You obviously don't stage dive, and why would anyone have 80's for deco gas
in the ocean? If you are depending on full stages to hold you down, then you
are a complete moron. You obviously do not do anything but dive on the net
and make up bullshit, lie, twist "facts" and hold yourself up as some kind
of expert. You are not qualified to tell anyone anything.

Why would anyone load up on neutral 80's when they become totally useless in
fresh water and a poor excuse in salt? Why would I have multiple 80 stage in
the ocean? Why would I not want something that works everywhere? When I do
use an 80 stage in the ocean, which I do to save backgas, I clip it off to
my line and send it up when it is empty , or just keep it. Why would my rig
not be balanced with or without stages, you fucking idiot?

Nobody is interested in your version of myopic diving. I did the longest
open circuit stage dive on record, 11,000 feet at 300 on a 7 stage, and when
you can show that kind of experience, you can try telling me I am "wrong"
about stage diving. This is one of the worst pieces of bullshit I have ever
read. The part about adjusting buoyancy by "breathing pattern" is just one
more example of what a pompous pretender you really are. You have not done
shit, and have not thought any of this out to any conclusion, but you sure
don't mind yapping like you are some expert. You are a dangerous idiot and
the kind of stroke that Rule Number One is intended to protect against.

Now go figure out why the "neutrabouy" from Walter Kidde never made it.
There is nothing new under the sun, and for damn sure there is not going to
be anything but pretense coming from a pretender like you. It is no accident
that you always come up on the wrong side of everything. You can't help it.
I just hope nobody listens to your crap.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Bell [mailto:leebell@ix*.ne*.co*]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:10 AM
To: trey@ne*.co*; LouisianaLegal@ao*.co*; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: neutral AL 80's


George Irvine wrote:

> Idiocy again. You really have no clue what you are talking about, and that
> is because you have no real experience with anything but bullshit diving.
> The fact is that if you are using neutral tanks, they require more gas in
> the wings when full, thus slowing you down. I really wish you would take a
> seat and shut the fuck up. I am so sick of your huge efforts to make
totally
> ridiculous things appear to be "clever". Like everything else you say,
this
> is pure crap. I guess this is one of the areas you think that DIR is wrong
> about? Clearly, you have no clue what DIR is.

Wrong, George.  It's not me that lacks a clue.  My neutral buoyant aluminum
tanks do not require more gas in the wings when full.  With my plate and
neutral tanks, I'm flat neutral with no lead at all, just like I said.  The
change in my buoyancy due to gas use is will within my ability to adjust for
by changes in breathing patterns alone.  In my warm water diving, I wear no
lead and, generally, carry no gas in my wing at all.  As a result, I get no
buoyancy shift with depth changes either.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I don't think the letters DIR appeared in the question and I'm pretty sure
they didn't appear in my answer.  Since you brought it up, the answer to
your question is no, I don't think this is on e of the areas that DIR is
wrong about.  If you had bothered to read, you might have known that
already.  Try again.

> I like three things about my Compact 80s:
> 1. They are just a bit shorter than a standard 80.  At my height (5'8")
the
> slight difference in height means I can carry them with straight arms
versus
> the bent arm required for standard 80s.  The Luxfers are not shorter.

See any DIR issues here?  See anything wrong about this statement?

> 2. The neutral buoyancy when empty means I take 4 lbs off my weight belt
> without adding anything anywhere else.  This is the primary reason most
> people like the tanks and particularly important to me.  That 4 lbs just
> happens to make me perfectly weighted with my stainless plate.  I don't
have
> to wear any lead, anywhere when diving warm water, which is what I do
almost
> exclusively.

Did you fail to read this, George?  Would you care to explain why someone
who is neutrally buoyant needs any gas in their wing, let alone more?  See
any DIR issues here?

> 3. The trim on the Catalinas is good.  They're nicely balanced from top to
> bottom.  I believe the Luxfers are a bit bottom heavy, but don't take my
> word for it.

Is there something wrong with this statement?  Any DIR issues?

> I'm not sure these tanks are the best choice for everyone.  If you dive
wet,
> I don't think they are any better than some steel tanks.  Presumably, your
> tanks will never be comletely empty and, therefore, will always be at
least
> partly negative.  When you twin them up and,. even worse, add stages,
you're
> accepting a lot of non ditchable negative buoyancy.  If you are
scootering,
> they're not going to tow as nicely as the less negative standartd 80s do.
> For most, I don't think it's a real good idea.

Here's the first statement I made that DIR addresses.  I believe DIR says no
steel tanks when diving wet, or did I get that wrong too?  If steel tanks
are not a good idea, I assume equally neutral aluminum ones would be a poor
idea too, just like I said, right?  Do or DIR find something wrong with this
statement?  Doesn't accepting additional negative buoyancy equate to adding
gas to a wing.  Didn't we reach the same conclusion, on the same basis,
simply expressed differently?

> While I recommend people diving single tanks at least try out the neutral
> buoyant models, I think buoyant tanks would be a better choice for mutli
> tank diving, particularly for open water stages.

Do you agree or disagree?  Is this consistent with DIR?

> They represent less negative buoyancy and, in a pinch, could actually be a
source of
> positive buoyancy.  While it's not a primary issue, it's also nice to know
that if I
> ever had to ditch one, I don't necessarily have to lose it.  Open the
valve
> and drop the tank and, sooner or later, it will return to the surface on
its
> own.  If you do this, however, please recover your tank from the surface.
> I'm not at all fond of the idea of hitting a floating tank with my boat.

If I'm not mistaken, even my humor is on target, right?

Lee



--
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]