Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Jim, I have to admit that I am really looking forward to writing this reply. You= r=20 lack of intelligence and logic is so painfully obvious that it will be fun t= o=20 expose it for all to see. And your personality as an unethical individual i= s=20 also going to be exposed, so get ready. On your comments to #1 & #2, you use the phrase << ... It would require some= =20 real muscle-brained chowderheads in leadership position supported by hordes=20 of like-minded individuals following zombie-like because they are incapable=20 of thinking for themselves. >> Out of the mouths of babes .... This is the best description of DIR clones=20 like yourself that I have heard in quite a while. Only I think the=20 individuals in the DIR leadership roles are actually quite competent. =20 However referring to the zombies, describes you perfectly. And from your=20 lack of any logical argument, I guess you must agree that these points say=20 nothing about why you should not use EAN80 for a deco gas. On your really brilliant comment on #3, I guess you never considered the=20 possibility that all of the divers on a given trip might elect to use EAN36=20 and EAN80. Now tell me again of the problems with this choice. On your truly insightful comments on #4, am I to interpret you as proposing=20 that doing a longer required in-water deco is going to help you in making=20 repetitive dives? Gee, and I thought that surface interval time was helpful= ..=20 And I noticed that here again, as is your custom when faced with a logical=20 argument, you have completely ignored my question of << When was the last=20 time you carried enough gas and did a dive requiring a deco of more than two= =20 hours? No hogwash about scooters, habitats and bunches of support divers,=20 just you and a buddy or two swimming in the ocean. >> Am I to assume that yo= u=20 have NEVER made this kind of a dive? And I'd really like to hear more about= =20 your << 4 back-to-back tech dives >> We must be talking about really serious= =20 dives here. Why don't you tell us more about them? On your comments to #5, I'm afraid your logic is non existent. If, as you=20 say, << ... it's the removal of NITROGEN from the picture is the goal. Kurt,= =20 it's NITROGEN that gets you bent ... >> then please explain to me carefully=20 why you think that at the 30, 20, & 10 foot stops, a PN2 of 0.95 ATA (from=20 the EAN50 you'd be using), 0 ATA and 0 ATA is so tremendously better than=20 0.38 ATA, 0.32 ATA and 0.26 ATA. I'm willing to bet that you don't have the= =20 foggiest idea of the difference and are simply playing your DIR zombie role=20 and parroting the DIR bible. And remember now, according to the DIR bible,=20 you're not allowed to criticize the Decoplanner program which says that the=20 latter is actually more effective. And I don't hear any comments at all on=20 << the secret DIR method to deco on a PO2 of 1.91 >>. On your comment to #6, this is really insightful and likely to persuade me t= o=20 avoid the use of EAN80 for deco. On your comments on #7, I need to get this straight. You do not mention=20 partial pressure blending at all, from which am I to infer that you agree=20 that the main thrust of #8 is hogwash? And then when considering the=20 afterthought contained in #8, you say that swimming with two Al 80 cylinders= =20 on one side and none on the other, is the way to go. I think that maybe=20 you've come up while breathing the wrong tank once too often. On your comments on #8, I also don't know why you bother. You have added no= =20 insight to this clear error in the Baker's dozen. I concentrate on the=20 Decoplanner program because in the past, if anyone dared to challenge the DI= R=20 deco gas selection using a deco program in their analysis, they would be=20 instantly flamed for using a program that was obviously flawed. In DIR=20 parlance, "flawed" meant anything that didn't agree with DIR. But according= =20 to your own DIR bible, you can't say this about Decoplanner. Nice "Catch=20 22," huh? By the way, I think Decoplanner is a really good program, and in=20 my opinion definitely one of the best available today. On your comments on #9, I think your argument is precious. I show you a way= =20 wherein by using EAN36 and EAN80 you need less total deco gas to do a dive=20 and can possibly use a smaller deco tank to actually carry more gas as a=20 safety factor, and you say, in effect, "I don't need no more stinkin' gas."=20= =20 You do understand the concept of using a smaller tank pumped to 2800 psi to=20 carry more gas than a somewhat larger tank pumped to 2100 psi to carry less=20 gas? You do, don't you? Or is this concept just a little too advanced for=20 your arithmetic equivalency level. On your comments on #10, I think your true intelligence level, read the lack= =20 of any branching in your family tree, is beginning to show. The sounds=20 emanating from your direction are giving you away. When the total overall=20 deco time is less, it's kind of difficult to support, as #10 states, that th= e=20 shorter 20 and 10 ft. stops more than compensate for the longer 30 ft. stop.= =20 I'm sorry, but arithmetic, even at your elementary school level, doesn't ben= d=20 to the DIR bible. I need to say that your comments on #11 have really contributed a whole lot=20 of technical expertise to the discussion. As is your usual "modus operandi,= "=20 you have ignored completely the logic of the situation and attempted to=20 change the subject. Perhaps you might try your logic on the Thursday=20 afternoon sewing group, be please, don't insult anyone who is interested in=20 learning about technical diving. See the discussion of #5 above to answer=20 your question. On your comments on #12, I'm so glad that you know that << ... real divers=20 just take along a couple of K cylinders of O2 and attach a hooka rig ... >>.= =20 I've got news for you, but not all diving is done from boats equipped to=20 carry "a couple of K cylinders." And having the gas mixed and analyzed for=20 all of the deco for all of the dives before the boat leaves the dock, is=20 often a much simpler and safer way to go. But of course being so far up in=20 the hierarchy of technical diving, you wouldn't understand these little=20 details of dive planning. By the way, doesn't DIR have something to say=20 about bastardizing your diving configuration to accommodate factors other=20 than the dive. If The group is using EAN36 and EAN80 for deco, why on earth= =20 would they want a Hooka rig anyway? All you seem to be able to do is to kee= p=20 parroting the DIR mantra over and over and over and over ... EAN50=20 ___O2___EAN50___O2___EAN50___O2 ... Why don't you wake up and realize that=20 deco gas is deco gas and safety gas is safety gas? Both need to be=20 considered. Once again, your comments on #13 are really likely to persuade me not to use= =20 EAN36 and EAN80 for deco. Oh, I just can't stand being called a stroke by=20 the DIR Team (that's DIRT to you, Jim). Oh, please, please, don't call me=20 that. Now that we have dispatched with your "analysis" of the Baker's Dozen and=20 established that aside from some interesting reading it really has no=20 significant bearing on technical diving, lets get back to some other=20 interesting topics. In my last posting to you I said=20 << In your first posting to me on this subject you claimed << fact is that=20 getting out of the water in the least amount of time should not be the=20 primary objective. >> I answered with << Decoplanner showing your needing=20 less deco means that everything is in the right direction. The nitrogen is=20 gone quicker from your body and with no oxygen toxicity worries, so [when=20 talking about deco - KR] what else is there that's "the primary objective."=20 >>. As I said previously, your "modus operandi" when faced with a logical=20 argument, is to ignore the logic and attack your opponent. And you have=20 definitely measured up true to form in your second posting to me. >> And now I ask you again, just exactly what is the "primary objective" that=20 you're talking about? Everyone on the list can easily see that you've kept=20 true once again to your tried and true procedure of ignoring the logic of th= e=20 argument and attacking the writer of the posting. But it isn't going to wor= k=20 this time. Answer the question or admit that you were just spouting off at=20 the mouth (... or keyboard) when you answered my first posting. Blowhards=20 like you need to be taken down a notch. And now for the "Coup de resistance" Mr. Cobb, I accuse you publicly of=20 changing one of my emails and then using the changed copy in a posting of=20 your own to this list, I imagine to make some point that you couldn't make=20 otherwise. Email is a wonderful thing and records are kept of past messages= =20 to prove my assertion. I'm not sure whether that makes you a public liar, o= r=20 a counterfeiter, or what. But it certainly makes you an unethical individua= l=20 whose every statement needs to be questioned and independently verified. And also, by the way, my name is still Karl, not Kurt. I guess that you nee= d=20 even further remedial reading lessons in helping to sound out the word. I=20 understand that it may be difficult for you so I'll try to help you out. =20 Think of it this way, Kurt Russell =3D Actor, Karl Russell =3D Diver. Now i= s=20 that too complicated for your limited intelligence level? Karl In a message dated 8/27/00 5:56:26 AM, cobber@ci*.co* writes: << I am probably talking to a wall here but I'll bite. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ > From: KRussellTX@ao*.co* > Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:14:35 EDT > To: cobber@ci*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com > Subject: Re: 80/20 deco >=20 > Jim, >=20 > You idiot. What I'm trying to tell you is that either decoplanner is wrong= =20 or > the items in the bakers dozen are each basically irrelevant or incorrect. >=20 > Tell me what #1 and #2 say about why I should not use EAN80. Everybody wants to know where a bad idea got started. What puzzles me is how they get perpetuated year after year even in the face of overwhelming logic. It would require some real muscle-brained chowderheads in leadership position supported by hordes of like-minded individuals following zombie-like because they are incapable of thinking for themselves. > Tell me from #3 why on earth I need to dive your standardized set of gasse= s. > I'm not doing ridiculous 3 mile penetrations at a 300 ft. depth. Also tel= l > me from #3 exactly what are the "benefits of pure O2," as they are never > given. Kurt, for those of us who actually dive this is a good example of why I am willing to spend the extra 5 mins. for the sake of standardization. On a dive boat (Kurt, that's a floating thingy with a motor on it that takes divers out diving) you have 6-15 techdivers with deco bottles and doubles all over the place. It is a huge advantage if every deco bottle has either 50 or 100 in it, that way should there be a problem on the surface or at deco you can use each others gas. I know that armchair divers like you can't comprehend logistics like this, but I guess how can you if you have never been there or done that. > Tell me from #4 how for any dive that I (or 99.9% of all tech divers for=20 that > matter) might make, I << will not want to accelerate your ppo2 at lower > depths while still being faced with a long decompression at shallower=20 depths, > and making bizarre mixes to do this is a dangerous mistake...>> This is > just not true when the total deco is less than an hour or two and the deco > with the EAN80 is actually less in total time than with the 100% O2. Of > course the 30 ft. stop is going to be shorter and the 20 ft. and 10 ft.=20 stops > somewhat longer, but not enough to worry about. When was the last time yo= u > carried enough gas and did a dive requiring a deco of more than two hours? > No hogwash about scooters, habitats and bunches of support divers, just yo= u > and a buddy or two swimming in the ocean. Yes, Kurt, us divers are known to make more than one dive a day. Out on the boat we may do 3-4 back-to-back tech dives. Once again your armchair knowledge fails you. > Tell me from #5 why the magic number for PO2 of 1.6 is so fantastically > better than 1.53 (I guess the DIR guys never learned about rounding number= s > to the significant digit). Sure it's a little better, but lets not go > overboard. The PN2 is still way down so the deco will be effective. I've > heard that the idiot WKPP guys use 100% O2 at 30 ft. in a habitat. Tell m= e > now why 1.6 is still the magic number rather than 1.91, or is it the secre= t > DIR method to deco on a PO2 of 1.91 and not tell anyone? In my opinion, t= he > whole argument of 1.6 verses 1.53 is just a bunch of hoopla. As somebody else pointed out it's the removal of NITROGEN from the picture is the goal. Kurt, it's NITROGEN that gets you bent. Where you asleep during that phase of your obviously deficient education? > Tell me what #6 says about why I should not use EAN80. Once again, explaining the roots of a bad method helps to illuminate the path to redemption. > Tell me from #7 why I give a hoot if some rec. scuba shop has a heartache > about making nitrox by the partial pressure blending method. The vast > majority do it this way so this also is a non-issue. And what is wrong wi= th > stages on either side if you're not using a scooter? For me, swimming wit= h > two 80's on one side and nothing on the other is not particularly=20 convenient. This armchair diving experience of yours is really showing, Kurt. I don't know how many times I have seen real divers try both methods and switch over to having both bottles on the left. Forget all the logical reason why (you have the blinders on, so why bother) just try it and you will like it. > Tell me from #8 how either this is just plain wrong for the example I gave= , > or how decoplanner is wrong. Really Kurt you need to read something other than comic books once in a while. Or perhaps you don't know what an algorithm is. An algorithm is a procedure for solving mathematics problems. While good baselines, deco has too many variables to come up with an all encompassing formula. As I type I can see my words entering your eyes and flowing out your ears. Why do I bother? > Tell me from #9 how, when the K bottles of O2 only come with around 2250 p= si > so I'm real lucky to get 2100 psi in a deco tank, that I'm not going benef= it > from getting 2800 psi of EAN80 in that same tank. In your dreams if you'v= e > ever done any diving. Remember that if you use 100% O2, then you need to > plan your 30 ft. stop from your first deco gas. And if the total deco is > shorter using EAN80 (see #8), then you need less deco gas total and you ha= ve > significantly more. Tell me again how this is bad. Sigh.... Kurt, answer me this question: is the goal of deco diving to have the correct amount of deco gas available for your dive or to pump as much gas as possible into your tanks? How do you benefit by dragging around gas you are not going to use? Once again your total lack of real world experience is yawning open like the goddamn Grand Canyon. > Tell me from #10 how << The 20-30% longer 30 foot time on the lower ppo2 i= s > not only overcome on the pure oxygen at the next stops ... >> is simply no= t > true for the example I gave (or decoplanner is wrong). This statement is > simply not valid for the example I gave (see #8 again). Duuuuhhhh, um, uh Oh, I know! There's nitrogen in 80/20! The goal of deco is to remove nitrogen! So why breath it? > Tell me from #11 how you arrived at the conclusion that pure O2 at 20 ft.=20= is > that much better than EAN80 at 30 ft. or 20 ft. No smoke and mirrors, jus= t > facts or references. And tell me how in the blazes anyone with an > organization that never has diving deco medical problems, would have the > experience to pontificate about what is necessary for << living through it > with pain hits only... >> This is pretty funny. The whole 80/20 argument is some and mirrors. You are one pig-headed individual. Once again, there's nitrogen in 80/20! The goal of deco is to remove nitrogen! So why breath it? > Tell me what #12 says about why I should not use EAN80. Any idiot knows t= o > always have O2 available when diving. I choose to use a DAN O2 kit with=20 only > a Jumbo "D" cylinder, and a DAN REMO surface O2 rebreather which on the > surface will stretch the small DAN cylinder out to five or six hours if > necessary. I'm certainly not going to try to use this stuff under water. Ah, you armchair divers are going to be the death of me. Us real divers just take along a couple of K cylinders of O2 and attach a hooka rig for the guys to deco on. We take 02 with us but us the hooka when we can. Draining the 02 out to remix for 80/20 for moron strokes like you is, uh, counter-productive? > Tell me what #13 says about why I should not use EAN80. Call me a stroke=20= if > you like, but that is not a reason to not use EAN80 for a deco gas in=20 certain > situations. OK. You Stroke. "Certain situation". Kurt, does armchair diving give you hemorrhoids? Real divers standardize on 50, 100 and perhaps add a 36 for the 400 footers. Other than that I can think of no dive on this planet or on the planet you apparently came from to use 80/20. Why? Because theres NITROGEN in 80/20 (Kurt that's the "20" part) and the goal of deco is to offgas NITROGEN. Am I making a dent in that wall-to-wall bone head of yours? > Now that we have done away with your thirteen commandments, that you follo= w > like a lemming because you obviously don't have the ability for any > independent thought, lets look at your arguments. History is nice but > unfortunately, it doesn't replace logic. You may have been on the techdiv= er > list for some time but from what I have read, you have simply demonstrated= =20 on > numerous occasions in the past that you're basically incapable of logical > thought. And that when faced with a logical argument, you invariably reso= rt > to calling other people dirty names and using an abundance of rather filth= y > curse words in an attempt to overwhelm and wear down your opponent. Your > present posting is a prime example. Well, you'll find that this tactic wi= ll > not work with me. Kurt, some people deserve all the abuse they get. People like you are so thick-headed and in lock-step with their agency's party line (You are a TDI asshole I will guess?) that logical discussion is hopeless. You are the proverbial pig we are trying to teach to sing. > In your first posting to me on this subject you claimed << fact is that > getting out of the water in the least amount of time should not be the > primary objective. >> I answered with << Decoplanner showing your needing > less deco means that everything is in the right direction. The nitrogen i= s > gone quicker from your body and with no oxygen toxicity worries, so [when > talking about deco - KR] what else is there that's "the primary objective.= " >>> . As I said previously, your "modus operandi" when faced with a logical > argument, is to ignore the logic and attack your opponent. And you have > definitely measured up true to form in your second posting to me. Oh, my such big words! Yes, Kurt, optimizing your 02 window, standardization, keeping it simple (stupid), logistics all come before trying to save 5 fucking min.s of lousy deco. > Perhaps there may be some valid reasons for not using EAN36 and EAN80 as t= he > deco gasses for the dives I do, but you certainly haven't found one yet. > Care to try again? Or do you plan on simply haranguing me with your typic= al > barrage of dirty words. OK, Kurt, lets try again in the key of "C" ..."I'm siiiinging in the rain, siiiinging in the rain" .... are you getting annoyed yet? I know I'm wasting my time... > Oh and by the way, if you knew how to read at a somewhat higher level than= =20 an > initial course in Phonics (although I'm sure you found the game=20 challenging), > you would have been able to determine from my previous email that my name=20= is > Karl, not Kurt. And to give your little mind a challenge, that's K as in > knight, A as in aisle, R as in are, and L as in solder. If that's to toug= h > for you, then ask your remedial reading teacher for a little help. You do > have a remedial reading teacher, don't you? >=20 > Kurt Russell, Austin, TX So far, Kurt, I can't think of a single reason to get your name right. > In a message dated 8/26/00 7:08:36 PM, cobber@ci*.co* writes: >=20 > << So what you are telling me, Kurt, that for saving 5 lousy mins of deco=20 you > are going to ignore all of the issues outlined in the bakers dozen. Real > bright, Kurt. I can tell your mind is really open to all the possibilities= .. >=20 > Listen, dimbulb, like all tables programs, Deco Planner is an algorithm. > Tables software are not some magic oracle to keep you from getting bent, > they are just guidelines and training aids to help you understand deco. Yo= u > would be a fool to use them without some understanding of how deco affects > your body. >=20 > And Kurt, as far as me knowing everything, I do not. But I do know enough=20= to > use the archives to see what *you* had to contribute to the general well > being over the course of 50,000 posts. Not surprisingly, not a FUCKING > thing. Well done, Kurt, I'm really impressed, you must be one hell of a > diver. >=20 > I'm getting sick and tired of you anti-DIR zealots. Don't you assholes > realize that nobody cares how fucked up your gear is, or what goddamn gass= es > you use? As more of you fuckheads croak in some horrible fashion or other, > DIR will come out on top by attrition alone. And you people are too stupid > to see that, aren't you. > > >=20 >> From: KRussellTX@ao*.co* Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:13:57 EDT To: >> cobber@ci*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com Subject: Re: 80/20 deco >>=20 >> OK Jim, >>=20 >> Yes this again. Since you seem to know everything, I'd like you to tell=20= me >> that if getting out of the water in the least amount of time (safely, >> according to decoplanner) isn't the primary objective, then just what in=20 the >> hell is. >>=20 >> Decoplanner showing your needing less deco means that everything is in th= e >> right direction. The nitrogen is gone quicker from your body and with no >> oxygen toxicity worries, so what else is there that's "the primary=20 objective." >>=20 >> Also, since the EAN36 and 80/20 actually gives you less deco then your=20 EAN50 >> and 100% oxygen, you can throw just about every single one of your Baker'= s >> dozen commandments in the trash can. They just don't hold up. Unless of >> course, you mean to say that decoplanner is giving the wrong answer. >>=20 >> So take your patronizing attitude and go stuff it where the sun don't=20 shine. >> When you have something intelligent to say then maybe I'll listen. Until= l >> then, which will be a very long time I'm sure, just try to go play bully=20 with >> those that mistakenly believe that you actually know something about=20 diving. >>=20 >> Karl >>=20 >> In a message dated 8/26/00 6:35:03 AM, cobber@ci*.co* writes: >>=20 >> << Oh, no, not this again... >> >>=20 >> The fact is that getting out of the water in the least amount of time=20 should >> not be the primary objective. >>=20 >> Do us all a favor go to Kevin Connell's archives and do a search for 80/2= 0 >>or Bakers Dozen and save us a lot of bandwidth. >>=20 >> http://www.nwls.com/list-archive/ >>=20 >> If you have any additional questions, come on back and ask. >>=20 >> Jim >>=20 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn >> About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ >>=20 >>> From: <KRussellTX@ao*.co*> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:30:37 EDT To: >>> techdiver@aquanaut.com Subject: 80/20 deco >>>=20 >>> I have been reading in this group how 80/20 is not the gas to use for=20 deco. I >>> have also been reading that Decoplanner is great and EAN50 @ 70 ft. and=20 100 % >>> oxygen at 20 ft. is the DIR way to go. In truth I haven't got the=20 slightest >>> idea what the "oxygen window" means unless it simply refers to using the >>> closest PO2 that is below 1.6 that you can get to. >>>=20 >>> Now the question I have to ask is that if 80/20 is only used by strokes,= =20 why >>> is it that on a dive to 200 ft. on 18/35 for 30 minutes, doing a deco=20 using >>> EAN 36 @ 110 ft. and EAN 80 @ 30 ft. actually results in a shorter deco=20 than >>> EAN50 @ 70 ft. and 100% oxygen @ 20 ft.? >>>=20 >>> Any explanations why the stroke mix seems to get you out of the water > sooner? >>>=20 >>> K. Russell >>>=20 >> In a message dated 8/26/00 1:16:10 PM, Michael.Waldbrenner@wa*.de* >> writes: >>=20 >> << >terms of the O2 clock. I was not able to find the bakers dozen for=20 oxygen. >>=20 >> Here you go ! 1997 ! >>=20 >> Just for the record here on Quest. Tom Mount is writing in the rebreather >> forum that IANTD is using EAN80 for OW-Deco. >>=20 >> When doing some of my courses at Billy Deans in Key West a few years ago,= =20 we >> were mostly using surface supplied oxygen for the deco-dives. >>=20 >> And to the ever-occuring buoyancy thing.... Deans was very strict on thes= e >> things like buoyancy, beeing on time, beeing fit, etc... I remember he=20 kicked >> one guy out, because he did not arrive on time at the dock to leave for t= he >> dive in the morning. >>=20 >> Billy told him: "You are not in time at the boat, so you will not be on=20 time >> at the stops". >>=20 >> Deans was IANTD #2 and he was using O2 ! I don=B4t want to speak for IAN= TD, >> but i think Billy Deans was right ! >>=20 >> Michael >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> A (BAKER'S) DOZEN REASONS WHY WE DO NOT USE 80/20 (By George) >>>=20 >>> 1) This gas was introduced in an effort to overcome the inability of >>> unqualified student "tech" divers to control their buoyancy in open >>> water, and is as such is yet one more concession to doing things in a >>> convoluted fashion to offset a self- inflicted set of problems brought >>> on by the "doing it wrong" thinking that pervades diving today. >>>=20 >>> 2) A heavy sea is not a problem for a deco stop if it is not posing a >>> lung-loading problem. Look at your depth guage in a heavy sea and "see" >>> for yourself what the changes are - insignificant, and if they are not, >>> you should either not have been diving or incurring a decompression >>> liability of this magnitude in the first place. In the event of a change >>> in conditions during the dive, see below where the 80/20 becomes a >>> liability rather than an assett. >>>=20 >>> 3) In the interest of using a standardized set of gases for which you >>> can permanently mark your bottles , it is a poor concession to inability >>> to sacrifice the benfits of pure O2 to accomodate a real or percived >>> lack of skill - learn to dive before taking up techdiving. >>>=20 >>> 4) In this same interest you will find that when you graduate to real >>> diving, as in caves, you will not want to accellerate your ppo2 at >>> lower depths while still being faced with a long decompression at >>> shallower depths, and making bizarre mixes to do this is a dangerous >>> mistake (just like the fantasy of holding an accellerated ppo2 on a >>> rebreather throughout a deco). I am anticipating the thinking that the >>> 80/20 crowd would then go to an additional oxygen in cave without >>> accounting for total exposure, and subject themselves to the risk of tox >>> in the final deco steps. Tox you do not get out of - bends you do. >>> >>> 5) The 80/20 mix is in fact totally useless and contraindicated as a >>> deco gas. At thirty feet it is only a 1.52 ppo2 ( the real 1.6 ppo2 >>> gas would be 84/16) and as such does not either provide the right >>> oxygen window, nor does it does it work as well as pure oxygen without >>> an inert gas at any depth. The gas mixing in your lungs has already >>> lowerd the effective ppo2 enough to prevent spiking at 20 feet anyway >>> with the use of pure oxygen - in other words, we aer dealing with=20 >>> simplisitc misunderstanding here, or "old wives tale" that is typical in >>> diving. >>>=20 >>> 6) If 100% oxygen is a percieved buoyancy control risk at 20 feet, then >>> why is the same ppo2 ( intended) not a risk at 30 feet? This shows the >>> total lack of reasonable logic involved in the decision to use this gas, >>> as well as a lack of understanding of the whole picture ( see the rest >>> of this discussion). >>>=20 >>> 7) Along those lines, all we hear is howling about "oxygen cleaning" >>> above 40% mixtures, and dive shop proprietors on here complaining about >>> scuba tanks with oxygen in them being filled in their shops. With a >>> pure oxygen system, the tank only ever gets filled with oxygen from >>> oxygen tanks, not from every dive shop compressor it sees. Again , this >>> shows the total inconsistency of agency thinking, and reveals that the >>> true reason for this gas is to pretend to lower liability for teaching >>> incompetents to dive, which is bull, and to attempt to accrue some >>> inventive accomplishemts to the dive agency pundits who themseleves >>> prove that they do no real diving by making this recommendation >>> in the first place. This is like the colored regs, the stages on either >>> side, the quick-release buckle, and the poodle jacket: nonsense of the >>> most obvious nature developped through one-dimesional thinking by those >>> whose universe of understanding is not only severly limited, but blinded >>> by the hubris of not being the "inventor" of the techniques that work. >>>=20 >>> 8) Any perceived decompression benefit of using a higher ppo2 at 30 >>> feet with 80/20 is then given back by the lowered ppo2 at 20 feet, not >>> to mention the fact that the presence of the inert gas in the breathing >>> mixture defeats the purpose of using oxygen in the first place ( see >>> the Physiology and Medicine of Diving) . The ppo2 of 80/20 at 20 feet >>> is 1.28, not much of an oxygen window, and at 10 feet it is 1.04 - >>> useless for deco. To make matters worse, you can not get out from your >>> 30 foot stop in an emergency ( not doing the other stops) on the 80/20 >>> mix without really risking a type 2 hit. >>>=20 >>> 9) This is a dangerous method to achieve a greater total volume of gas >>> for the bad breathers (another obvious reason the gas is in vogue), who >>> should not be incurring these decos, and even that benefit of having >>> more gas is lost since it is breathed at 30 feet, and then has to last >>> for the other stops. The fact is that gas is effecively saved by using >>> the lower deco gas up to this point, relying on the pressure gradient >>> to both achieve the deco and provide a break from high the previous >>> gas's higher PPO2 prior to going to pure oxygen where the spike could >>> be a problem on an extreme exposure without an adequate low ppo2 break ( >>> again this shows that the 80% user is a neopyte diver with no real >>> experience or understanding of the true risks of these dives) . >>>=20 >>> 10) The 20-30% longer 30 foot time on the lower ppo2 is not only >>> overcome on the pure oxygen at the next stops, the breaks do not come >>> into play until the initial good dose of pure oxygen has been absorbed, >>> since you are not spiking from a high pervious dose without a break >>> that is effectively achieved on the previous gas. These things need to >>> be understood and taught by the agencies, not some superficial >>> convolution that is designed to obfuscate the problem rather than >>> openly acknowledge and deal with it in a responsible fashion. >>>=20 >>> 11) In an emergency situation, getting onto the pure O2 for 20 minutes >>> or so (for long dives something approximating the bottom time or a any >>> decent interval) would give you a real good shot at getting out of >>> the water having missed the rest of your deco and living through it >>> with pain hits only. You have to think these things all the way though, >>> not go for the transparent superficial thinking of those who merely are >>> trying to "make their mark" with some "great" idea they can call their >>> own. The acid test is , as always, is the caliber of the divers who >>> adopt these practices. >>>=20 >>> 12) If there is some problem with your deco or you otherwise develop >>> symptoms and need oxygen either on the surface or back in the water, it >>> is silly to have not had it there all along. 80/20 is a joke for that >>> purpose, unless you have asthma, in which case any accellerated oxygen >>> mix would be a nightmare. This is again part of the "thinking it all the >>> way through" phiosophy which is obviously mising from the 80/20 >>> argument. >>>=20 >>> 13) Only a card-carrying stroke would do somethng like this, and >>> showing up with 80/20 is no different than wearing a sign on your back >>> saying "I am a stroke, and have the papers to prove it". It announces to >>> all the world that you have no clue, kind of like wearing clip-on >>> suspenders or having dog dirt on your shoes. >>>=20 >>> George Irvine >>> Director, WKPP >>> "Do It Right" (or don't do it at all) >> -- 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]