Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
/5/10/95 from Rich Pyle - >The only reason I'm making such a big fuss about this is that one of the >aspect of "technical diving" that concerns me is this "number-worship" >that's going on all over the place. People keep drawing crisp lines for >limits of PO2, and OTUs, and time, and a whole bunch of other factors, much >like Skin Diver mag has done with the "go below 130 feet and you >instantly die" depth limit. But they forget these are, at BEST, totally >rough estimations. Well put Rich, one of things that surprised me when I started tek training was discovering how much of the information (numbers) we use in diving was derived from theories and 'guess work'. O2 tox issues are not the only place this is true. Back in Open Water I, some stuff was presented like it was Gospel.. Hard, Set rules of science... For instance - The accent rate of 60 feet per minute came from how fast Navy tenders could reel in hoses.... had nothing to do with how fast N2 comes out of solution.... The half times used calculating tissue half times are not base upon how long tissues *really* take to saturate... ( lets see..., will just call them 10 minute tissues, 20 minute tissues, ect...) All dive tables are really a 'rough guidline' on how to prevent DCS. There are so many variables to consider, that there can't be *any* set rules preventing DCS, Except maybe don't dive below 33FSW... Of course, even Haldane was proved wrong on that one. How about accelerated deco theory. (If using 80% O2 for deco, cut your deco obligation by 1/3... why 1/3...(inset theories).... because it seems to work......great....) and the list goes on......anybody got any others they want to throw in.... Scott Irvine, California IRVINE!ENG1!sfarinha@be*.at*.co*
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]