Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
At 2:51 PM 9/15/95, Richard Pyle wrote: >> That is not what I was saying. My argument is that there is a tradeoff. >> Diving multi-gas deep mix is more complicated than diving a single back >> mix. Therefore there is some point for which the benefit of simplicity more >> than offsets the "narcosis penalty" for using a less-than-optimum mix. >> After all, unless you have some kind of automatic mixer, if the number of >> different depths exceeds the number of mixes that you carry, you are making >> a trade-off and diving a less-than-optimum mix at some of those depths. > >I generally agree with George on the deep air issues; in fact I agree with >him on a hell of a lot of things. However, in this case I agree with >Richard. Multiple gas diving DOES add a cost-of-complexity, which will >balance out with some unknown value of cost-of-narcosis. Thanks for the support. I don't disagree with George when he blasts those who make unqualified claims that deep air is fine. However, rather than discussing my point, he has lapsed into his "I'm right; don't question me" mode. At least he has not yet begun using his profanity on me. I certainly don't know why 130 ft is OK and 131 is not. I have questioned "Why 130 ft rather than 100 or 150 ft?" I have yet to get other than a dogmatic answer. I would like to get a good answer on this because it would be another factor that I could quote when my OW students ask "Why?" when discussing recreational dive limits. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@da*.ne*
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]