Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C232A3.A0BA09C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The archives should contain the critical comments regarding the OMS =
bungeed wings. The quality of construction and durability were not the =
issues but rather the effects of a bungeed bladder on oral inflation =
resistance as the bungees reduce the compliance of the submerged =
bladder; rapid deflation as the bungees artificially constrict the =
bladder - less control on venting; and placement WRT the divers variable =
center of flotation v.s. the center of mass and how that can affect =
static and dynamic stability. =20
Not trying to be argumentative, but a discussion of failure must also me =
accompanied by an indication of usage. I assume your wings are well =
used. My Diverite wings have by estimate somewhere between 600 to 700 =
dives (I know I don't get out as much any more). They are not perfect =
and have flaws IMHO but they have given me great service. When I need to =
replace them I will consider Diverite, Halcyon, and maybe OMS (since I =
noted they now offer a non-bungeed wing). Currently the Halcyon appears =
to be the most durable (but I don't like the cheap inflators). Who knows =
what will be around in a couple of years? WRT equipment, my point would =
be to look at the quality of construction, the salient features, and the =
features that detract from its performance. Pick the equipment that =
emphasizes the first two points and eliminate the last. A reliance on =
brand association is not important, and IMHO, is a real indication of a =
"stroke".
Now being somewhat argumentative, but not in a derogatory way as this is =
a discussion of viewpoints, you stated the OMS wing is "bullet proof =
gear" but you would switch from using it if someone gave you a Halcyon. =
Why?
-Doug
----- Original Message -----=20
From: HLAviation@ao*.co*=20
To: dougch@ea*.ne*=20
Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Survey of NE DiveBoats re: GUE acceptance.
In a message dated 7/23/2002 10:06:55 PM Central Daylight Time, =
dougch@ea*.ne* writes:
Billy was an OMS dealer (with business obligations along that line) =
and yes the bungeed wings have been rightfully (IMHO) discredited =
countless times for numerous reasons since. By DIR definitions OMS =
bungeed wings, or any wings with bungees for that matter, are "stroke" =
gear. I do not claim to be a DIR diver; however I suspect my (and those =
I dive with) philosophy in using Occum's razor affords similar end =
results: minimalization, streamlining, constant improvement, and =
bullet-proof operations.=20
Ok then I must be a stroke, I still dive the OMS bungee wings that =
Billy gave me in 94 which have never had a failure of any form. Speaks =
a bit to bullet proof gear. If someone wants to give me a Halcyon wing, =
I'd consider switching.=3D;)=20
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C232A3.A0BA09C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The archives should contain the =
critical comments=20
regarding the OMS bungeed wings. The quality of construction and =
durability were=20
not the issues but rather the effects of a bungeed bladder on oral =
inflation=20
resistance as the bungees reduce the compliance of the submerged =
bladder; rapid=20
deflation as the bungees artificially constrict the bladder - less =
control=20
on venting; and placement WRT the divers variable center of flotation =
v.s. the=20
center of mass and how that can affect static and dynamic =
stability. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Not trying to be argumentative, but a =
discussion of=20
failure must also me accompanied by an indication of usage. I assume =
your wings=20
are well used. My Diverite wings have by estimate somewhere between 600 =
to 700=20
dives (I know I don't get out as much any more). They are not perfect =
and have=20
flaws IMHO but they have given me great service. When I need to replace =
them I=20
will consider Diverite, Halcyon, and maybe OMS (since I noted they now =
offer a=20
non-bungeed wing). Currently the Halcyon appears to be the most durable =
(but I=20
don't like the cheap inflators). Who knows what will be around in a =
couple of=20
years? WRT equipment, my point would be to look at the quality of =
construction,=20
the salient features, and the features that detract from its =
performance. Pick=20
the equipment that emphasizes the first two points and eliminate the =
last. A=20
reliance on brand association is not important, and IMHO, is a real =
indication=20
of a "stroke".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now being somewhat argumentative, but =
not in a=20
derogatory way as this is a discussion of viewpoints, you stated the OMS =
wing is=20
"bullet proof gear" but you would switch from using it if someone gave =
you a=20
Halcyon. Why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-Doug</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DHLAviation@ao*.co*=20
href=3D"mailto:HLAviation@ao*.co*">HLAviation@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Ddougch@ea*.ne*=20
href=3D"mailto:dougch@ea*.ne*">dougch@earthlink.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A =
title=3Dtechdiver@aquanaut.com=20
href=3D"mailto:techdiver@aquanaut.com">techdiver@aquanaut.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 23, 2002 =
11:16=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Survey of NE =
DiveBoats re:=20
GUE acceptance.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>In
a =
message dated=20
7/23/2002 10:06:55 PM Central Daylight Time, <A=20
href=3D"mailto:dougch@ea*.ne*">dougch@earthlink.net</A>=20
writes:<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">Billy was an OMS dealer (with business obligations along =
that=20
line) and yes the bungeed wings have been rightfully (IMHO) =
discredited=20
countless times for numerous reasons since. By DIR definitions OMS =
bungeed=20
wings, or any wings with bungees for that matter, are "stroke" gear. =
I do=20
not claim to be a DIR diver; however I suspect my (and those I dive =
with)=20
philosophy in using Occum's razor affords similar end results:=20
minimalization, streamlining, constant improvement, and bullet-proof =
operations. </FONT><FONT lang=3D0 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff" face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000000 size=3D3 =
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT lang=3D0=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><BR>Ok then I must be a stroke, I still dive the =
OMS bungee=20
wings that Billy gave me in 94 which have never had a failure of any=20
form. Speaks a bit to bullet proof gear. If someone wants =
to give=20
me a Halcyon wing, I'd consider switching.=3D;)</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C232A3.A0BA09C0--
--
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]