Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
At 04:31 PM 04/10/2000 AKDT, Kent Lind wrote: >Those little double OMS 45 sets might be cute, but I really don't see the >point. > >REDUNDANCY: As we've already heard, you can't squeeze an isolator in there. >So, a set of manifolded 45s is no more redundant than a single with a >Y-valve. Just for the record, Yes you can squeeze an Iso valve in there, I did with only a two inch space between the two tanks, though my modular valves were undersized. There would probably be an additional .75" with regular modular valves. > >COST: OMS tanks are way overpriced. I'm guessing at least $300/ea. Tanks cost me 130.00 ea. I got a good deal because Jim is ruining the market on these things and people can't even give them away. Now only the rebreather guys want them I hear;) But you're right, all dive gear is over priced, including these little buggers. But they work great for some of my diving. $250 for a manifold, and $100 for custom bands and bolts. I spent 30.00 ea. on two Dive Rite modular valves that were cut too short for installation of the iso between two large doubles, but worked perfectly for the 46's. Had a friend make the bands and traded a old Sherwood reg. The iso was around 70 bucks. You are right again at just under 400.00 for this set up, it was too much and much more than the 100.00 bucks for a single eighty and I don't even know how much a single tank adaptor cost. It's probably over priced too. That puts >you in the $950-1,000 range for your mini-doubles. And, if you want to do >more than one dive and don't have a portable compressor, you better have two >sets of these mini-doubles which means you'll be in for close to 2 grand. >You can buy FIFTEEN AL80s for that price. Or you can top them off, a few times to rated pressure with a set of large doubles. Works good for my application. > >COMPATABILITY: Assuming you can only afford 1 set of mini-doubles, then >you'll have to convert your gear back for singles every time you want to >take a second dive. That means pulling off all your hoses and rearranging >them on your first stage, adding a single tank adaptor, etc. unless you >carry a separate set of regulators that are already rigged for single tank >diving. Plus, your wings for double 45s might not be ideally suited for >single tank diving so you might need 2 sets of wings along with you too. So >now your gear bag is twice as big as anyone elses. All true, assuming that you can't get a refill in the above mentioned method and can't find air elsewhere. But since I dive my mini 46's for the few rec dives I do, I don't have to re-arrange hoses to dive a single eighty for those instances. True I have eighties, but they are rigged for stage bottles. So I would have to rearrange these as well to do a simple rec dive. Where as I can just use the 46's and meet all the requirments of a rec rig and have a few extra safety points as well. I'm having a hard time understanding why the logic in this in not understood. Perhaps my logic is flawed and I should just dive a single eighty and do all the reconfiguration so you guys don't worry about the additional safety the mini 46's offer. > >What kind of failure are you guys afraid of on a recreational dive that >requires mini-doubles? It's not so much that I'm afraid of a 80 failing during a rec dive. It's the fact that rec dive configurations are not appropriate for sump diving. Its the fact that I already have this set up for sump diving because anything less is not doing it right. It is the best system I have found that meets all the requirments for minumin safety for same. If you or any could recommend anything that would fulfill the needs of a sump rig and give results better than these mini doubles, I'm listening. It has true redundancy It won't save you on an out of air failure unless >you're diving them as independents and we won't go there. If you blow a HP >seat or a hose you aren't going to instantly lose your gas, you have your >buddy and you have the surface. Of the millions of recreational divers >worldwide, how many die due to lack of equipment redundancy as opposed to >diver error (running out of gas, deep air, wrong gear etc.). I'd say statistically more have died from diving single eighties than mini doubles. But that is just a hunch and I have no proof this is the case. >If you truly need the redundancy but not the gas capacity of doubles (i.e., >for cavern diving or ice diving) then why not just use a Y valve and be done >with it? Y valves have killed more people than doubles. Esp. in sumps. Mini Iso doubles have a place in the type diving I do. Where large banded doubles don't work in most cases, a single eighty is insane, and a Y valve is not even considered an option. But yes, it would be better than the single eighty. Ok, since I'm the nearly the only one who can see that mini 46's might be better than a single eighty, then I must be wrong. I'm convinced, I'm going back to a single eighty, I'm gonna study regressive evolution for a while. Anyone want to buy a set of mini 46's cheap? Regards "SILT HAPPENS"JD JEFF DISLER SAFE CAVING NSS 26000 -- 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]