Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Jim, Let me see if i understand guys point. We will just assume that the actual cost issue exsists, which i doubt, just to examine Guys logic here. Its cheaper to do sub optimal deco from potentially fatal three hundred foot dives with multi hour actual bottom times, than it is to use the "right" gas <80/20> to deco on. So a highly successful bond trader and stockbroker promotes the "wrong" gas< 100%> and uses the "wrong" gas, because he is worried about saving a few pennies a year. He doesnt make enough money from stocks, from building custom scooters and from inheriting a shitload of cash to afford to pump air onto welding o2, instead he orders his entire team to do as he does and advocates that the entire world do deco incorrectly, because its cheaper. Thats Guys arguement in a nutshell, and what he would have us all believe. Give me a freakin break. Al Marvelli Jim Cobb wrote: > 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 > -- 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]