I hate to break this to you, Jeff, but the dive industry is in the business
of making money, not catering to the needs of ultra-niche markets. George
found this out and had to start making his own gear.

The only way to make money off of this loony manifold would be to sell it as
the next God's Gift to Techdiving, complete with a marketing campaign
employing every loony in the dive business, you know, Batman, the Wak2 crew
et. al. and sell this horror to every impressionable techie wannabe with a
big credit card limit. You know this is true.

No doubt you could make use of the CF manifold, but at what cost in lives?
My answer to your question would be "D", there is nothing down there worth
dying over.

   Jim
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/

> From: Jeff Disler <pdisler@io*.ne*>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 04:52:43 -0500
> To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ma*.ci*.co*>, Dell Motes <dell@di*.co*>,
> Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*>
> Cc: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>, <cavers@ca*.co*>
> Subject: Re: AUL canister light / light cord
> 
> Greetings Jim, et al,
> 
> Many will probably suggest I'm a wrong thinker, but I wish they had made a
> few of these. 
> Perhaps if people could open their minds as to the positive options this
> manifold would offer rather than assuming the extra knob would just make a
> cluster of every dive then they too might see, with certain logistical
> consideratins in mind, it has its advantages.
> 
> First let me say that there would be little to no need for this manifold
> for ocean or spring type diving. In these situations doubles banded
> together are easily carried, on the boat off the boat, as well as to and
> from the water. The standard manifold is ideal for these applications.
> 
> Where the standard manifold is not ideal is in caves that have difficult
> logistics where hauling pumped, banded, manifolded, tanks is not an option,
> then this manifold would solve several problems.
> 
> Caves that contain obstacals such as low tight air filled passages, where
> dive gear must be packed to keep it mud free, then pushed, pulled and
> otherwise moved beyond.
> Vertical shafts that have to rappeled or climbed, where the dive gear has
> to be lowered or lifted.
> Exposed ledges that must be traversed or abseiled with dive gear suspended
> by tyrolean and/or belayed, so as to not have a tank go careening down a
> canyon.
> 
> Caves with these logistical nightmares have to be dived with less than
> desirable equipment configurations for exploration to continue.
> Personaly I like diving sidemounts but as far as gas managment, they are
> not as safe as a manifold for long penetrations.
> Likewise, independent backmounts, I use them in conjuction with sidemounts
> for long penetrations because I have no effective way to manifold tanks
> together once I have reached the sump.
> Assuming the sump/s that exist beyond above obstacals have enough floor to
> ceiling space, such a manifold would offer positive and true advantages. It
> would allow better gas managment over either sidemount or independent back
> mounts and allow the tanks to be split up to be carried in smaller packages
> throughout the majority of caves I seem to end up in.
> Of course, the idea of that extra knob might seem like trouble, it would
> still allow better gas managment in the above cases.
> 
> While the operation and failure modes of the standard manifold are well
> known. The worse thing that I can see that could happen (never heard of it
> happening catastrophically) to the standard manifold is if the Isolator is
> compromised in a place where all gas is lost. Of course this is actually in
> the catagory of a non problem.
> I'm certain this is where many are having a problem with this new manifold
> concept. Perhaps they see it as someone trying to fix a non-problem
> therefore, ill conceived.
> I suggest it was an attempt to add safety while solving logistical
> problems, rather than an attempt to replace the three knob manifold.
> 
> A question for any who care to share an opinion.
> 
> If you wished to do a dive with the following gear configurations, list
> which you would choose, best to less best.
> Consider that transporting manifolded doubles to the dive site was impossible.
> 
> A. New manifold with 4 knobs
> 
> B. Sidemount
> 
> C. Independent back mounts
> 
> D. Would refuse to dive if could not use standard manifold.
> 
> 
> Regards JD
> 
> 



--
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]