Jim,

This is some deep stuff! I hope you were breathing tri-mix when you wrote
this, wouldn't want anyone to think you were doing deep air! :-)

Dave Dalton

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*>
To: Dave Sutton <dsutton@re*.or*>; Sean T. Stevenson
<ststev@un*.co*>; <GarlooEnt@ao*.co*>; techdiver
<techdiver@aquanaut.com>; <Wahoo2001@ao*.co*>; <Wahoojan@ao*.co*>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: risk/benefit analysis (was Re: drivelling ofscuba gear)


> 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'.
>

--
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]