Unknown Microsoft mail form. Approximate representation follows. To: David Giddy Cc: techdiver From: HeimannJ on Wed, Feb 8, 1995 7:01 PM Subject: RE: Reduced air Nitrox ? RFC Header:Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;8 Feb 1995 18:19:44 -0500 Received: from cheviot.terra.net by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 18:07:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from fulton.opal.com (daemon@fu*.op*.co* [198.3.124.1]) by cheviot.terra.net (8.6.9/jr2.10) with ESMTP id SAA25984; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:42:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@lo*) by fulton.opal.com (8.6.4/jr2.9) id SAA07740; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:40:27 -0500 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: owner-techdiver@opal.com Received: from brahma.trl.oz.au (brahma.trl.OZ.AU [137.147.13.210]) by fulton.opal.com (8.6.4/jr2.9) with ESMTP id SAA07716; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:40:11 -0500 Received: (from giddy@lo*) by brahma.trl.oz.au (8.6.8/8.6.9) id KAA01819 for techdiver@opal.com; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 10:39:31 +1100 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 10:39:31 +1100 From: David Giddy <d.giddy@tr*.oz*.au*> Message-Id: <199502072339.KAA01819@br*.tr*.oz*.au*> To: techdiver@opal.com Subject: Re: Reduced air Nitrox ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Dave Giddy writes: >... >My primary suggestion is that in the range of 50-80m (160'-260'), something >like Nitrox-10 or even Nitrox-5 may be a safer breathing gas than air. >... Why would 5-10% O2 Nitrox be safer than 16-18% O2 Nitrox (PP02=1.4-1.6 ATA at 80m, the deepest depth in your range)? The basic nitrox rule of using the max FO2 possible within CNS tox constraints still applies here. EAN16-18 has acceptible PPO2s as depth, and much friendlier decompression (which I consider to be "safer") than EAN5-10. Moreover, EAN16-18 can be breathed at the surface, which EAN5 or EAN10 cannot be. John Heimannj@ma*.nd*.gt*.co*
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]