Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--Boundary_(ID_faxw540ERssxufq7rMfnsg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Jim, Staring in the mirror again? Jim Cobb wrote: > 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'. -- Guy --Boundary_(ID_faxw540ERssxufq7rMfnsg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi Jim, <p>Staring in the mirror again? <br> <p>Jim Cobb wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Al, this guy is here with an agenda and he is so full of bullshit his eyes <br>float. He is not engaging is a discussion, he is spouting the Suporwinged, <br>suicide clipped, jersey reeled, spare aired, steel staged, metal-to-metal, <br>buckethead party line. <p>The only thing harder than teaching a single pig to sing is to teach a whole <br>pig-pen full, he's not worth the time of day. <p> Jim <br> ------------------------------------------------------------------- <br> Learn About Trimix at <a href="http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/">http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/< /a> <p>> From: Al Marvelli <ajmarve@ba*.ne*> <br>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:53:55 -0400 <br>> To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> <br>> Cc: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*>, Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com>, <br>> trey@ne*.co* <br>> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco <br>> <br>> Jim, <br>> <br>> Let me see if i understand guys point. We will just assume that the <br>> actual cost issue exsists, which i doubt, just to examine Guys logic <br>> here. <br>> <br>> Its cheaper to do sub optimal deco from potentially fatal three hundred <br>> foot dives with multi hour actual bottom times, than it is to use the <br>> "right" gas <80/20> to deco on. So a highly successful bond trader and <br>> stockbroker promotes the "wrong" gas< 100%> and uses the "wrong" gas, <br>> because he is worried about saving a few pennies a year. He doesnt make <br>> enough money from stocks, from building custom scooters and from <br>> inheriting a shitload of cash to afford to pump air onto welding o2, <br>> instead he orders his entire team to do as he does and advocates that <br>> the entire world do deco incorrectly, because its cheaper. <br>> <br>> Thats Guys arguement in a nutshell, and what he would have us all <br>> believe. <br>> <br>> Give me a freakin break. <br>> <br>> Al Marvelli <br>> <br>> Jim Cobb wrote: <br>> <br>>> So what you are telling me that you will use whatever it gets you out <br>>> of the water quicker, damage to your body be damned, and whatever I <br>>> say or anybody 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 <br>>> with deco is to remove nitrogen from you body and you don't do this by <br>>> breathing more nitrogen. Nitrogen is what causes the damage. <br>>> <br>>> I also, IMHO, your thinking is flawed when you presume that using <br>>> 80/20 obviates the need for air breaks. Seems to me if you are doing <br>>> *any* mix where you are spending extensive time at 1.5 PP02 or above <br>>> you would want to do air breaks to avoid long term damage to your <br>>> lungs. <br>>> <br>>> Oh, yeah, the only thing that matters is getting out of the water <br>>> fast, I forgot. <br>>> <br>>> Jim <br>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- <br>>> Learn About Trimix at <a href="http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/">http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/< /a> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> <br>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:24:54 -0400 <br>>> To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> <br>>> Cc: Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> <br>>> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> 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>>> <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 <br>>> 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>>> <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 <br>>> more <br>>> liberal rules than thirds. In addition, since shallow deco <br>>> 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>>> <br>>> shallow stops, not having to blend huge volumes of gas, <br>>> and the subsequent analysis required, and schedule tweaking, <br>>> <br>>> it makes a lot of sense, especially on that scale. <br>>> <br>>> So, from an operational standpoint, 50/100 is by far the <br>>> best <br>>> choice. For the diver who doesn't have to worry about <br>>> consuming <br>>> millions of cubic feet per year, and who wants accurate deco <br>>> <br>>> estimation in a field environment that often does not afford <br>>> <br>>> the luxury of a decompression chamber, something more <br>>> "consistent" <br>>> makes a lot of sense. <br>>> -- <br>>> Guy <br>>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. <br>> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. <br>> <p>-- <br>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. <br>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.</blockquote> <pre>-- Guy</pre> </html> --Boundary_(ID_faxw540ERssxufq7rMfnsg)-- -- 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]