Ok, Ok, Ok. In an effort to end this discussion lets try this:

Maggie you first, say "I think they are sooooooo cute!" (It's ok, you're a
girl, you can say that).

Art, now it's your turn, you say "Look, it's my money and I'll spend it any
way I want, if you don't like it why don't you go stuff your long hose!"

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Opps. Sorry about that, Art. I guess I should have made Jim unload his full
auto snorkel before he came in!

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: Al Marvelli <ajmarve@ba*.ne*>
To: Art Greenberg <artg@ec*.ne*>
Cc: Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>; Maggie <mmowens@pa*.co*>; Jim Cobb
<cobber@ma*.ci*.co*>; Cam Banks <cam@ca*.co*>; Techdiver
Mailing List <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Dual OMS 45's


> 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'.
>

--
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]