essentially
> > > worthless if you have not performed the deeper stops correctly, have not
> > > breathed the right gases for the correct times etc., etc., etc.  and all
> you
> > > are really doing is treating the symptoms.
> > >
> > > We all know that you are trying to justify the use of 80/20 at the
> expense
> > > of doing the right right thing.  The original reason for using the 80/20
> was
> > > to get more cubic feet of gas in the smaller 30 and 40  cf cylinders
> because
> > > you are running them up to 3500 psi instead of the pressure from the
> > > commercially supplied oxygen bottles.  May I call your attention to the
> > > original Baker's Dozen reasons for not using 80/20.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>When I have doplered EAN 50 we get significant bubbles, while we do
> use
> > > EAN
> > > >>50 in advanced eANx we prefer teh 80 for technical programs it is
> cleaner
> > > >>fro a bubble standpoint
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >>EAN 50 still provided significantly longer deco schedules and if you
> > > >doppler
> > > >>the diver you get more bubbles on longer dives.
> > >
> > > What ? You have got to be kidding me. You mean we have been doing the
> wrong
> > > way all these years in the WKPP?
> > > Thanks for tellings us belatedly.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>I have had great success in the use of EAN 80 and EAN 70 on normoxic
> mix.
> > > I
> > > >>do not know of any bends following these schedules nor any tox
> incidents.
> > >
> > > >>There are several tox incidents on o2 at 6 m which was the original
> reason
> > > >>we went to eAN 80
> > >
> > > Sure and several people who have been killed crossing the street were
> > > wearing red shirts on  Friday the 13th.   I always wear blue shirts to
> > > prevent this.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>Respectfully yours,
> > > >>Tom Mount
> > > >>CEO IANTD World HQ
> > > >>http://www.iantd.com
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Originally posted by George, 9/18/97:
> > >
> > > -----------
> > > A (BAKER'S) DOZEN REASONS  WHY WE DO NOT USE 80/20
> > >
> > > 1) This gas was introduced in an effort to overcome the inability of
> > > unqualified student "tech" divers to control their buoyancy in open
> > > water, and is as such is yet one more concession to doing things in a
> > > convoluted fashion to offset a self- inflicted set of problems brought
> > > on by the "doing it wrong" thinking that pervades diving today.
> > >
> > > 2) A heavy sea is not a problem for a deco stop if it is not posing a
> > > lung-loading problem. Look at your depth guage in a heavy sea and "see"
> > > for yourself what the changes are - insignificant, and if they are not,
> > > you should either not have been diving or incurring a decompression
> > > liability of this magnitude in the first place. In the event of a change
> > > in conditions during the dive, see below where the 80/20 becomes a
> > > liability rather than an assett.
> > >
> > >  3) In the interest of using a standardized set of gases for which you
> > > can permanently mark your bottles , it is a poor concession to inability
> > > to sacrifice the benfits of pure  O2 to accomodate a real or percived
> > > lack of skill - learn to dive before taking up techdiving.
> > >
> > >  4) In this same interest you will find that when you graduate to real
> > > diving, as in caves,  you will not want to accellerate your ppo2 at
> > > lower depths while still being faced with a long decompression at
> > > shallower depths, and making bizarre mixes  to do this is a dangerous
> > > mistake (just like the fantasy of holding an accellerated ppo2 on a
> > > rebreather throughout a deco). I am anticipating the thinking that the
> > > 80/20  crowd would then go to an additional oxygen in cave without
> > > accounting for total exposure, and subject themselves to the risk of tox
> > > in the final deco steps. Tox you do not get out of - bends you do.
> > >
> > >  5) The 80/20 mix is in fact totally useless and contraindicated as a
> > > deco gas. At thirty  feet  it is only a 1.52 ppo2 ( the real 1.6 ppo2
> > > gas would be 84/16) and as such  does not either   provide the right
> > > oxygen window, nor does it does it work as well as pure oxygen without
> > > an inert gas at any depth. The gas mixing in your lungs has already
> > > lowerd the effective ppo2 enough to prevent spiking at 20 feet anyway
> > > with the use of pure oxygen - in other words, we aer dealing with a
> > > simplisitc misunderstanding here, or "old wives tale" that is typical in
> > > diving.
> > >
> > >  6) If 100% oxygen is a percieved buoyancy control risk at 20 feet, then
> > > why is the  same ppo2  ( intended) not a risk at 30 feet? This shows the
> > > total lack of reasonable logic involved in the decision to use this gas,
> > > as well as a lack of understanding of the whole picture ( see the rest
> > > of this discussion).
> > >
> > >  7) Along those lines, all we hear is howling about "oxygen cleaning"
> > > above 40% mixtures,  and dive shop proprietors on here complaining about
> > > scuba tanks with oxygen in them  being filled in their shops. With a
> > > pure oxygen system, the tank only ever gets filled with  oxygen from
> > > oxygen tanks, not from every dive shop compressor it sees. Again , this
> > > shows  the total inconsistency of agency thinking, and reveals that the
> > > true reason for this gas   is to pretend to lower liability for teaching
> > > incompetents to dive, which is bull, and to attempt to accrue some
> > > inventive accomplishemts to the dive agency pundits who themseleves
> > > prove  that they do no real diving by making this recommendation
> > > in the first place. This is like the  colored regs, the stages on either
> > > side, the quick-release buckle, and the poodle jacket: nonsense of the
> > > most obvious nature developped through one-dimesional thinking by those
> > > whose universe of understanding is not only severly limited, but blinded
> > > by the hubris of not being the "inventor" of the techniques that work.
> > >
> > >  8) Any perceived decompression benefit of using a higher ppo2 at 30
> > > feet with 80/20  is then given back  by the lowered ppo2 at 20 feet, not
> > > to mention the fact that the presence of the inert gas in the  breathing
> > > mixture defeats the purpose of using  oxygen in the first place ( see
> > > the Physiology and  Medicine of Diving) .   The ppo2 of 80/20 at 20 feet
> > > is 1.28, not much of an oxygen window, and at 10 feet it is 1.04 -
> > > useless for deco. To make matters worse, you can not get  out from your
> > > 30 foot stop in an emergency ( not doing the other stops)  on  the 80/20
> > > mix without really risking a type 2 hit.
> > >
> > >  9)  This is a dangerous method to achieve a greater total volume of gas
> > > for the bad breathers (another obvious reason the gas is in vogue), who
> > > should not be incurring these decos, and even that benefit of having
> > > more gas is lost since it is breathed at 30 feet, and then has to last
> > > for the other stops. The fact is that gas is effecively saved by using
> > > the lower deco  gas up to this point, relying on the pressure gradient
> > > to both achieve the deco and provide a break from high the previous
> > > gas's higher PPO2 prior to going to pure oxygen  where the spike could
> > > be a problem on an extreme exposure without an adequate low ppo2 break (
> > > again this shows that the 80% user is a neopyte diver with no real
> > > experience or   understanding of the true risks of these dives) .
> > >
> > > 10) The 20-30% longer 30 foot time on the lower ppo2 is not only
> > > overcome on the pure oxygen at the next stops,  the breaks do not come
> > > into play until the initial good dose of pure oxygen has been absorbed,
> > > since you are not spiking from a  high pervious dose without a break
> > > that is effectively achieved on the previous gas. These things need to
> > > be understood and taught by the agencies, not some superficial
> > > convolution that is designed to obfuscate the problem rather than
> > > openly acknowledge and deal with it in a responsible fashion.
> > >
> > > 11) In an emergency situation, getting onto the pure O2 for 20 minutes
> > > or so (for long dives something approximating the bottom time or a any
> > > decent  interval)  would  give you a real good shot at getting out of
> > > the water having missed the rest of  your deco and living through it
> > > with pain hits only. You have to think these things all the way though,
> > > not go for the transparent superficial thinking of those who merely are
> > > trying to "make their mark" with some "great" idea they can call their
> > > own. The acid test is , as always, is the caliber of the divers who
> > > adopt these practices.
> > >
> > >  12) If there is some problem with your deco or you otherwise develop
> > > symptoms and need oxygen either on the surface or back in the water, it
> > > is silly to have not had it there all along. 80/20 is a joke for that
> > > purpose, unless you have asthma, in which case any accellerated oxygen
> > > mix would be a nightmare. This is again part of the "thinking it all the
> > > way through" phiosophy which is obviously mising from the 80/20
> > > argument.
> > >
> > >  13)  Only a card-carrying stroke would do somethng like this, and
> > > showing up with 80/20 is no different than wearing a sign on your back
> > > saying "I am a stroke, and have the papers to prove it". It announces to
> > > all the world that you have no clue, kind of like wearing clip-on
> > > suspenders or having dog dirt on your shoes.
> > >
> > >   George Irvine
> > >   Director, WKPP
> > >   "Do It Right" (or don't do it at all)
> > > --
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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]