Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Will do, thank for the details! Trey wrote: ~ >Paul, what ever the case, you know the drill: put on your full rig including >your light and your normal insulation with only a modicum of gas in the >tanks and test the buoyancy in a pool. Bring dive weights to pick up and >count to see if additional weight is required to stay neutral just under the >surface. Then mentally add the weight of the full gas to see where you will >be to know if you can get up by dropping the light and or the additional >weight. > >This is how you treat all tanks. With positive tanks, you use the weightbelt >and or light to offset both the surface buoyancy and the empty tanks. > >Only with a shell drysuit is any integrated weight ever used to offset the >insulation since that buoyancy will not change with depth. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Braunbehrens [mailto:Bakalite@ba*.co*] >Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 8:53 PM >To: Trey; Ian Puleston; techdiver@aquanaut.com >Subject: RE: OMS vs PST tank specs > > >Thanks Trey, I'll be getting my set soon and will test them. I doubt >they have changed anything, but will report back here if they have. >There are quite a few wrong tank specs floating around on various web >sites, but this is the PST site. If it's wrong, I'll let them know >as well. > > >Trey wrote: >~ >>Obviously not correct. I have four sets from 1971 to 1998. All -9 for a set >>of doubles, and I checked each and every one of them. Paul, we can not >>chase bullshit from web sites. Either believe it or don't, but unless these >>morons have changed the tank, and that means a whole series of DOT >approvals >>for nada, then they fucked up on the web site, or more likely, given that >>they are involved in the dive industry, they have no freaking clue what the >>tanks do, and of course there is the slim chance you got it wrong. 121 >PST's >>have exactly the same buoyancy characteristics as the 104's, have them , >>too, 1998 vintage. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Paul Braunbehrens [mailto:Bakalite@ba*.co*] >>Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 1:03 PM >>To: Trey; Ian Puleston; techdiver@aquanaut.com >>Subject: RE: OMS vs PST tank specs >> >> >>Trey wrote: >> >>>For dry suit diving anywhere, the PST offers a better buoyancy fit as a >>pair >>>are -9 in fresh vs neutral for the Faber. To offset a proper shell suit >>with >>>insulation takes between 20 and 26 pounds, and that is achieved by the >>>tanks, the plate, the light, and the regs, leaving the diver neutral at >all >>>depths with little or no gas, and negative by the amount of the gas when >>>full, plus or minus a little depending on the insulation and the diver, >>with >>>the light being droppable in an emergency to get up. >> >> >>Now I'm completely confused! The pst site has these figures: >>LP-104 104 CU.FT. 8.00 26.19 45 LBS -0.7 LBS >> >>which would make a set of doubles only 1.5 pounds negative! >> >>Are we talking about the same tank? >>-- >>Paul B. > >-- >Paul B. >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Paul B. -- 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]