 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 20046cf pony bottle numbers
Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up a reg to test it and breathe through it a bit so my starting pressure while testing at home was 2800 psi. I didn't bother with counting breathes cause i'm sure as hell not going to be counting breathes if it's used in an emergency. I was breathing deeper than usual but not too heavily to avoid blacking out in my kitchen. It was about 7 minutes until it was sucked down to zero, with a full fill or 3200 I suppose about 8 minutes. Barring any panic situations I'm expecting to get about half of this at say 60 to 80 ft, when I test it there I will post again. 4 minutes at depth will certainly not allow me much time to solve anyone elses problems but I could certainly ascend at less than an embolism rate and maybe even get in a 2 minute safety stop if I were ever OOA with my main supply. I may attempt an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and see if the bottle lasts, I will do this 1000 PSI or more in my other tank. Kevin > Barring any panic situations I'm expecting to get about half of this at > say 60 to 80 ft, when I test it there I will post again. 4 minutes at depth > will certainly not allow me much time to solve anyone elses problems but I > could certainly ascend at less than an embolism rate and maybe even get in a > 2 minute safety stop if I were ever OOA with my main supply. I may attempt > an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and see if the bottle lasts, 1) Why would you expect to get half of your surface air consumption at 60-80'? I would expect you to get half your surface air consumption at 33'. 2) Isn't ascending at less than a "DCS rate" almost as important as ascending at less than an embolism rate? (If you're exhaling, why would you embolize?) 3) Is all this experimenting safe when you obviously don't understand any of the physics or physiology behind diving? > 3) Is all this experimenting safe when you obviously don't understand any of > the physics or physiology behind diving? He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he played with the electric knife? > He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he played > with the electric knife? Do I still get to inherit the spare air? > > He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he played > > with the electric knife? > > Do I still get to inherit the spare air? I want it. Always wanted to try and cave in the sides of one with my bare hands......valve out, of course. ;-) Curtis I asked first. > > > He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he > played [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Curtis > I asked first. Fair enough. But, can I borrow it, just once? Promise it will be a much more interesting mantle piece. Curtis > But, can I borrow it, just once? Promise it will be a much more > interesting mantle piece. I wanted one to store Hogs ashes in. Figured it would at least be a fitting use for such a thing! (-: Kimber  SignatureI'm movin' on At last I can see life has been patiently waiting for me And I know there's no guarantees, but I'm not alone > > But, can I borrow it, just once? Promise it will be a much more > > interesting mantle piece. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kimber You sure one of those little pottles will hold Hog? they seem pretty insignificant. rhys > > I wanted one to store Hogs ashes in. Figured it would at least be a > fitting > > use for such a thing! (-: > You sure one of those little pottles will hold Hog? they seem pretty > insignificant. Well -- I kinda compared the spare air that I had at the memorial on the memory table to the bag of ashes --- so maybe all of it would not fit -- but quite a bit. What wouldn't could always be spread in the barn in his favorite horses stall and in the arena! (-; Kimber SignatureI'm movin' on At last I can see life has been patiently waiting for me And I know there's no guarantees, but I'm not alone > > > I wanted one to store Hogs ashes in. Figured it would at least be a > > fitting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > quite a bit. What wouldn't could always be spread in the barn in his > favorite horses stall and in the arena! (-; Perhaps the dual spare air? the one with the isolation manifold? ;-) Dennis > Kimber > > Well -- I kinda compared the spare air that I had at the memorial on the > > memory table to the bag of ashes --- so maybe all of it would not fit -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Perhaps the dual spare air? the one with the isolation manifold? ;-) Heh --- there ya go! (-; Kimber > > But, can I borrow it, just once? Promise it will be a much more > > interesting mantle piece. > > I wanted one to store Hogs ashes in. Figured it would at least be a fitting > use for such a thing! (-: CTMRH I vote for an AL 14 LP Argon bottle.......think of the implications. ;-) Curtis > > I wanted one to store Hogs ashes in. Figured it would at least be a > fitting > > use for such a thing! (-: > > CTMRH ??? I don't get it. Too many drink whilst wrapping the kids presents and it is totally obvious or just something that is outside my experience? > I vote for an AL 14 LP Argon bottle.......think of the implications. > ;-) (-: Kimber SignatureI'm movin' on At last I can see life has been patiently waiting for me And I know there's no guarantees, but I'm not alone > > CTMRH > > ??? I don't get it. Too many drink whilst wrapping the kids presents and > it is totally obvious or just something that is outside my experience? A far more accurate description than lol, Chuckling Til My Ribs Hurt. > > I vote for an AL 14 LP Argon bottle.......think of the implications. > > ;-) > > (-: See, you got the important one. ;-) Curtis > A far more accurate description than lol, Chuckling Til My Ribs Hurt. Gotcha! I will have to remember that! > See, you got the important one. ;-) I am glad it wasn't just the alcohol! (-; Merry Christmas Curtis! Kimber > > I asked first. > > Fair enough. > > But, can I borrow it, just once? Promise it will be a much more > interesting mantle piece. As small as it is, you could hang the Spare Air from your Christmas tree an an ornament? > > 3) Is all this experimenting safe when you obviously don't understand any > of > > the physics or physiology behind diving? > > He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he played > with the electric knife? Another proponent of Darwin? > > 3) Is all this experimenting safe when you obviously don't understand any > of > > the physics or physiology behind diving? > > He said he was screwing around in the kitchen. Would you rather he played > with the electric knife? he said he'd test it in the water later tho. rhys Stroke alert ... please tear up your c-card and retake a divng class. ARS > Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I > screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kevin No, keep up the good work, and make sure that i'm listed on your will! > Stroke alert ... please tear up your c-card and retake a divng class. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > Kevin > No, keep up the good work, and make sure that i'm listed on your will! > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > > > > Kevin If theres gonna be a will... I want a reg and 80CF or 120CF tank. rhys > If theres gonna be a will... I want a reg and 80CF or 120CF tank. I've got enough tanks and regulators. I've always wanted a Spare Air, I'll take the "pony." Free is about the right price. If I have to pay shipping, I may reconsider. Lee > Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I > screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > avoid blacking out in my kitchen. It was about 7 minutes until it was > sucked down to zero, with a full fill or 3200 I suppose about 8 minutes. Well, using (2800psi/3000psi)*6ft^3 in 7 minutes is 0.8 ft^3/minute. For a full tank, you wouldn't theoretically get 8 minutes, but 7.5 (6ft^3 divided by 0.8ft^/min = 7.5 minutes). BTW, don't ever assume that you'll have a 3200psi, fuller-than specification tank: the odds are much more likely that you'll be slightly below, if for no other reason than taking the regulator on/off the tank will use some of its contents between fills. > Barring any panic situations I'm expecting to get about half of this at > say 60 to 80 ft, when I test it there I will post again. Physics violation: 33fsw is 2 ATM, not 60-80fsw. Your estimated time at a depth of 33fsw (2 Atmospheres) would be: (6ft^3)/(2 ATM) divided by (0.8 ft^3/min) = 3.75 min At 66fsw (3 Atmospheres), it would be: (6ft^3)/(3 ATM) divided by (0.8 ft^3/min) = 2.5 min For 80fsw, the estimated time would be: (6ft^3)/(1 + 80fsw/33fsw ATM) / (0.8 ft^3/min) = 2.19 min (2:11) Granted, you will get 'credit' back during an ascent, but also note the following additional contingency planning elements: Ascents take time; a 30ft/min ascent rate from 90fsw takes 3 minutes. Need to also account for the time at bottom required to identify the OOA problem, accomplish switch, calm down, and start ascent. The only time that instant swap-and-ascend's take place is during controlled tests. You can't get as much air out of a tank at depth, due to the higher local ambient pressure (your regulator's absolute IP increases). > ...4 minutes at depth will certainly not allow me much time to solve > anyone elses problems but I could certainly ascend at less than an > embolism rate and maybe even get in a 2 minute safety stop if I > were ever OOA with my main supply. Yes, constraints change if you're making a solo contingency plan. However, if you're willing to invest any $$'s into a system that's going to be for use during the low likelihood of an OOA, if you could pay the same amount and also have it prevent embolisms...and DCS by not skipping the safety stop at all, wouldn't that had been a better investment? > I may attempt an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and > see if the bottle lasts, I will do this 1000 PSI or more in my other tank. Under ideal controlled conditions, you'll make it. But just what did that really tell you? -hh In article <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E25A19.07482222122003@news-east.ash.gigan ews.com>, H. Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I >> screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> avoid blacking out in my kitchen. It was about 7 minutes until it was >> sucked down to zero, with a full fill or 3200 I suppose about 8 minutes. <snip> >> ...4 minutes at depth will certainly not allow me much time to solve >> anyone elses problems but I could certainly ascend at less than an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Under ideal controlled conditions, you'll make it. But just what did >that really tell you? We had this discussion with Kevin about a month ago. He asked if a 6ft3 bottle was large enough and the overwhelming consensus was that it was too small. Since Kevin obviously had his heart set on a cute little bottle, he rationalized the sh.t out of his "logic" and refused to believe that his SAC rate would increase much during an emergency. Now he's back trying to "demonstrate" to everyone that his new toy gives him plenty of time underwater. He's still making math errors (60-80 ft will give you less than one third the time, not one half), and still refusing to acknowledge what his breathing rate is going to do in a panic situation. You can lead a horse to water.... > In article <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E25A19.07482222122003@news-east.ash.gigan > ews.com>, H. Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ? > ?> Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I > ?> screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up > ?> a reg to test it and breathe through it a bit so my starting pressure > ?> while testing at home was 2800 psi. I didn't bother with counting breathes > ?> cause i'm sure as hell not going to be counting breathes if it's used in > ?> an emergency. I was breathing deeper than usual but not too heavily to > ?> avoid blacking out in my kitchen. It was about 7 minutes until it was > ?> sucked down to zero, with a full fill or 3200 I suppose about 8 minutes. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ?Yes, constraints change if you're making a solo contingency plan. > ?However, if you're willing to invest any $$'s into a system that's going > ?to be for use during the low likelihood of an OOA, if you could pay the > ?same amount and also have it prevent embolisms...and DCS by not skipping > ?the safety stop at all, wouldn't that had been a better investment? > ? > ? > ? > ?> I may attempt an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and > ?> see if the bottle lasts, I will do this 1000 PSI or more in my other tank. > ? > ?Under ideal controlled conditions, you'll make it. But just what did [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You can lead a horse to water.... None of you are doing the calculationsfor a bailout bottle correctly. >> In article >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> ¤ kpjfalconer@aol.com (Kevin Falconer) wrote: >> ¤ >> ¤> I may attempt an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and >> ¤> see if the bottle lasts, I will do this 1000 PSI or more in my other [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >None of you are doing the calculationsfor a bailout bottle correctly. Pray tell? > >> In article > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > >> ?> I may attempt an ascent from about 90' with a short safety stop and > >> ?> see if the bottle lasts, I will do this 1000 PSI or more in my other > >tank. > >> ? > >> ?Under ideal controlled conditions, you'll make it. But just what did > >> ?that really tell you? > >> ? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pray tell? I outlined some months ago while trying to enlighten an idiot. It's on the archives. > > In article <snip> > None of you are doing the calculationsfor a bailout bottle correctly. Enlighten us, then, nospam. :-) Dennis > > > In article > > > > <snip> > > None of you are doing the calculationsfor a bailout bottle correctly. > > Enlighten us, then, nospam. :-) I outlined some months ago while trying to enlighten an idiot. It's on the archives. > > > > In article > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I outlined some months ago while trying to enlighten an idiot. It's > on the archives. feel free to post it. Dennis > > > > > In article > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > feel free to post it. Done, that's how it came to be "on the archives." > > > > > > In article > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Done, that's how it came to be "on the archives." your post, you claim its being calculated "incorrectly" you provide the link. Dennis > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > your post, you claim its being calculated "incorrectly" you provide the > link. Expending even that much effort in the vain attempt to enlighten fools has lost its allure. > > > > > > > In <221220030748526305%alan@nonono_irsi.com> Alan Street > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Expending even that much effort in the vain attempt to enlighten fools > has lost its allure. in other words, you'll just spout off with no substance. check Happy holidays, nospam Dennis In <57fbap5bjcc@corp.supernews.com> "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote: > > > > > > > > In <221220030748526305%alan@nonono_irsi.com> Alan Street > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > check The substance is on record. You'll do the digging if you really want to know. End of story. > In <57fbap5bjcc@corp.supernews.com> "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote: <snip> > The substance is on record. You'll do the digging if you really want > to know. > > End of story. As I said, spouting off with no substance. Check. Dennis > "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote: > > <nospam@all.please.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Done, that's how it came to be "on the archives." Unfortunately, its not easy to find in the Archives. An Author & Keyword search is not turning up anything in the way of calculations (already tried: Spare Air, Bailout, Calculation, SA, plus combinations of the same). So if you don't want to simply repost, a pointer or two on how to find it would be helpful. FWIW, the two archived posts that IMO came closest were: (25 Nov 03): "I once did a safety stop on a 6 after using all but 250 psi of an 80 at depth. The final ascent began from about 70 feet. I remember another safety stop on the 6 when I had to exit the water "with at least one usable breath" in my main tank to conform to boat rules. Even a 6 is not completely useless." Note that this is a classical testimonial with no data on the diver's SAC, ascent rates, etc. Also note that even despite these data voids, the scenarios described were all low stress, controlled situations. (14 Sep 02): "In other words: if the ascent can be made without SA, then the ascent can be made at least as comfortably with SA. It's a really simple concept. The concept is evidently so simple as to be elusive." This is the classical "anything is better than nothing" arguement. I agree with the concept, but only to a degree: its validity has to be questioned as soon as we open the wallet to make a product purchase. At that point, the various options' capabilities get critically examined prior to the immediate need and a good consumer will functionally normalize their respective capabilities versus each one's costs (eg, "what level of capability do I get for this level of investment?"). -hh In <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-9C0DC2.08004623122003@news-east.ash.gigan > > "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote: > > > <nospam@all.please.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Note that this is a classical testimonial with no data on the diver's > SAC, Average at best; certainly not exceptionally good. > ascent rates, etc. The same as usual. > Also note that even despite these data voids, > the scenarios described were all low stress, controlled situations. As they will be when you know you have enough air to surface. > (14 Sep 02): > "In other words: if the ascent can be made without [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I agree with the concept, but only to a degree: its validity has to be > questioned as soon as we open the wallet to make a product purchase. At How he spends his money is his business. He'll have the 6 to soak a regulator under pressure if he moves on to something bigger. > that point, the various options' capabilities get critically examined > prior to the immediate need and a good consumer will functionally > normalize their respective capabilities versus each one's costs (eg, > "what level of capability do I get for this level of investment?"). There is no single best solution for backup; one can only optimize for a given set of circumstances. End of story. > > FWIW, the two archived posts that IMO came closest were: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Average at best; certainly not exceptionally good. Good to know, but when absent from the above, your statement becomes more generally useless to everyone else because they couldn't referentially place its applicability to their own situation and needs. > > ascent rates, etc. > > The same as usual. Would this have been 30ft/min or 60ft/min? > > Also note that even despite these data voids, > > the scenarios described were all low stress, controlled situations. > > As they will be when you know you have enough air to surface. Once you calm down from the OOA that prompted the switch-over, sure. The problem is that in most controlled tests, this variable is neglected. A test done wrong can be deceptive, which can be worse than no test at all. > > This is the classical "anything is better than nothing" arguement. > > > > I agree with the concept, but only to a degree: its validity has to be > > questioned as soon as we open the wallet to make a product purchase. > > How he spends his money is his business. Absolutely true. But if he didn't want advice, he would have never solicited the group for their comments. -hh In <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-69EF2E.07291624122003@news-east.ash.gigan > > > FWIW, the two archived posts that IMO came closest were: > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Would this have been 30ft/min or 60ft/min? Somewhere between 30ft/min and 60ft/min. Not bent or embolised in any case > > > Also note that even despite these data voids, > > > the scenarios described were all low stress, controlled situations. > > > > As they will be when you know you have enough air to surface. > > Once you calm down from the OOA that prompted the switch-over, sure. There is no reason to panic when you know you have enough air to surface. > The problem is that in most controlled tests, this variable is > neglected. A test done wrong can be deceptive, which can be worse than > no test at all. Why would your psychology be better than mine? > > Would this have been 30ft/min or 60ft/min? > > Somewhere between 30ft/min and 60ft/min. Not bent or embolised in any > case In other words, you have no clue, but you'll still try to build "Good Science" off of this non-existent foundation. > > Once you calm down from the OOA that prompted the switch-over, sure. > > There is no reason to panic when you know you have enough air to > surface. And when you don't know your SAC info, your ascent rate info, max transition time assumption, safety stop duration assumpion, etc, etc, you really don't figure out if you have enough air unless the crisis has past, either because you've somehow made it to the surface, or died trying. This is an antithesis of dive planning. > > The problem is that in most controlled tests, this variable is > > neglected. A test done wrong can be deceptive, which can be > > worse than no test at all. > > Why would your psychology be better than mine? It has nothing to do with whose pscyhology is 'better': it has to do with just knowing what it is going to be, so that it can be part of the plan instead of ignored. -hh " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> wrote in message news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E0379F.08561031122003@news-east.ash.gigan ews.com... > > > Would this have been 30ft/min or 60ft/min? > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -hh You can take out a life insurance policy on another person... why don't you take one out on him and after a while you'll be rolling in the dosh. rhys In <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E0379F.08561031122003@news-east.ash.gigan > > > Would this have been 30ft/min or 60ft/min? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In other words, you have no clue, but you'll still try to build "Good > Science" off of this non-existent foundation. No, I mean empirically shown not to be a problem for me. > > > Once you calm down from the OOA that prompted the switch-over, sure. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > past, either because you've somehow made it to the surface, or died > trying. This is an antithesis of dive planning. One good breath at depth is enough for an ESA. More is better. Enough for a safety stop is even better. Explain why I should panic because it's not all in one bottle. > > > The problem is that in most controlled tests, this variable is > > > neglected. A test done wrong can be deceptive, which can be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with just knowing what it is going to be, so that it can be part of the > plan instead of ignored. Explain why I should panic if I know I have enough air to surface. I may be debating a fool once again... > No, I mean empirically shown not to be a problem for me. Under but one - and generally idealized - scenario. > One good breath at depth is enough for an ESA. More is better. > Enough for a safety stop is even better. > > Explain why I should panic because it's not all in one bottle. Stress...possibly panic...is going to occur at the start of the OOA event. That stress isn't going to end until the problem is over. The end isn't evident until you are either safely at the surface, or that you know in this particular circumstance that you have enough air to get back to the surface. Any time that your modeling & simulation of OOA's was not as strict as the actual OOA event, then you have a data gap and uncertainty, which means that the problem has not yet been brought to final resolution. > Explain why I should panic if I know I have enough air to surface. You shouldn't panic if you know you have enough. But there's an "if" here. How do you know that you indeed have enough? Have you addressed reasonably all of your possible permutations of dive conditions, depths, overheads, and readiness? If you were indeed reasonably conseravtive with your assumptions and have tested it to make sure it works, then the answer is yes and you're set. But based on what you've written here, I'm only convinced that you have enough air for benign conditions when you're in peak performance. -hh The 6 cubic foot pony bottle combines the expense, complexity and bulk of an adequately sized redundant scuba system with the low volume of the Spare Air. In other words: It is the worst of both worlds. Back in the Dark Ages, Lou Feed said that you shouldn't scuba dive to more than twice the depth you can free dive. Still good advice... >The 6 cubic foot pony bottle combines the expense, complexity and bulk >of an adequately sized redundant scuba system with the low volume of the >Spare Air. > >In other words: It is the worst of both worlds. Careful. Keep up that line of commentary and Kevin will tell you to see a doctor about the bug up your a.s :-). > ?The 6 cubic foot pony bottle combines the expense, complexity and bulk > ?of an adequately sized redundant scuba system with the low volume of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Careful. Keep up that line of commentary and Kevin will tell you to see > a doctor about the bug up your a.s :-). nospam'll also call him brain-dead. :-) Dennis In <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E85A1C.08153303012004@news-east.ash.gigan > > No, I mean empirically shown not to be a problem for me. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But based on what you've written here, I'm only convinced that you have > enough air for benign conditions when you're in peak performance. I guess you shouldn't be doing it if you have your doubts. > > > > > > In article > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Done, that's how it came to be "on the archives." Here's what I was able to find: http://makeashorterlink.com/?H2C6152E6 This was back in 11/2002, but it's a very decent thread on pony vs. SA Happy Holidays all. Randy Cain > You can lead a horse to water.... And it can drown itself if thats what it wants. rhys Alan wrote: > too small. Since Kevin obviously had his heart set on a cute little > bottle, he rationalized the sh.t out of his "logic" and refused to > believe that his SAC rate would increase much during an emergency. Now > he's back trying to "demonstrate" to everyone that his new toy gives > him plenty of time underwater. Alan, see a doctor, you've got a serious bug up your a.s ! My 80cf gives me more than enough time diving, my choice of a back up spare air or pony is my damn business, if you dont want or need the information here, turn the damn dial as they say ! Kevin >Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >pony is my damn business, if you dont want or need the information here, >turn the damn dial as they say ! You're funny Kevin. I didn't ask for information or advice, You did, but what you really wanted was everyone to tell you how cool and bitchin your idea was. Personally, I didn't see it that way (and neither did anyone else), but hey, I've been known to be wrong before. After all, someone who breathes 0.8 ft3/min sitting in his kitchen reading the SpareAir ads in RSD has got to be far more experienced than any of the idiots here. Right? > You're funny Kevin. I didn't ask for information or advice, You did, > but what you really wanted was everyone to tell you how cool and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reading the SpareAir ads in RSD has got to be far more experienced than > any of the idiots here. Right? What's a "pony bottle"? Or a "Spare Air"? >> You're funny Kevin. I didn't ask for information or advice, You did, >> but what you really wanted was everyone to tell you how cool and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Or a "Spare Air"? Beats me. Maybe we should ask Jammer. > ?What's a "pony bottle"? > ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ? > Beats me. Maybe we should ask Jammer. *Now* we're f.cked. > What's a "pony bottle"? Used for orpahned young equines or when the mare does not produce sufficient milk... > Or a "Spare Air"? Coloquial term for a redundant air-conditioning system that is required for anyone along the Gulf Coast that does not want up close and personal introductioins to Mr. HeatStroke during the summer... Alan wrote: > You're funny Kevin. I didn't ask for information or advice, You did, > but what you really wanted was everyone to tell you how cool and > bitchin your idea was. I assure you I don't buy any equipment with anyone else in mind but myself..... Alan continued to whine with: >Personally, I didn't see it that way (and neither did anyone else) Alan, has the rest of the board agreed to have you speak for them ? Kevin Falconer Fort Myers, FL > Alan, has the rest of the board agreed to have you speak for them ? Yes we have. Brian Edmonton, Alberta www.mossmanscubaventures.com > Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Alan, has the rest of the board agreed to have you speak for them ? Well, given the responses, that does seem to be what occurred. Dennis > Kevin Falconer Fort Myers, FL > > Alan wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, given the responses, that does seem to be what occurred. Only if we restrict the counting to the brain dead section... >> > Alan wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Only if we restrict the counting to the brain dead section... Coming from a guy that wears three computers, that's amusing. > ?In <vuq60m4ns5eg3d@corp.supernews.com> "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote: > ?> "Kevin Falconer" <kpjfalconer@aol.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ?> > > ?> > I assure you I don't buy any equipment with anyone else in mind but > ?> > myself..... > ?> > > ?> > Alan continued to whine with: > ?> > > ?> > >Personally, I didn't see it that way (and neither did anyone else) > ?> > > ?> > Alan, has the rest of the board agreed to have you speak for them ? > ?> > ?> Well, given the responses, that does seem to be what occurred. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Coming from a guy that wears three computers, that's amusing. Only to the brain dead. > Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Kevin Falconer Fort Myers, FL On Spare air bashing... he's got my backing. rhys > Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Alan, has the rest of the board agreed to have you speak for them ? silly. kevin, this is a newsgroup, not a bulletin board. > Kevin Falconer Fort Myers, FL > Alan wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pony is my damn business, if you dont want or need the information here, > turn the damn dial as they say ! if it shows up here, its everyone's business. if we see a total lack of science and logic in it, and we chose to laugh at it, thats also appropriate here, for rec.scuba is a public place for scuba topics. before you dismiss something, make sure you comprehend what you are dismissing. being wrong is embarrassing. many foolish things get laughed at here. if you do not know air consumption and depth, you should not play with figuring air reserves. you have more important work to do: learn basic scuba 001. 80 cuft is pretty good, as long as you have it available. should something happen at 80 feet, and you find out that just as you try that swim through, your regulator goes south, and as you try to solve that problem, you get hung on a rock trying to back up, now you have less than about 130 seconds of air to solve both the regulator problem and the stuck problem and get to the surface. and since this is not fun anymore, you are now using better than 3.0sac, and at 66 feet, now you have about 45 seconds left. how many of those seconds will you use before you actually start up? > Kevin > In article > <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-E25A19.07482222122003@news-east.ash.gigan [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > refusing to acknowledge what his breathing rate is going to do in a > panic situation. clearly kevin neither thinks well nor understands what he is doing. on the other hand, no matter how poorly he does them, he is still responsible for himself. Darwin, please stand by for kevin... I sense an award coming soon. > You can lead a horse to water.... HH wrote: > Your estimated time at a depth of 33fsw (2 Atmospheres) would be: > (6ft^3)/(2 ATM) divided by (0.8 ft^3/min) = 3.75 min [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For 80fsw, the estimated time would be: > (6ft^3)/(1 + 80fsw/33fsw ATM) / (0.8 ft^3/min) = 2.19 min (2:11) HH, thanks for these numbers, I dont profess to know all of the physics but I'm doing my best to understand the nuances of air consumption and back up systems, thanks for your numbers and time...... > Yes, constraints change if you're making a solo contingency plan. > However, if you're willing to invest any $$'s into a system that's going > to be for use during the low likelihood of an OOA, if you could pay the > same amount and also have it prevent embolisms...and DCS by not skipping > the safety stop at all, wouldn't that had been a better investment? yes, I think a 9cf or 13cf would be a better choice, I didn't expect the 6cf to do a lot for me but knowing what it can and cant do is whats important to me now, I hope to never use it and I will probably rarely carry it but when and if I do use it maybe it will be of some help.... > HH wrote: > > Yes, constraints change if you're making a solo contingency plan. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to me now, I hope to never use it and I will probably rarely carry it but > when and if I do use it maybe it will be of some help.... So are you ready for the final exam? What do you believe is the maximum operational depth from which this 6ft pony will be able to reliably provide a bailout capability for you, and what is your definition of a bailout capability? If you don't quite understand the question, please ask. -hh > HH wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > rarely carry it but when > and if I do use it maybe it will be of some help.... If I remember correctly you wanted the bottle as a redundant air source when you were doing solo dives. Setting aside the issue of capacity, as I think it has been addressed I hope your comment doesn't mean you, will only use it on some of your solo dives, as this would tend to indicate you can succesfully predict when you need it , and murphy will try and prove you wrong. John Mason > > HH wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > dives, as this would tend to indicate you can succesfully predict when you > need it , and murphy will try and prove you wrong. Depth considerations aside, this is sound advice. John Mason wrote: > Setting aside the issue of capacity, as I think it has been addressed > I hope your comment doesn't mean you, will only use it on some of your solo > dives, as this would tend to indicate you can succesfully predict when you > need it , and murphy will try and prove you wrong. John, your right about that, I'm just not sure I'm ready for the inconvenience of the extra bottle on a dive where I have a buddy. I would feel better solo though with a back-up.........it's a personal thing..... > John, your right about that, I'm just not sure I'm ready > for the inconvenience of the extra bottle on a dive where > I have a buddy. I would feel better solo though with a > back-up.........it's a personal thing..... But the cost of one of the small bottles is about the same as an AL80, so you might as well go with a *real* spare... > > John, your right about that, I'm just not sure I'm ready > > for the inconvenience of the extra bottle on a dive where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But the cost of one of the small bottles is about the same as an AL80, so > you might as well go with a *real* spare... An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many dives. > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many dives. Perhaps, but if you are *really* serious about needing a *real* bailout bottle, it's the way to go... <grin> I run independent 80s... I don't find the extra weight that big of a deal... Maybe when I get older and need a walker to help me get to the dive sites, I might feel different... > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many dives. > > Perhaps, but if you are *really* serious about needing a *real* bailout > bottle, it's the way to go... <grin> I've always said more is better up to the point of inconvenience. E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break his back. > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many > dives. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break > his back. Yet more evidence that you've not been paying attention. Dennis > > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many > > dives. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dennis Not to mention the extra task loading on Popeye's itty bitty brain. The only good thing about being Popeye is not needing to worry about mad cow disease. > > > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many > > > dives. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not to mention the extra task loading on Popeye's itty bitty brain. Yet more evidence that you've not been paying attention. > The only good thing about being Popeye is not needing to worry about > mad cow disease. Remember, nospam, in order to be insulted, he'd have to actually care what you felt. We know y'dont think, as you have 3 computers to do that for you. Dennis > > > > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many > > > > dives. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dennis I don't argue with idiots. > > > > > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on > many [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I don't argue with idiots. Of course not. That's apparent from the folks you've been arguing with. We will, though. :-) Dennis > > > > > > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on > > many [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Dennis ;-) No WONDER you don't talk to YOURSELF. >>>>>>>An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I don't argue with idiots. > I've always said more is better up to the point of inconvenience. > E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break > his back. Have you seen his old pony bottle? Better take a look: http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/popeye.jpg -hh > > I've always said more is better up to the point of inconvenience. > > E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/popeye.jpg nospam's always been one who never lets reality interfere with his delusions. Dennis > -hh > > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many > dives. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break > his back. just a little bit wrong. I bet that popeye can wear his own scuba outfit, at least an 80 cuft tank, and still pick you and yours up over his head. whether you like it or not. >> I've always said more is better up to the point of inconvenience. >> E.g., Popeye can't cope with a pony, an extra AL80 would likely break [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > whether you like it or not. Actually, I used to be intimidated by Popeye. Then I found out that's a spare Al 80 in his shorts. > Actually, I used to be intimidated by Popeye. > > Then I found out that's a spare Al 80 in his shorts. Dammit Mike, that was a dangerous thing to do to a guy with a bad chest cold......worse than coffee. ;-) Curtis > > An AL80 is too much weight and drag for a bailout bottle on many dives. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe when I get older and need a walker to help me get to the dive sites, I > might feel different... Just curious - why independent 80s instead of using isolation manifold? Dennis "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote ... > Just curious - why independent 80s instead of using isolation manifold? A couple of reasons, I guess, but mainly it's because I can use the same equipment layout when I'm diving Coz and renting tanks as when I'm using my own tanks and diving the caves in Florida... I don't want to have to try renting manifolded doubles in Coz nor do I want to carry a manifold with me and then convince them to swap out their K-valves for my manifold... There's also the issue of most of my dives (including the caves) being solo dives, so a little extra redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing... Also, I can reconfigure my tanks for sidemounts or stages without any change in the valves... Personally, I don't find the supposed extra task loading of gas management that big of a deal for me... Some people do consider it a big deal and think that it is an accident waiting to happen... Surprisingly, these same people don't necessarily think the same way about sidemount rigs... Signature(Replace YYYY with current 4 digit year and MM with current 2 digit month to reply via email) > "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote ... > > Just curious - why independent 80s instead of using isolation manifold? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > these same people don't necessarily think the same way about sidemount > rigs... Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. Dennis "Dennis (Icarus)" wrote ... > Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. Hmmm.... Damn, I must have explained it wrong then... <grin> The thing is, what works for one person might not necessarily work for another person... Some people work best with the buddy concept... Others believe that they need multiple dive computers... Personally, for my type of diving, I find that having additional air strapped to my back (or under my arms, or wherever) is more practical than relying on someone else to be it... You have to evaluate the risks and benefits for whatever gear configuration that you are going to be using... I doubt that there is any one gear configuration that works best for every situation... Ultimately, it is Darwin who decides whether your gear configuration is acceptable... So far, mine has been acceptable -- or I've just been lucky -- same end result though... If carrying around an extra 40 or so pounds of tank and reg is not easy for you, I would not suggest that you go the doubles route... Can you hike a mile through Florida underbrush to get to a spring head with around 100 lbs of gear? I've had to do it and I can attest to the fact that the 70F water feels really good without a wetsuit at that point... I don't think I would do it anymore due to the additional broken bones that I've had over the years that makes such hikes rather painful to do these days... On the other hand, a hundred yards or two or climbing up a boat's ladder is not a big deal for me with the gear... Depending upon your body size, that 100 lbs might be a significant portion of your body weight and thus would be difficult for you... On the other hand, you could be lazy and use a hand truck to cart your gear to the dive site.... <grin> I guess what I"m really trying to say with this rambling is that what works for me does not necessarily mean that it will work for you... In other words, if you kill yourself with independent doubles, don't come back to me complaining... <grin> > HH wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HH, thanks for these numbers, I dont profess to know all of the physics kevin, you do not understand enough to pass a simple basic scuba course. > but I'm doing my best to understand the nuances of air consumption and > back up systems, thanks for your numbers and time...... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > me now, I hope to never use it and I will probably rarely carry it but when > and if I do use it maybe it will be of some help.... >Well, I couldn't do my beach dive yesterday, too nasty out there, so I >screwed around with my pony bottle. When I first filled it I hooked up [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Kevin Well, 6cf is better than nothing...no argument about that...but when I solo dive my 20cf pony is a tad more comforting. --Toren |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.