Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
In a message dated 7/9/01 8:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cobber@ci*.co* writes: > I repeat I have nothing to do with GUE or DIR. > Nor do I, but I do have the sense to pay attention to what they have to say and at a minimum to give it due consideration. > > 1) Smaller profile > > To do what, wreck penetrations? And I can also state that a proper set of > doubles has less of a horizontal hight than a single any day of the week. > Smaller profile as in reduced frontal area, as in a general reduction in swimming resistance. > > 2) Reduced weight > > That's funny when I'm underwater (you do dive don't you?) I cannot seem to > tell the difference in weight. > The dive begins and ends out of the water. Weight does become a consideration when climbing a pitch, rolling dive boat ladder on a snotty day. While it may be somewhat of a surprise, the majority of divers aren't finely tuned atheletes. Hell, a fair share of them can't stuff themself into a XXXL drysuit comfortably. What's happening inside a diver's body as he surfaces and exits the water? (Here's a clue, tiny bubbles....). How does post dive exertion affect the formulation of bubbles in the diver's body? (Another clue, lots of tiny bubbles). Do you figure some fat slob - shows up for a dive once in a great while - computer keyboard dive guru is better off from a DCS point of view climbing that pitching, rolling ladder wearing one tank or two? (And yes, I do dive. I did six dives over the weekend, nothing too dramatic mind you, but 6 dives just the same: 2 @ 110+, 2 @ 70+, 2 @ 60+, 4 involving penetrations, 2 requiring deco.... and you dove what Saturday and Sunday?) > > 3) Decreased drag > > Can you prove this? I doubt the difference is worth noting when you consider > all the other crap, lights, gear bags, etc. > Any difference is worth noting. Why bother diving a SPG without a boot? That's got to present an insignificant contribution to drag. Why put that SPG on a short hose and clip is so the hose runs in line with the flow of water? Couldn't possibly add as much drag as an additional tank. The canister is shielded from flow and potential damage by the shoulder because why? > > 4) Readily available > > I can drive down to the dive shop and purchase a set of doubles right now if > I want. > Now fly down to the Caribbean and rent a set. > > 5) Reduced space requirements > > So you have 2 tanks separate or together, don't understand your reasoning > here. They take up the same room > If most divers showed up with one set for two dives, sure. But they don't. Two weenie dives and a set of doubles for each. That's twice the space and wieght for the same diving. > > 6) KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid > > My whole point with bagging the H or Y valve. > They are no more complex to deal with than an isolation manifold. > Good Lord I have not seen such frothing at the mouth since the last time I > said that pony bottles were crap. Pony bottles and H/Y valves are psudo-tech > bullshit and you bone-heads out there need to pull your heads out of your > asses and try a set of doubles, you bunch of fucking cheapskates. Doubles > are redundant flasks of air connected by an isolator valve. H/Y valves and > Pony bottles are just you guys fighting with invisible demons. Preparing > most for the disasters that are least likely to happen. > If you want to see some real frothing, go look in the mirror. Speaking of cheapskates, wouldn't that be the guy not willing to have all the tools at his disposal? I own singles and doubles, along with several bottles dedicated as stages. Seems to me the tight ass is the fellow diving doubles even when they're not called for because he isn't willing to invest in a couple of decent singles. And talk about fighting with invisible demons, what the hell do you think insisting on the level of redundancy provided by a pair of doubles for a weenie dive is? Catastrophic gas loss is so rare as to be virtually a non-problem. If one were to occur, as long as there's a qualified dive partner along it's still not much more than an inconvenience. There are dives that can be done as well, if not better, using a single tank. If one is going to use a single tank then a dual outlet valve simply makes sense. Why in the hell would anyone want to have to change hoses around to accomodate the switch between doubles and singles? How could anyone with any brain matter left in their head that hasn't been damaged by incorrect stage-decompression and deep air horse pucky not understand that redundant regulator systems are superior to betting the entire farm on a single first-stage? Single tank dives happen. They should happen with a dual outlet valve. (Now pony bottles are an entirely different animal and we happen to agree on that subject). > Reg failures are exceeding rare. Needing more air than you've got all the > time. So what do you bozos do? Do nothing about your air supply and strap on > 2 regulators. That really makes sense. And then you defend this shit to the > death. > Gas supply is always a finite quantity. Whether one is wearing a single or a set of doubles, there is only so much gas at their disposal. The answer is employing a reasonable gas management scheme, not increasing the gas volume. Without proper management the bozos simply push that to close to the edge as well. Want more time underwater, try working on improving RMV. More volume is not the end to all ends. > There are always particular circumstances for this or that. Ice diving may > be one of them, I don't know as I've never done it. But the point is that > putting a H/Y valve or strapping a pony does not a techdiver make. > I have done ice dives, and a fair share of dives in near freezing water minus the ice. Perhaps that's part of my partiality towards redundant regualtor systems on single tanks, perhaps not. An H/Y valve or pony does not a technical diver make. Nor does diving a set of twins. Technical diving has to do with selecting the correct tools (TECHnology) for the job at hand and then employing the right TECHnique. It's not about how deep you go, how macho you look with your big, bad doubles it's about extending time, depth and/or distance while keeping risk at an acceptable level. There are different levels of technical diving. Every diver isn't making "the big dives." Fact be known, most of them shouldn't be. For limited penetrations or short, decompressions a large volume single with an H/Y valve is sufficient (assuming, of course, the presence of a dive partner and the application of gas management rules). People need to learn to walk before they run. Strap a pair of doubles on their backs and they're going to be faced with the temptation to penetrate further, dive deeper and stay longer than they're ready for. Let em dive their singles and build some experience for Christ's sake. > Doubles are balanced, redundant, comfortable (both on the surface and in the > water) and anybody who says otherwise has not tried a set of properly setup > doubles. > Never said they weren't balanced, redundant nor comfortable. And yes, mine are set-up quite properly thank you. > And for those of you who travel, simple, don't overhead dive. There is > nothing down there worth dieing for, why take the risk? > Where's this invisible demon "risk" you keep talking about? A penetration dive properly conducted with a competent, experienced, trained teammate, whether using doubles or singles is not particularly laden with risk. Leave out the buddy, ignore gas management, break the rules of accident analysis and risk starts getting out of hand, with or without the twin set. You're not a bad person, Jim. Nor are you a dumby. Our opinions simply differ on this topic. While you're a gifted debater, you're no more likely to change my position than I am to change your's. I'm a minimalist by nature. "Less is more, more is less." I don't believe in diving a pair of 120s when a pair of 80s will do. I don't lug around an 80 of O2 when all I need is a 30. And I don't strap on a couple hundred cubic feet of gas when all I need is 100. You're welcome to disagree with my thinking, debate my logic and express your point of view. Hopefully you'll respect my right to do the same concerning your's. Personally, I think this is one dead horse well beaten. Both sides have been expressed, perhaps even eloquently at times. Maybe it's time to let the peanut gallery digest the discussion and draw their own conclusions? Regards, Bob D. www.SportDiverHQ.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]