No, stone probably runs his systems using "AppleTalk" and wouldn't know 
what "topology" meant, anyway

hehehehehe

At 04:44 PM 4/11/2000 -0400, Jim Cobb wrote:
>Oh, no, it's Sean Stone...
>
>   Jim
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/
>
> > From: "Sean M.Cary" <smcary@mi*.co*>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:37:11 -0400
> > To: "Kevin Connell" <kevin@nw*.co*>
> > Cc: "Techdiver Mailing List" <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> > Subject: Re: Cave doubles
> >
> > A Hybrid Mesh would offer better redundancy then the Star topology,
> > especially with 6 tanks  :-)
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Connell" <kevin@nw*.co*>
> > To: "Jeff Disler" <pdisler@io*.ne*>; "Jim Cobb" <cobber@ci*.co*>;
> > "Art Greenberg" <artg@ec*.ne*>
> > Cc: "Cam Banks" <cam@ca*.co*>; "Techdiver Mailing List"
> > <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Cave doubles
> >
> >
> >> Jim - this is getting pretty funny.  I own a set of 46's and I certainly
> >> don't have any desire to band them together because I am too much of a
> >> pussy to carry 104's or I think they are a better solution than a single
> > 80.
> >>
> >> Better than "cave doubles", how about "The Greenberg Solution"
> >>
> >> Actually, what I'm planning on doing is duct-taping 6 AL13's together in a
> >> "star" configuration for full redundancy for reef diving in the tropics.
> >>
> >> At 04:07 PM 4/10/2000 -0400, Jim Cobb wrote:
> >>> Jeff-
> >>>
> >>> As I told Maggie and Art, if you have the money go ahead and get "OMS 46
> >>> doubles", I just think that your money is better spent on a set of 95's
> > or
> >>> 104's which would wind up costing about the same and offer much more
> >>> utility.
> >>>
> >>> Every time I get passionate arguments for gear like this, I tend to
> > suspect
> >>> it's because A) they actually own the piece of sh, er, equipment in
> > question
> >>> and don't want to look like a knucklehead on the next dive trip, or B)
> > they
> >>> are about to unload the piece of sh, er, equipment in question on the
> >>> unsuspecting masses and don't want me to ruin the market.
> >>>
> >>> In this case the bottom has fallen out of the OMS steel 46 stage market
> > due
> >>> to their close proximity to several dead divers over the years and dozens
> > of
> >>> techies and marketers are desperately trying to come up with ways to get
> > rid
> >>> of these ridiculously expensive crappy POS. And the poor suckers thought
> >>> they found salvation in the new "OMS 46 doubles" market.
> >>>
> >>> PULL! BANG! Dusted that sucker!
> >>>
> >>> But, Jeff, I will give you that if you are belly-crawling through caves
> > and
> >>> need a low-profile air source, then "OMS 46 Doubles" are ideal for that
> >>> particular, narrow, targeted, unique, singular situation... Let's call
> > them
> >>> "cave doubles."
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards-
> >>>
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/
> >>>
> >>>> From: Jeff Disler <pdisler@io*.ne*>
> >>>> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:55:34 -0500
> >>>> To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*>, Art Greenberg
> >>> <artg@ec*.ne*>, Jim
> >>>> Cobb <cobber@ma*.ci*.co*>
> >>>> Cc: Cam Banks <cam@ca*.co*>, Techdiver Mailing List
> >>>> <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Dual OMS 45's
> >>>>
> >>>> C'mon Jim,
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't close your mind to the possibility that small doubles, (OMS
> > 46's)
> >>>> might be a better set up than a single eighty for simple dives.
> > Probably
> >>>> most (on this list anyway) are already using the same backplate and
> > wings
> >>>> they use for their large doubles, to dive an Al 80 with an single tank
> >>>> adaptor. So for those who already have these tanks ( I already use
> > them for
> >>>> sump diving because, IMO, they are the best small tank for sump
> > diving) why
> >>>> not just them for as small doubles as well. They really don't weigh
> > anymore
> >>>> than an solo 80, except for the additional first stage. They don't go
> > way
> >>>> positive when near empty. They are easy to swim up from depth without
> > the
> >>>> aid of inflation. They fit closer to the back than an aluminim 80. I
> > don't
> >>>> think they have as much drag, certainly not any more than an alum 80.
> > These
> >>>> are just a few things about the tanks I like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Things that I think we should all like, at least tolerate, or could
> > just
> >>>> get use to about the 46 doubles:
> >>>> Hell you're covered if you blow a neck O-ring, if a reg fails (first
> > or
> >>>> second), if your buddy needs a bit more gas when his system goes boom
> >>>> catastrophically or just plain ol' fails , and You simply have more
> > gas,
> >>>> which, too much of never hurts.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree, probably most people don't need to go out and spend the bucks
> > on
> >>>> dual 46's. But I'll bet if you actually dived my dual 46's you'd
> > prefer
> >>>> them over a single eighty. If you did not like them better, I'd be
> > suprised
> >>>> and would like to hear the reasons why.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe in using the right gear for the task at hand as well. If I
> > need
> >>>> my big doubles for the dive I'm doing, I use them. If I need side
> > mounted
> >>>> 95's for a sump dive, I use them. What ever it takes for the dive,
> > thats
> >>>> what I'll choose. I'm certain the few rec dives I do could be done
> > with an
> >>>> alum 80, but I choose to have the redundancy for all my dives. Is that
> > so
> >>>> wrong? <g>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>> By they way, I've heard a lot of folks don't like these tanks because
> > they
> >>>> are to heavy. Anyone who does not like their oms 46 and wants to sell,
> > for
> >>>> a low price, let me know how much.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "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'.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>
> >>
> >> NW Labor Systems, Inc
> >> http://www.nwls.com
> >>
> >> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
> >> (plurality should not be posited without
> >> necessity - Occam's razor)
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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'.


----------------------------------
  Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>

  NW Labor Systems, Inc
  http://www.nwls.com

  Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
  (plurality should not be posited without
   necessity - Occam's razor)


----------------------------------

--
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]