Steve, this guy is an abject moron. Nothing he says
is anything but crap. He does not "listen" to
students, he does not even watch them. I guess he
was "listening" to the one that died in his class at
Lake Wazee. This guy is one of the worst idiots in
diving, bar none, and it is no mistake that he sings
the Tom Mouth party line of stupidity.

None of these morons has ever done a dive long
enough to require any deco, let alone have any
problem with "dry throats". This is just one more
example of the bullshit that emanates from anyone
associated with the Mouth - a group known as the
bottom of the barrel in my opinion. All they do is
criticize the most successful group in diving , the
WKPP, with mindless nonsense.



Greg
And 80/20 resolves these problems for all your
students? What sort of
profiles are these students doing that they need
100% or 80/20 as opposed to
50% from 21m?

Regards
Steve Bliim

-----Original Message-----
From: gzambeck1 [mailto:gzambeck1@me*.ne*]
Sent: Friday, 8 September 2000 19:18
To: Steven Bliim
Cc: Techdiver (E-mail)
Subject: Re: 80/20 deco


Steve this is a really simple matter, when the
student starts to complain of
dry throat, discomfort in their lungs, and other
side effects I listen.
I used to deco on 02 at 30 ft all the time and still
do.
I don't need to do the cost evaluation like others.
I paid the 4k for the haskel and I can pump any gas
mixture they want.
You can do all the math you want and talk about the
vaso constricting effect
of the high ppo2 and the effect on the lungs
capillary beds.
Any statistician would tell you, having a 100 divers
is not a test group
larger enough to make statement for 16 million other
divers.
Drug companies have to test 100,000 individuals
before FDA will allow sales
to the general public.

When the diver complains LISTEN.


Steven Bliim wrote:


It may help me to answer that by knowing in what way
you say that 1 in 8
students that you see can't use 100% at 20'? Is it
that they can't maintain
a steady depth at 20' and therefore use 80% at 1.28
to avoid problems with
oxtox? Maybe they need more help to maintain
bouyancy and a steady depth?
Let me know their problem and maybe I can answer.

Trouble is that they miss the benefit of the 1.6
gradient, even if they pull

their 80% stop at 30' on 1.52. In any event that has
got little to do with
the point that I was making about needing backgas
breaks on either 100% or
80% if you are doing that sort of deco.


Steve Bliim


-----Original Message-----
From: gzambeck1 [ mailto:gzambeck1@me*.ne*
<mailto:gzambeck1@me*.ne*> ]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2000 21:03
To: Steven Bliim
Subject: Re: 80/20 deco


Then Steve why don't you explain to me why 1 out of
8 students I see can't
use
100% O2 at 20 ft.
They have to use 80/20.
There are a couple of diver I know who use 50% and
still can't use 100% at
20
feet.


Greg Zambeck


Steven Bliim wrote:


> Jim has hit one of the nails on the head here.
Anyone doing their deco on
> 80/20 from 30 feet as opposed to 100% from 20 feet
is still going to be
> facing a similar PPO2 for similar times. They are
going to need backgas
> breaks in the same way that those using 100% will
need backgas breaks -
that
> is if their deco goes for long enough to need
backgas breaks. So much for
> that argument!
>
> Have I got it wrong, can anyone tell me why the
80/20 crowd will not need
> backgas breaks?
>
> Regards
> Steve Bliim
> Still waiting for my trip to the NE!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Cobb [ mailto:cobber@ci*.co*
<mailto:cobber@ci*.co*> ]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 September 2000 1:33
> To: Guy Morin
> Cc: Tech Diver
> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco
>
> 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/
<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'.

--
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]