Art,

I hate to reply line by line, but its late, so here goes:

Art Greenberg wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Al Marvelli wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I am sorry, but what is the profile for these little tanks? whats the gas
> > management scheme? half plus 200 or are we pumping the snot out of them???
> > Is this an overhead dive?? is there deco to do? and if not, why do we need
> > all this redundancy??
>
> Al, it is not a matter of redundancy. It is simply that diving these
> provides the same valve and regulator configuration as larger doubles. It
> provides the trim and balance of doubles, and does not require any
> adjustment in weighting.

Identical or simliar??  no adjustment in weighting, or no weight belts?

>
>
> > Its nice to have all the tools for practice, but if we are talking
> > 30,60 or even 90 ft of open water< no deco,no overhead>here, you dont
> > *need* a doubles setup and you dont need a specific small double setup
> > just to practice. Better to train with your "go to war" gear.
>
> Agreed, for these dives one does not need doubles. But the point I cannot
> seem to get through my hard head is why not use them? Why not take
> advantage of the system, practice setting up the gear, valve shutdowns and
> so forth with these? Why not reserve the "go to war" gear for dives that
> actually call for the gas volume?
>

Do you practice the mindset for going to war when you dive the little tanks?? Is
it possible to dive thirds with these unpumped? I would think less gas makes it
harder to do so.

is the spacing the same for the valves, or just similar? do you get the same
strech?

on the other side of gear similarity equation, im presuming you dont carry these
on vacation?  how do you deal with the single tank then?


> > What if the 24th mech had trained with golf carts instead of bradleys
> > before desert storm?? Wed probably being paying $2.00 a gallon for gas
> > and kuwaiti women would still be oppressed.< opps bad example, but you
> > get my point, right>
>
> Al, this is a specious argument.
>

I used to know what specious meant. Oh well. Its not my best logic, but i was
playing for laughs while making a point. <you do see the irony dont you?>

> > Now if your sump diving, and thats your "go to war"config, then using them
> > in the ocean might make more sense, but its far from necessary.
> >
> > I dont advocate blow and go as a standard dive practice, but you should be
> > able to do it, and you should be able to dive with a buddy in you singles
> > just as well as with your doubles, and be able to share gas accordingly. so
> > there is no reason for gear to replace a single 80.
>
> I do not understand why, given what I perceive to be the advantages as
> stated above. How is my thinking flawed?
>

For the sumpdiver, its what he needs to be most comfortable with.

The doubles shouldnt be a replacement for the skills above, just as a pony
shouldnt . But how many recreational divers can you say this of? I know you dont
personally mean to recommend the little doubles to recreational divers who cant
handle them, but i still worry that is whats going to happen.


> > I could haul an atv and the tools to build a log home with me when I
> > go to the 7-11 down the block in my truck, or I could just walk. What
> > makes more sense?
>
> I cannot see how using smaller doubles is in contradiction with this
> metaphor. Where am I going wrong?
>

Bad metaphor! Bad!

Let me try again.

I could drive Bigfoot to the 7-11, or I could drive my Ford ranger, but why, if
I
can skateboard there??

best,

Al Marvelli

> --
> Art Greenberg
> artg@ec*.ne*



--
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]