Dave, this is a response to this post that only you will understand.

Unless you're a newly-hatched pod person, you already know that almost every
discussion of nepotism ignores the critical importance of Dave Sutton's
whiney inarticulate philosophies. But let me add that I have had enough of
Dave's waste, fraud, misfeasance, and malfeasance. To address this in a
pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be
prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For
instance, it is a fact that I must, on principle, create greater public
understanding of the damage caused by Dave's snow jobs. It is deeply
unfortunate that it's time for him to grow up, since other imprudent sappy
psychopaths are also consumed with a desire to foster suspicion -- if not
hatred -- of "outsiders". Although Dave has tremendous popular appeal, his
cronies must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk. I will not play
his jealous games and make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent
workers just like he does. But the problems with his allegations don't end
there. 
Now that I've had time to think about Dave's quips, my only question is
this: Why? Why create a beachhead for organized alcoholism? A study of
power-hungry weirdoes indicates broad political and ideological agreement on
the use of force combined with a set of simple tactics to achieve their
immediate goal: to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral
constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. In a manner of
speaking, Dave wants to tap into the national resurgence of overt
frotteurism. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Dave's gossamer grasp
of reality. I might add: My message has always been that his lackeys carry
out orders like puppets obeying the puppeteer. It's a well-known fact that
Dave has no concern for the common good. It's an equally well-known fact
that the quest to curry favor with the worst classes of narrow-minded
televangelists there are using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition
of their "value," their "importance," their "educational mission," and other
villainous nonsense, is the true inner kernel of Dave's philosophy, insofar
as this figment of a pathological brain can be designated a "philosophy".
When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an
understanding that we must coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that
my vision is built on the future, not the past.
I do not wish to endorse ethnocentrism, but rather to illustrate that if
Dave continues to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression,
and tyranny, I will unequivocally be obliged to do something about him. And
you know me: I never neglect my obligations. Does he do research before he
reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? There are lessons
to be learned from history. Dave's sophistries are a quick-fix detour, a
placebo aimed at surface symptoms, and an excuse to let us know exactly what
our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior.
Scrutinizing Dave's harangues may be instructive in this regard. I know
because I have experienced that personally. What is Dave's current
objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:

*    to lay the foundation for some serious mischief,
*    to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies, and
*    to descend to character assassination and name calling.

Dave's dissertations are not only bad for the immortal soul, but for mortal
men and women. Dave's henchmen consider his nostrums a breath of fresh air.
I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of paternalism. Dave has
completely stepped off the deep end.
I am utterly shocked and angered by his illiterate predatory improprieties.
Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. I was thinking about how
Dave is completely unaware of the difference between a correlation and a
causation. And then it hit me. Dave Sutton is up to no good. That's all I
have to say.

   Jim


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/trimix.html

> From: "Dave Sutton" <pilots@na*.ne*>
> Reply-To: "Dave Sutton" <dsutton@re*.or*>
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:20:50 -0500
> To: "Sean T. Stevenson" <ststev@un*.co*>, <GarlooEnt@ao*.co*>,
> "techdiver" <techdiver@aquanaut.com>, <Wahoo2001@ao*.co*>,
<Wahoojan@ao*.co*>
> Subject: Re: risk/benefit analysis (was Re: drivelling ofscuba gear)
> 
> 
> Sorry, but unable to reply in more detail to all
> of your well thought out mesage, but
> there's an 0-dark-30 flight tomorrow AM
> that I'm preparing for and thus little time.
> 
> 
> But to highlights:
> 
> 
>> Using a single tank for any
>> dive requiring decompression stops is an unreasonable assumption of
>> risk, if you are giving any consideration to a gas sharing scenario.
> 
> 
> Explain to me, please, what the difference is between a
> single 120 with a moderate overfill and a set off twin
> 72's, with which loads of deco diving was done forever
> and a day, and with which many divers still perform
> these dives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Independent
>> singles are a bad idea - do the failure analysis, and consider an out
>> of gas buddy at the point of maximum penetration/turn point of the
>> dive, add a first stage failure during egress and you're SOL.
> 
> 
> Explain to me why this system is any different than
> sidemounts, considering that I do not consider
> changing regulators underwater a procedure that
> I would ever apply in a non-overhead environment,
> and similarly that I would not be considering giving
> up a bottle to a buddy (again assuming non overhead
> environment). I mean, if buddy teams use the rule 0f
> thirds, and I lose one of my bottles, we are still getting
> out. I -do not- wear, nor do I advise the use of dual singles
> as doubles, but it baffles me that sidemounts (which are
> the -exact- same thing worn differently) are considered
> the holy grail, while the other system is considered unsafe.
> Forgive me for observing that if you cannot ID one reg
> over one shoulder and another over another and decide
> that L=L and R=R using dual singles, how can that be
> considered different than managing side mounts?
> 
> I do not presently use either technique as a normal one,
> (nor do I use a pony), preferring isolation valve ideal
> manifolds when not diving rebreather. But the logic
> still escapes me how 2 singles worn on your side are
> any different than 2 worn on your back if U/W regulator
> changes are not contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Open circuit is not "old" technology, but rather the
>> correct equipment to use  <snip... see below>
> 
> As is a pony bottle when used with a single for environments
> where minimal deco is required and no real overhead environment
> is anticipated. A single 104 and a 30 Ft/3 pony provides adequate
> margin for much of the 80-100 foot-ish diving done here on Nitrox,
> and is safely used by many divers of widely varying experience levels.
> 
> 
> 
>> when the additional complexity and failure
>> modes introduced by a closed circuit system are not warranted, such as
>> is the case with any dive that could be accomplished on open circuit,
>> without respiratory heat loss or dehydration becoming so significant an
>> issue that to use the rebreather would be safer.
> 
> 
> The mixed gas rebreather has more redundancy modes than any
> OC system and frankly I find that the system is far less complex,
> and far less bulky than the tech rigs worn to do the same or similar
> dives. Having a realistic 6-8 hour life support duration, several modes
> of operation (to quickly run through them: Normal control, sensor monitored
> manual add, constant bag volume CC bailout, SCC bailout by nose
> exhale method, OC mode through auto add-valve, OC bailout with
> carried OC gas, access to offboard bailout gas through rebreather
> for CC or OC use, etc...)  And the ability to dive trimix, switch to nitrox
> at 130 on ascent, and then to pure 02 for deco, all in a package weighing
> in at about 80 pounds (with adequate on-board gas for all OC bailout
> deco) and with milspec design characteristics (read that several
> million man-hours of open water use by the Navy) and I feel that the
> equipment that would need to be carried to perform the same dive
> profiles OC is actually more complex to manage (not to mention about
> twice the weight and at least twice the drag). The added goodies of
> not needing to carry argon for inflation (you don't get cold breathing
> 100 F gas) as well as the hydration issue are just free plus factors.
> The bad side, of course, is that it requires additional training and
> discipline, and proper predive inspection. The Mark-15 gets serviced
> at home the day or two before the dive, is sealed and carried to the boat,
> and is then usable for about  8 hours of diving by just filling
> the 02 bottle and checking the diluent bottle (and maybe topping it off).
> After returning home the rig has the sofnolime dumped, the sensors
> removed and stored, and bottles filled. The electronics are simple
> and robust, are not exposed to the environment, and are reliable.
> I mean, it's less complex than a video camera, and when was the last
> time yours just fried itself for no reason at all? Plus, if you understand
> the system, the raw sensor voltage is displayed and you can manually
> add 02 based on just that data for bailiut and deco, no problem.
> The raw sensor data just requires that the wires from the sensors
> to the secondary display are intact, and even if the electronics module
> floods the raw data is still there. The system described is a US Navy
> Mark-15 with modifications for tech use, but also describe Mark-16,
> CCR-1000, and other rigs including one that we are building up using
> a Russian IDA-71y as the chassis and adapting to US made electronics
> and subsystems for additional capability.
> 
> Bottom line: If you showed your Hogarthian cave rig to a PADI diver,
> he would saythat it is complex and unmanagable, but to you it is
> streamlined and intuitive. As you describe the system to a new diver, he
> will beginto understand it and feel the same way. It's the same with
> rebreathers.
> You might look at it and think it way too complex and difficult, but to
> an exerienced rebreather diver it's as clear as day. The key to
> using it intuitively is to use it all of the time, for dives where it has
> no clear advantage other than the fact that you are building the
> habit patterns needed to safely dive it on dives where it _is_ needed.
> thus the seemingly disadvantagous use of such devices in 100
> feet of water.  These devices make 300 foot dives really very
> little different than 150 foot ones, save for deco. Much deeper dives
> are possible, but now the limit really is deco, not the system of
> life support. The only answer to that issue is the application of
> transfer under pressure dry deco systems (IE: Closed bell) and
> that is just off the shelf commercial diving technology. It's only
> a matter of time before this is done to push deeper and longer.
> 
> Eventually, the difference between available tech techniques and
> those used by industrial divers will be little other than if you are
> paying or being paid....  In this vein, the 300 foot surface oriented
> doves (as opposed to saturation diving) that we were doing some
> 20 years ago in the gulf were routine, hardly worth mentioning.
> That was using the correct techniques (surface supplied semi
> closed circuit rebreathers, hot water suits, open bottom bells,
> and deck Sur-D deco). This stuff is not difficult to do, nor is it
> -really- all that expensive. f you have access to a 60 foot boat
> you can do it with relative ease and virtually absolute safety.
> 
> So why are we patting ourselves on the back and calling
> ourselves special when what we do (wreck diving anyhow)
> is really just using the -least safe- technique (SCUBA) when
> a 300 foot wreck dive would be just another days work for
> a diver using the correct technique? What we -are- doing is
> deliberately making it hard to do, in a way, not unlike a rock
> climber forgoing assisted climbing (polts and pitons) for
> free climbing. We use a relatively inefficient technology as
> as a result we need to be pretty good to stay alive. The
> reward is a personal one. But the same dives can be done
> much more safely and much more certainly using non-OC
> scuba techniques, and CCR's are one of the steps towards
> making it routine. Surface supplied techniques will not, of
> course, work in caves, nor would it provide the sense of
> accomplishment desired. But working in a nuclear reactor
> inlet system, we were doing 1500 foot penetrations into
> 24 inch diameter pipes to get samples from the pump
> impeller tips and it was routine. Sense of sport? No.
> Easy? Yep. 1500 is not a lot, by cave standards,
> but it's a start. The whole point of this being, of course,
> that OC is not the end-all of techniques and selecting it
> at the expense of even considering alternate methods
> is a handicap from the start.
> 
> 
> As for rebreathers, as prices fall and acceptance increases the days
> of OC will be waning, promise you. Might be 10 years off, but
> it's coming.
> 
> 
> Dave Sutton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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]