Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Al, this guy is here with an agenda and he is so full of bullshit his eyes float. He is not engaging is a discussion, he is spouting the Suporwinged, suicide clipped, jersey reeled, spare aired, steel staged, metal-to-metal, buckethead party line. The only thing harder than teaching a single pig to sing is to teach a whole pig-pen full, he's not worth the time of day. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ > From: Al Marvelli <ajmarve@ba*.ne*> > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:53:55 -0400 > To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> > Cc: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*>, Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com>, > trey@ne*.co* > Subject: Re: 80/20 deco > > 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'. > -- 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]