Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Jim: Do you use double 104's with a wetsuit? Patrick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Cobb" <cobber@ci*.co*> To: "Tech Diver" <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:28 PM Subject: Re: H/Y valves, Pony bottles, Invisible demons. > Sure I respect your opinion. Personally I dive rigged the same way north or > south, deep or shallow, and that is with double 104's. I do have a single > tank rig for an occasional Florida rec dive with my wife and for fooling > around in pools but other than that I have not dove a single since I gave up > the H valve. > > And please keep in mind that this is "techdiver" and all of my replies are > oriented in that respect. I have seen tiny Pina hop around a boat, seasick > as hell with 104's on her back and not even break a sweat (perhaps because > she had puked out all her bodily fluids [and what a body!]). Therefore I > have no respect whatsoever to those who can't hoist a set of doubles. > > But you will have have to explain that part about executing divers who don't > come 'round to your way of thinking, a bit Nazi-ish and Hilter-like if you > ask me. > > Ooops! > > Jim > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ > > > From: RDecker388@ao*.co* > > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:46:12 EDT > > To: cobber@ci*.co* > > Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com > > Subject: Re: H/Y valves, Pony bottles, Invisible demons. > > > > 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'. -- 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]