Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Richard, don't be costing me sushi. The basis is
commercial and military diving.
The oil companies are the best testers of this.
I use the 130, maximum , meaning that I mix for
130 considering the deepest known depth I
could possible hit, not my average, which is more
like 110. The reason , in my case, is that I want
enough of a balance between the nitrogen and
helium to get some benefit at deco. Otherwise ,
I would use heliox. This stuff is well documented,
which is why the refusal of the agencies to abondon
the fantasy that there is such a thing as being good on
air is so indsidious. As far as the experiments, the
old experiments were hampered by the fact that
they were using a limited sample set, so
were limited in the ability to test the test. The
only quantitative result appeared to be that new
tasks were a problem, and that there is no
acclimation short of about five days down, and then
only a little, and then it goes away upon surfacing.
The new experiments by the Germans are far better,
and have curves for each incremental increase
in PPN2, whith a broad array of experiments
using people with diving and medical backgrounds,
as well as German military people. The results
are indisputable. Why is it that I know these
things and everyone else is feigning ignorance?
I don't even care since I knew all of this
just from diving myself. The other thing that
needs to be mentioned here is that my dead
friend Sheck Exley set us back light years
with his bullhsit about being good deep on air.
Belive me , I dove with him, he was not, and
neither is anyone else. Mount keeps telling
me that Jim Lockwood is good deep on air,
and has done some riduculous number of air
dive to 400 feet. I will let Lockwood's record
speak for Lockwood, and point out that if
this is what Mount considers a "great diver"
than I would listen no further to anything
the guy has to say on any subject. Time to
wake up, time to begin to act responsibly,
time to admit he is wrong, and get on with
the show. Time for Mount to quit telling
students that his "personal" narcosis depth
is 210 feet. It looks to me more like one
atmosphere is challenge enough. - George
ps any flames and I will win the sushi prize
this time. I will make Sankey look like a nice guy.
The first student who comes after me will
win me the sushi boat at Lucy Ho's.
<< Start of Forwarded message via prodigy (R) mail >>
From: Richard Wackerbart
Subject: Establishing Standards
Date: 09/13
Time: 07:57 AM
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 06:42:19 -0500
From: Richard Wackerbarth [rkw@da*.ne*]
Subject: Establishing Standards
Is this the same George? I certainly prefer this demeanor.
Now my question. You (IMHO, deservatively) slam Mount, et. al. for
diving
enriched air at 170 ft., etc. (PPO2 = 1.4atm, certainly makes sense
to me)
But where do we get "appropriate" limits for various mixes? The real
question that I have concerns the max air depth. I.e., why 130 ft?
Why not
100 ft or 150 ft? The PPO2 limit would be 190-200 ft.
What is the basis of a lower limit?
On a related subject, has anyone done experiments to attempt to
measure the
degree of Nitrogen Narcosis? For example, reaction time measurements
in a
chamber? It would be very interesting to see the shape of an
imparement
curve.
At 9:42 PM 9/12/95, <giii01@in*.co*> wrote:
> Gary, I guess you feel that attacking me is a
>contribution to this list. Why don't you quit wasting
>my time, and tell us all why diving deep on air,
>diving nitrox at 170 feet, diving elevated PPO2s,
>and all of the other strokery you feel so offended
>by my questioning (you call it flaming) is such
>a good idea. Not one of you has yet to put one shrncead
>of information on here in support of something you all
>so obviously treat like the Sermon on the Mount. If
>you want to trade insulting messages, we can crank it
>right back up again. If you want to talk safety, let's
>hear it. Maybe I will go to IANDTD and take deep air
>and then start diving nitrox at 170. Go ahead,
>make your case. - George
----
Richard Wackerbarth
rkw@da*.ne*
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'.
Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'.
-------- Original message header follows --------
From daemon@te*.ne* Wed Sep 13 07:43:45 1995 [PIM 3.2-342.56]
Received: from bighorn.terra.net (daemon@bi*.te*.ne* [199.103.
128.2]) by maily1.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA41997;
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 07:59:08 -0400
Received: (daemon@lo*)
by bighorn.terra.net (8.6.11/jr2.10)
id HAA05805; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 07:42:57 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: owner-techdiver@terra.net
Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241])
by bighorn.terra.net (8.6.11/jr2.10) with ESMTP
id HAA05787; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 07:42:47 -0400
Received: from [199.183.109.242] by DATAPLEX.NET
with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Wed, 13 Sep 1995 06:42:16 -0600
X-Sender: rkw@sh*.da*.ne*
Message-Id: <v02130500ac7c6f73ea0f@[199.183.109.242]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 06:42:19 -0500
To: <giii01@in*.co*>
From: rkw@da*.ne* (Richard Wackerbarth)
Subject: Establishing Standards
Cc: techdiver@terra.net
-------------- End of message ---------------
<< End of Forwarded message >>
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]