Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3050652808_4319454_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit So what you are telling me that you will use whatever it gets you out of the water quicker, damage to your body be damned, and whatever I say or anybody else says will not make you change your mind. I don't know what it takes to get you guys to realize that the idea with deco is to remove nitrogen from you body and you don't do this by breathing more nitrogen. Nitrogen is what causes the damage. I also, IMHO, your thinking is flawed when you presume that using 80/20 obviates the need for air breaks. Seems to me if you are doing *any* mix where you are spending extensive time at 1.5 PP02 or above you would want to do air breaks to avoid long term damage to your lungs. Oh, yeah, the only thing that matters is getting out of the water fast, I forgot. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:24:54 -0400 To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> Cc: Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco Hi Jim, Thank you Jim for confirming what was elucidated in the post. For myself, you are quite right that I will be using the theoretical model since it has a good track record, and consistently estimates what I am actually diving. Doesn't the WKPP have something in regard to diving to what is planned? I would have to guess not, since they never dive what they plan. Only a fool would dive following the WKPP method without knowing all the details of what they practice, and that certainly isn't available on the net, on this list, or through word of mouth. As far as your practice versus theory, well that part is going to be ignored the WKPP obviously hasn't put in the same effort in 36/80 deco as it has in 50/100. On another note, remember that it is someone who was promulgating the WKPP method as being superior that pointed out the tissue loading from the theoretical model, not me. Let's keep that little detail in mind, shall we? He who lives by the sword... Finally, I will point out that from a logistical and consumables perspective, 50/100 deco does make better use of resources. If I was wanting to get hundreds of divers through the water to stage a big push, that would be my choice too. The major costs for a large operation is gas consumables. Using 36/80 deco requires a greater investment in blending, and gas matching, and wastes a lot of gas. The reasons are obvious, getting off back gas at around 100' prevents the back gas from getting drained as would be the case in 50/100 deco. Using back gas in deco allows it to be drained following more liberal rules than thirds. In addition, since shallow deco allows switching to back gas, that makes further use of back gas, and economizes the O2. Using O2 is simple to blend, and is insensitive to error. Since a lot of time is spent at the shallow stops, not having to blend huge volumes of gas, and the subsequent analysis required, and schedule tweaking, it makes a lot of sense, especially on that scale. So, from an operational standpoint, 50/100 is by far the best choice. For the diver who doesn't have to worry about consuming millions of cubic feet per year, and who wants accurate deco estimation in a field environment that often does not afford the luxury of a decompression chamber, something more "consistent" makes a lot of sense. -- Guy --MS_Mac_OE_3050652808_4319454_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: 80/20 deco</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> So what you are telling me that you will use whatever it gets you out of th= e water quicker, damage to your body be damned, and whatever I say or anybod= y else says will not make you change your mind.<BR> <BR> I don't know what it takes to get you guys to realize that the idea with de= co is to remove nitrogen from you body and you don't do this by breathing mo= re nitrogen. Nitrogen is what causes the damage.<BR> <BR> I also, IMHO, your thinking is flawed when you presume that using 80/20 obv= iates the need for air breaks. Seems to me if you are doing *any* mix where = you are spending extensive time at 1.5 PP02 or above you would want to do ai= r breaks to avoid long term damage to your lungs. <BR> <BR> Oh, yeah, the only thing that matters is getting out of the water fast, I f= orgot.<BR> <BR> Jim<BR> -------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <B>From: </B>Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*><BR> <B>Date: </B>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:24:54 -0400<BR> <B>To: </B>Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*><BR> <B>Cc: </B>Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com><BR> <B>Subject: </B>Re: 80/20 deco<BR> <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Jim, <BR> <BR> Thank you Jim for confirming what was elucidated <BR> in the post. For myself, you are quite right that I will <BR> be using the theoretical model since it has a good <BR> track record, and consistently estimates what I am <BR> actually diving. Doesn't the WKPP have something <BR> in regard to diving to what is planned? I would have <BR> to guess not, since they never dive what they plan. <BR> <BR> Only a fool would dive following the WKPP method <BR> without knowing all the details of what they practice, <BR> and that certainly isn't available on the net, on this list, <BR> or through word of mouth. <BR> <BR> As far as your practice versus theory, well that part <BR> is going to be ignored the WKPP obviously hasn't <BR> put in the same effort in 36/80 deco as it has in 50/100. <BR> <BR> On another note, remember that it is someone who was <BR> promulgating the WKPP method as being superior that <BR> pointed out the tissue loading from the theoretical model, <BR> not me. Let's keep that little detail in mind, shall we? He <BR> who lives by the sword... <BR> <BR> Finally, I will point out that from a logistical and consumables <BR> perspective, 50/100 deco does make better use of resources. <BR> If I was wanting to get hundreds of divers through the water <BR> to stage a big push, that would be my choice too. The major <BR> costs for a large operation is gas consumables. Using 36/80 <BR> deco requires a greater investment in blending, and gas <BR> matching, and wastes a lot of gas. The reasons are obvious, <BR> getting off back gas at around 100' prevents the back gas <BR> from getting drained as would be the case in 50/100 deco. <BR> Using back gas in deco allows it to be drained following more <BR> liberal rules than thirds. In addition, since shallow deco allows <BR> switching to back gas, that makes further use of back gas, <BR> and economizes the O2. Using O2 is simple to blend, and <BR> is insensitive to error. Since a lot of time is spent at the <BR> shallow stops, not having to blend huge volumes of gas, <BR> and the subsequent analysis required, and schedule tweaking, <BR> it makes a lot of sense, especially on that scale. <BR> <BR> So, from an operational standpoint, 50/100 is by far the best <BR> choice. For the diver who doesn't have to worry about consuming <BR> millions of cubic feet per year, and who wants accurate deco <BR> estimation in a field environment that often does not afford <BR> the luxury of a decompression chamber, something more "consistent"= ; <BR> makes a lot of sense. <BR> -- <BR> Guy <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3050652808_4319454_MIME_Part-- -- 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]