--------------CE170A7B133C8D5B39551A2D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Jarrod,

Thank you for your interesting message.

Really sorry if my comments are not really befitting my normally reserved
attitude, but when I read intolerant or untrue assertions, I don't want to
have a reserved attitude. let me explain you this in this following message.

Redundancy.
I am sure a lot of people have thought, certainly before me of the redundancy.
I am not the "inventor" of this concept, and even if I was, an idea is never
patentable ! In fact, I have developped the philosophy of full autonomy and
rebreather's redundancy in extrem (cave) diving. In fact , that means to dive
100% rebreathers, without any extra safety open circuit cylinders. And the RI
2000 was really the first rebreather system thought and conceived for that.
Nobody can contest this fact. You have another approach, and I perfectly
respect it. But, when I read that my philosophy is suicidal, kamikaze or
others insulting assertions, you are right, I have not a reserved attitude.
This intoleranr , integrist attitude is intolerable. I am exactely the opposit
of a suicide man and my concept was extremely safe.How one who never used this
kind of configuration can assert such a purpose ?!

If I have well understood, You plane to use double rebreathers in the future.
Congratulations. I should not be surprised to see one of this day the double
rebreather integrated in the DIR philosophy ! A great evolution, when I think
that two years ago, rebreather's redundancy was considered as a stupidity by
some members of the WKPP.

About the team approach, I am not opposit of this approach. But, don't forgett
that you have enormous potential with Leon sink, Wakulla and other systems. So
you can gather a lot of divers. In Europe and other countries, it is not
possible, so teams are much smaller. Just a little remark who would like to be
positive : Your team looks like a pyramid, with a lot of support divers and 3
or maybe 2 "top divers" (you and Irvine). It could be great to have 6 or more
top divers with turning top teams for explorations. A good idea, no ?

All my best

Olivier Isler

P.S. This coming Tuesday, I will be away for a couple of weeks, so, if you are
interested to have new discussions with me, we could take contact at the end
of October.

Jarrod Jablonski a *crit :

> Hello Olivier,
>
> In the few times that I met you I was impressed by your calm demeanor and
> open attitude. I am sure that you are a very nice gentleman. These comments
> are not really befitting your normally reserved attitude. To be sure, you
> were a pioneer in your own right. Given my own careful acceptance of
> rebreathers and my understanding of the demanding nature of long range cave
> dives I congratulate you on your sheer bravery if on nothing else.
>
> I must, however, take brief issue with your assertion that using dual
> rebreathers is an idea unto yourself. That is a bit like saying that using
> two scooters is our exclusive domain or that using more than one stage
> bottle was "invented". Some things are inherently obvious such as the idea
> that where one rebreather will work, two can be used for redundancy. The
> debate over the desirability of such choices is another issue altogether
> but the reality of the option seems self evident. Consider if the idea
> would hold up as patentable ie "novel and unique and not intuitively
> obvious to someone skilled in the trade."
>
> As for double breathers I would consider them but not likely as a complete
> elimination of the benefit for team effort. In the same way that we
> resisted rebreathers until a time that we considered useful/necessary we
> will not rush to using dual rebreathers where single units and teamwork are
> safer and more reliable options. I prefer to take my risks in other areas,
> betting my life on ability and the most limited number of uncontrolled
> variables feasible.
>
> Most people say that the team approach does not work, that they do not have
> a team, and that it is not good for their area. Of course they said the
> same thing before we built a team and explored Tallahassee. They told me
> the same when I went to Turkey, mounting several substantial exploration
> projects in the absolute middle of nowhere. They say this everywhere and
> will continue where the effort seems not worth the reward. I disagree and
> will use all the tools available toward doing this for as long as possible
> in the most reliable manner feasible.
>
> All my best,
> JJ
>
> At 09:34 PM 10/8/2001 +0200, isler wrote:
> >The dive of Reinhard and Michael is reported with a lot of details on the
> >attractive website www.tekdyk/doux.
> >Unfortunately, an error appears at the "Welcome" page of the site. The
> >assertion that  "... all dives were directed using the DIR philosophy
> >developped by the floridian cave diving team WKPP..." is NOT correct. In
> >fact, the dive was directed using an intermediate philosophy between that
> >of DIR and the rebreather redundancy developped by myself (as mentioned on
> >the site).
> >
> >The analysis of their dive in fact shows that they both carried 2 X 20 l
> >tanks on their back (return on open circuit in case of rebreather
> >failure). They dived as 2 divers together, as in DIR philosophy. Beyond a
> >distance of 800 m, no safety or relay cylinders were placed in the sump.
> >The reason was that both divers used the double rebreather RB 80. This is
> >undeniably my philosophy of using Redundant Rebreathers.
>
> Jarrod Jablonski
>
> CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing
> President- Global Underwater Explorers
>
> Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net
> Halcyon manufacturing produces some of the scuba industry's most novel and
> robust diving equipment designed by many of diving's most active explorers.
>  From the world record Halcyon rebreather to revolutionary lighting and
> life support equipment our companies are revolutionizing the manufacturing
> of aquatic equipment.
>
> Global Underwater Explorers www.gue.com
> Global Underwater Explorers is a non-profit educational, research, and
> exploratory organization. GUE regularly engages in international
> expeditions and has hundreds of dedicated members around the world. From
> entry level technical diver training to advanced exploratory, research and
> filming projects GUE is widely considered one of the world's most diverse
> and capable aquatic organizations.
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

--------------CE170A7B133C8D5B39551A2D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hello Jarrod,
<p>Thank you for your interesting message.
<p>Really sorry if my comments are not really befitting my normally reserved
attitude, but when I read intolerant or untrue assertions, I don't want
to have a reserved attitude. let me explain you this in this following
message.
<p><u>Redundancy.</u>
<br>I am sure a lot of people have thought, certainly before me of the
redundancy. I am not the "inventor" of this concept, and even if I was,
an idea is never patentable ! In fact, I have developped the philosophy
of full autonomy and rebreather's redundancy in extrem (cave) diving. In
fact , that means to dive 100% rebreathers, without any extra safety open
circuit cylinders. And the RI 2000 was really the first rebreather system
thought and conceived for that. Nobody can contest this fact. You have
another approach, and I perfectly respect it. But, when I read that my
philosophy is suicidal, kamikaze or others insulting assertions, you are
right, I have not a reserved attitude. This intoleranr , integrist attitude
is intolerable. I am exactely the opposit of a suicide man and my concept
was extremely safe.How one who never used this kind of configuration can
assert such a purpose ?!
<p>If I have well understood, You plane to use double rebreathers in the
future. Congratulations. I should not be surprised to see one of this day
the double rebreather integrated in the DIR philosophy ! A great evolution,
when I think that two years ago, rebreather's redundancy was considered
as a stupidity by some members of the WKPP.
<p>About the team approach, I am not opposit of this approach. But, don't
forgett that you have enormous potential with Leon sink, Wakulla and other
systems. So you can gather a lot of divers. In Europe and other countries,
it is not possible, so teams are much smaller. Just a little remark who
would like to be positive : Your team looks like a pyramid, with a lot
of support divers and 3 or maybe 2 "top divers" (you and Irvine). It could
be great to have 6 or more top divers with turning top teams for explorations.
A good idea, no ?
<p>All my best
<p>Olivier Isler
<p>P.S. This coming Tuesday, I will be away for a couple of weeks, so,
if you are interested to have new discussions with me, we could take contact
at the end of October.
<p>Jarrod Jablonski a *crit :
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Hello Olivier,
<p>In the few times that I met you I was impressed by your calm demeanor
and
<br>open attitude. I am sure that you are a very nice gentleman. These
comments
<br>are not really befitting your normally reserved attitude. To be sure,
you
<br>were a pioneer in your own right. Given my own careful acceptance of
<br>rebreathers and my understanding of the demanding nature of long range
cave
<br>dives I congratulate you on your sheer bravery if on nothing else.
<p>I must, however, take brief issue with your assertion that using dual
<br>rebreathers is an idea unto yourself. That is a bit like saying that
using
<br>two scooters is our exclusive domain or that using more than one stage
<br>bottle was "invented". Some things are inherently obvious such as the
idea
<br>that where one rebreather will work, two can be used for redundancy.
The
<br>debate over the desirability of such choices is another issue altogether
<br>but the reality of the option seems self evident. Consider if the idea
<br>would hold up as patentable ie "novel and unique and not intuitively
<br>obvious to someone skilled in the trade."
<p>As for double breathers I would consider them but not likely as a complete
<br>elimination of the benefit for team effort. In the same way that we
<br>resisted rebreathers until a time that we considered useful/necessary
we
<br>will not rush to using dual rebreathers where single units and teamwork
are
<br>safer and more reliable options. I prefer to take my risks in other
areas,
<br>betting my life on ability and the most limited number of uncontrolled
<br>variables feasible.
<p>Most people say that the team approach does not work, that they do not
have
<br>a team, and that it is not good for their area. Of course they said
the
<br>same thing before we built a team and explored Tallahassee. They told
me
<br>the same when I went to Turkey, mounting several substantial exploration
<br>projects in the absolute middle of nowhere. They say this everywhere
and
<br>will continue where the effort seems not worth the reward. I disagree
and
<br>will use all the tools available toward doing this for as long as
possible
<br>in the most reliable manner feasible.
<p>All my best,
<br>JJ
<p>At 09:34 PM 10/8/2001 +0200, isler wrote:
<br>>The dive of Reinhard and Michael is reported with a lot of details
on the
<br>>attractive website www.tekdyk/doux.
<br>>Unfortunately, an error appears at the "Welcome" page of the site.
The
<br>>assertion that  "... all dives were directed using the DIR
philosophy
<br>>developped by the floridian cave diving team WKPP..." is NOT correct.
In
<br>>fact, the dive was directed using an intermediate philosophy between
that
<br>>of DIR and the rebreather redundancy developped by myself (as mentioned
on
<br>>the site).
<br>>
<br>>The analysis of their dive in fact shows that they both carried 2
X 20 l
<br>>tanks on their back (return on open circuit in case of rebreather
<br>>failure). They dived as 2 divers together, as in DIR philosophy. Beyond
a
<br>>distance of 800 m, no safety or relay cylinders were placed in the
sump.
<br>>The reason was that both divers used the double rebreather RB 80.
This is
<br>>undeniably my philosophy of using Redundant Rebreathers.
<p>Jarrod Jablonski
<p>CEO- Halcyon Manufacturing
<br>President- Global Underwater Explorers
<p>Halcyon Manufacturing www.halcyon.net
<br>Halcyon manufacturing produces some of the scuba industry's most novel
and
<br>robust diving equipment designed by many of diving's most active
explorers.
<br> From the world record Halcyon rebreather to revolutionary lighting
and
<br>life support equipment our companies are revolutionizing the
manufacturing
<br>of aquatic equipment.
<p>Global Underwater Explorers www.gue.com
<br>Global Underwater Explorers is a non-profit educational, research,
and
<br>exploratory organization. GUE regularly engages in international
<br>expeditions and has hundreds of dedicated members around the world.
From
<br>entry level technical diver training to advanced exploratory, research
and
<br>filming projects GUE is widely considered one of the world's most diverse
<br>and capable aquatic organizations.
<p>--
<br>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
<br>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to
`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.</blockquote>
</html>

--------------CE170A7B133C8D5B39551A2D--

--
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]