Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

From: story@be*.en*.sg*.co* (David Story)
Subject: Why 130' on the recreational tables? Simple answer....
To: rkw@da*.ne* (Richard Wackerbarth)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: deepreef@bi*.bi*.Ha*.Or*, techdiver@terra.net

Richard Wackerbarth writes:
> 
> 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.

Sorry to disappoint you if you were looking for some theory-based
answer, but the truth is that the choice was a very practical one:
depths deeper than 130 on the USN Tables didn't give enough bottom
time.  The folks designing the restricted "recreational" tables simply
picked the depth for practical reasons, rounded down the numbers, and
made their tables.  

They did improve the tables by making the table calculations
significantly easier by clever table arrangement, which was a
noticable improvement for all divers using those tables.  I know one
Navy diver who uses the recreational table format in order to avoid
making mistakes!

I'd be glad to dig up the cites if you're interested, but I don't have
it at home.  You could ask Dr. Ray Rogers if you'd like confirmation.

Cheers,

David Story, story@sg*.co*             Inventor 3D Graphics Group
(415) 390-5337                         Silicon Graphics Inc.

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]