 |
 | 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 / March 2008Equipment Configuration
I'm trying to canvas opinion on recommended equipment configuration, I appreciate it is a personal choice, but looking for some suggestions and pros/cons. Until recently I was diving on a single 15l cylinder with my main reg and an octopus as backup. Mares proton ice extreme main reg and Mares metal octopus (environmentally sealed) I have just added a pony setup to my equipment, (apeks 40 - environmentally sealed) so basically now have three regs. (2 on the main tank, and 1 on the pony) It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my main cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the single reg on the pony as backup. Any suggestions ? TIA > I'm trying to canvas opinion on recommended equipment configuration, I > appreciate it is a personal choice, but looking for some suggestions and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > TIA Why? Would you throw away your cars spare tyre because you have a can of instant fiX? I'm not saying I agree, just trying to get others opinions As for a reason why..... To keep things simple? One less point of failure? >> I'm trying to canvas opinion on recommended equipment configuration, I >> appreciate it is a personal choice, but looking for some suggestions and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Why? Would you throw away your cars spare tyre because you have a can of > instant fiX? > I'm not saying I agree, just trying to get others opinions > > As for a reason why..... > To keep things simple? > One less point of failure? Reason for - more options for breathing the better. The second/alternate/octopus regulator (in this area) at least is usually configured to suit a buddy requiring air - ie it'll go in his mouth the right way up, (and therefore won't in yours)and hangs around from the left of the body. The pony supply is configured from the right like the main reg and intended for the wearer to use rather than a buddy. By doing away with the alternat reg you are shortchanging your buddy of his options in an out of air situation. If you want to keep things simple, leave behind cameras, torches, smbs etc before you leave behind an alternate! > It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my main > cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the single > reg on the pony as backup. > Any suggestions ? A couple. First, I suggest you put a name in your posts here. Whatever you prefer to be called will do. I presume Nemysys is not it. If it is, never mind. The point of this suggestion is that the information we share here is often personal, or at least personally important, and it's nice to deal on that basis. Enough said on that subject. More to your point, I suggest you tell whoever suggested you remove your alternate from your standard regulator to keep their advice to themselves unless then can do better than that. It's not particularly good advise. Your pony is strictly a bail out for you in case something goes wrong that your buddy is not available, or able to help with. It's not part of your gas management plan. You should forget it's even there until there's some kind of crisis that makes you glad it is. If you use it any other way, then a pony's the wrong thing to have. You need twins. You're probably going to find that you just don't need that level of redundancy for most of your diving. When you don't need it, and choose not to carry it, you'll still need your alternate. Even if you do chose to carry a pony on every dive, it's still primarily for bailing you out. For most of your diving, your alternate, octopus if you prefer, is your primary contingency device. It's there for you, if something goes wrong with your primary, and it's there for your buddy, if something goes wrong with his gas supply. Your pony does not replace your alternate. It supplements it. Lee Thanks for your input Lee I have updated my name for you. Darren (Nemysys) >> It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my main >> cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Lee Darren (Nemysys) Nice to meet you Darren. To further support Lee's statement. If a situation developed requiring an extended gas requirement for you and your buddy the pony alone would not be enough gas. The octo will allow access to your back gas for both divers. The only time you remove the octo from the main 1st stage is when diving doubles, and then its moved to the second post on the manifold. This allows access to the back gas via two 1st stages and two second stages. An H valve on your single tang can allow this but you will need another 1st stage as well as a second. >> It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my main >> cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Lee > > It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my main > > cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the single [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > need your alternate. Even if you do chose to carry a pony on every dive, > it's still primarily for bailing you out. IIRC, the rationale of going to a 1+1 setup is mentioned in one of John Lippman's "Deeper into Diving" books. I'd have to reread it to be sure, but I think the rational was based on a conceptual risk of grabbing the wrong 'spare' regulator of the two that would be available, in conjunction with a Hogarthian philosophy of 'fewer potential failure points', and what modal types of diving represent an acceptable risk-benefit (eg, no-deco solo). In any event, the Lippman references are easily now 10+ years old (probably closer to 20?) and would most likely benefit from a reexamination of the topic in light of the evolutionary rise of DIR philosophies and techniques, as well as from the relatively lower equipment costs today of adding a third 2nd stage. > For most of your diving, your alternate, octopus if you prefer, is your > primary contingency device. It's there for you, if something goes wrong > with your primary, and it's there for your buddy, if something goes wrong > with his gas supply. Your pony does not replace your alternate. It > supplements it. Pretty much the only time that one should consider diving with 1 reg on the primary and 1 reg on the pony is when there's a good reason to not have a 2nd reg on the primary (not buying one is an understandable but weak arguement) **and** this would pretty much require that one is not only diving 100% solo, but with no one else even around in the water that plausibly might ever need assistance. -hh <Snip> **and** this would pretty much require that one is not only diving 100% solo, but with no one else even around in the water that plausibly might ever need assistance. ----------------------- Chris: Or, at least, that no one whom you would consider helping is around. > In any event, the Lippman references are easily now 10+ years old > (probably closer to 20?) and would most likely benefit from a > reexamination of the topic in light of the evolutionary rise of DIR > philosophies and techniques, as well as from the relatively lower > equipment costs today of adding a third 2nd stage. When I was first switching to independent doubles, I went with a primary and a secondary 2nd stage for each of my two 1st stages... In addition, each 1st stage also had an inflator hose for my BC... It only took me a dive or so to realize that although this was well redundant, it was probably a bit more cluttered than I really needed... These days, I'm more likely to have a single 2nd stage attached to each 1st stage (i.e. no octo)... I'll still have the inflator hose on both 1st stages though... I haven't needed to switch inflator hoses yet, but it tucks nicely between the tanks and doesn't get in the way, so I don't mind keeping it attached to my rig... I did have a problem one time breathing off of the wrong tank at 170 ft because I was running independents and I had an octo on one of my 1st stages... I thought I was breathing off of one tank, but I was breathing off of the other one, but I couldn't figure out why the needle on my SPG wasn't moving... Yeah, I was a wee bit narced at the time... Major case of tunnel vision...  SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > When I was first switching to independent doubles, I went with a primary > and a secondary 2nd stage for each of my two 1st stages... In addition, > each 1st stage also had an inflator hose for my BC... It only took me a > dive or so to realize that although this was well redundant, it was > probably a bit more cluttered than I really needed... A good endorcement for manifolded twins. > I'll still have the inflator hose on both 1st stages though... I see little purpose to two inflator hoses if all you're doing is inflating a BCD. I have two for an entirely different reason. My safety sausage/lift bag plugs into a low pressure inflator. It's way too large to fill orally unless absolutely necessary. On trips where I expect to use it frequently, I found the extra inflator hose is a nice touch. I use it exclusivly for the sausage, avoiding the need to disconnect and reconnet the one attached to my BCD. > I did have a problem one time breathing off of the wrong tank at 170 ft > because I was running independents and I had an octo on one of my 1st > stages... I thought I was breathing off of one tank, but I was breathing > off of the other one, but I couldn't figure out why the needle on my SPG > wasn't moving... Yeah, I was a wee bit narced at the time... Major case of > tunnel vision... I've never breathed off the wrong tank. Good thing since the "wrong tank" is 50% oxygen. At 170 feet, breathing it would be a very bad idea. Lee >> When I was first switching to independent doubles, I went with a primary >> and a secondary 2nd stage for each of my two 1st stages... In addition, >> each 1st stage also had an inflator hose for my BC... It only took me a >> dive or so to realize that although this was well redundant, it was >> probably a bit more cluttered than I really needed... > A good endorcement for manifolded twins. :-) Also, independent doubles is not usually the same as main & pony, unless Darren's pony is a 151. I'll skirt some issues and just clarify that if you've managed gas properly, your gas supply is distributed better with independents compared to main & pony, so not comparable. I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the pony (just different in plan & usage). Curtis > I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the > pony (just different in plan & usage). Nope. Your stage is part of your gas plan. A pony, pretty much by definition, isn't. Lee >> I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the >> pony (just different in plan & usage). > > Nope. Your stage is part of your gas plan. A pony, pretty much by > definition, isn't. Um, yeah, that's what I said, plan & use. I figure someone asking that question isn't looking for an essay on 5 gas technical diving, nor need an explanation of what a stage, drive, deco or pony is, he's polling on if we as a group would remove or keep two second stages on his primary air supply since he has an independent air supply. Curtis >>> I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the >>> pony (just different in plan & usage). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Um, yeah, that's what I said, plan & use. Yep, which is why it's not equivalent. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm telling someone else what they may not already know. Lee >>> Nope. Your stage is part of your gas plan. A pony, pretty much by >>> definition, isn't. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm telling someone > else what they may not already know. To the casual observer, they are both extra tanks. I saw no need to give extra, unsolicited information/ To us, totally different animals, to Darren, equivalent works from my POV. Curtis Thanks everyone So the upshot is, keep all three regs. >>>> Nope. Your stage is part of your gas plan. A pony, pretty much by >>>> definition, isn't. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Curtis > Thanks everyone > So the upshot is, keep all three regs. You're welcome. That seems to be the consensus. Of course, it's your decision to make. Almost all of us would recommend you decide based on your needs and preferences, after considering all available information, but based on your own personal preferences. Hopefully, you won't be on your way now that you have the information you requested. We've been here so long that most diving questions have been discussed to death. Nevertheless, it's still a pleasure to have someone who was not part of those discussions, ask something diving related. Lee > To us, totally different animals, to Darren, equivalent works from my POV. True, but it's never too early to learn the concepts. Lee > >> I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the > >> pony (just different in plan & usage). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or pony is, he's polling on if we as a group would remove or keep two second > stages on his primary air supply since he has an independent air supply. And already bought the bullshit from the LDS and is looking for a place to unload it, or a common sense reason to keep it. > > I carry three regs when carrying a stage, which is "equivalent" to the > > pony (just different in plan & usage). > > Nope. Your stage is part of your gas plan. A pony, pretty much by > definition, isn't. Shall we go over, again, the what and why and evolution of pony's, or allow the inclined to look it up? > I did have a problem one time breathing off of the wrong tank at 170 ft > because I was running independents and I had an octo on one of my 1st > stages... I thought I was breathing off of one tank, but I was breathing > off of the other one, but I couldn't figure out why the needle on my SPG > wasn't moving... Yeah, I was a wee bit narced at the time... Major case of > tunnel vision... Seems to me a little Helium could prevent a lot of confusion. Curtis >> > It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my >> > main cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -hh Keep your octo and rig you pony and buddy for a pony transfer. When (not if) the time comes, your buddy will use your octo while the two of you transfer your pony to your buddy. If, as it should be, your buddy had a pony, s/he wouldn't need help. >>> > It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my >>> > main cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >transfer your pony to your buddy. If, as it should be, your buddy had a >pony, s/he wouldn't need help. What the f.ck you gonna do with a four legged animal under water ? You trying to piss off peta ? >>>> > It has been suggested that I should remove the second reg from my >>>> > main cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > What the f.ck you gonna do with a four legged animal under water ? > You trying to piss off peta ? well you suck on a octupus when you dive, PERVERT > I'm trying to canvas opinion on recommended equipment configuration, I > appreciate it is a personal choice, but looking for some suggestions and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > environmentally sealed) so basically now have three regs. (2 on the main > tank, and 1 on the pony) why would you want to dive with a pony bottle when "spare air" is so good? Seriously just manage your air well > why would you want to dive with a pony bottle when "spare air" is so good? Dammit, that was a Bass Ale! Oh well, the keyboard needed to be cleaned anyway. > Seriously just manage your air well Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. -hh In article <2bfa8631-ed4c-46e5-8f82-da9637763b82 @b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says... > Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of > your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. Or to be permitted on a NJ dive boat SignatureWhy, we can have Lots of good fun, if you wish, With a game that I call UP-UP-UP with a fish! >> Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of >> your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. > > Or to be permitted on a NJ dive boat You have to have a pony to be allowed on a NJ dive boat? Is it OK if my pony says 70 on the side? Lee > >> Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of > >> your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is it OK if my pony says 70 on the side? You need a "redundant gas source". I use doubles. Your pony marked 70 might not be OK with some of the captains if you're diving deeper than 70'. I think the main reason for this is that the wrecks are in very busy areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are tied to the wrecks and almost never have a chase boat. SignatureWhy, we can have Lots of good fun, if you wish, With a game that I call UP-UP-UP with a fish! > I think the main reason for this is that the wrecks are in very busy > areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are > tied to the wrecks and almost never have a chase boat. Interesting theory. I have a bit of trouble imagining coming up off the line because I didn't have a pony. Then again, I pay attention to my gas consumption. Lee > > I think the main reason for this is that the wrecks are in very busy > > areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because I didn't have a pony. Then again, I pay attention to my gas > consumption. Most seem to dive solo here, so if one were to screw up and empty his tank or have a regulator failure, a redundant gas source could get him back to the anchor line instead of him having to do a blow and go. SignatureWhy, we can have Lots of good fun, if you wish, With a game that I call UP-UP-UP with a fish! > Most seem to dive solo here, so if one were to screw up and empty his > tank or have a regulator failure, a redundant gas source could get him > back to the anchor line instead of him having to do a blow and go. > Why, we can have > Lots of good fun, if you wish, > With a game that I call > UP-UP-UP with a fish! Blow and go is sometimes the best option. Individual mindset dependant. I miss the days of Irvine, Volker, Cobber, Blitch, Nadwidney, etc, those who know, know. All this sh.t can be easy, but it seems some "divers" need to make it death cheating trip every time they get in the water. Scuba is fence post hole simple, unless you have something to sell or push. > I miss the days of Irvine, Volker, Cobber, Blitch, Nadwidney, etc, those who > know, know. Then, gee whiz, maybe ya shouldn't have chased them off with all your off-topic profane bullshit. Just a thought. Weren't you the guy who went from complete DIR suck-up to DIR hater in less than a year? Now you want them back? Figures. >> > I think the main reason for this is that the wrecks are in very busy >> > areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tank or have a regulator failure, a redundant gas source could get him > back to the anchor line instead of him having to do a blow and go. That does make a difference. Lee > > Most seem to dive solo here, so if one were to screw up and empty his > > tank or have a regulator failure, a redundant gas source could get him > > back to the anchor line instead of him having to do a blow and go. > > That does make a difference. Then again, John's explanation is also entirely plausible. >>I think the main reason for this is that the wrecks are in very busy >>areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee I pay attention to my gas consumption, too. Amazing how fast it seems to go when yer snagged inside a wreck. esg > I pay attention to my gas consumption, too. > > Amazing how fast it seems to go when yer snagged inside a wreck. Didnt someone invent a really long snorkel? > I pay attention to my gas consumption, too. > > Amazing how fast it seems to go when yer snagged inside a wreck. Something to be avoided. Those that can't avoid it, probably should not be in wrecks. Those that are in wrecks, whether they can avoid being snagged or not, probably should carry enough extra gas to get themselves back to the boat safely. Lee > > I pay attention to my gas consumption, too. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Naw. Ya just take take Al to unsnag ya, or Popeye to tear the hull away. esg > Naw. Ya just take take Al to unsnag ya, or Popeye to tear the hull away. Up here the bugs have claws, so I've trained one to cut anything that might be snagging me and keep him as a pet. > In article <13t3jajfacj7u4a@corp.supernews.com>, omgray@earthlink.net > says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Up here the bugs have claws, so I've trained one to cut anything that > might be snagging me and keep him as a pet. ROTFL! What do you feed it, Al? New divers? 8-) SignatureArt Greenberg artg at eclipse dot net > > In article <13t3jajfacj7u4a@corp.supernews.com>, omgray@earthlink.net > > says... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What do you feed it, Al? New divers? 8-) No, new divers are too important because they keep the shops that we need for fills open. George is very fond of boat and dive shop monkeys though, and if we lose a few of those there are always more waiting to step up. >>>>Naw. Ya just take take Al to unsnag ya, or Popeye to tear the hull away. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > though, and if we lose a few of those there are always more waiting to > step up. That's pretty obvious: Homarus americanus is a scavenger, after all. esg ps - how do ya keep the leash on when he molts? > ps - how do ya keep the leash on when he molts? He's a good bug and doesn't need a leash. Part of the reason for naming him George is that it is easy to shout through a reg - you don't have to move your lips much. "Tangled" is also easy to do through a reg, as is "heel". >> ps - how do ya keep the leash on when he molts? > > He's a good bug and doesn't need a leash. Part of the reason for naming > him George is that it is easy to shout through a reg - you don't have to > move your lips much. "Tangled" is also easy to do through a reg, as is > "heel". you should have called it Ralph which is a common name for sea creatures I assume. I have seen many people calling this off the side of the boat the most common first name seems to be Oh my god > Naw. Ya just take take Al to unsnag ya, or Popeye to tear the hull away. > esg I would never do anything that might lead one of my friends to damage a national diving treasure. > You need a "redundant gas source". I use doubles. Your pony marked 70 > might not be OK with some of the captains if you're diving deeper than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are > tied to the wrecks and almost never have a chase boat. I think the main reason is to help prevent real idiots from killing themselves. I saw one guy come aboard after a dive on the Algol with his computer beeping. "Why's it beeping," asked the crewman. "Oh, that's because of the missed deco," said he. I forget how much now. More than 10 minutes and less than 30, though. As others surfaced and reported in, it became clear that he'd become entangled in his line on the wreck, run out of back gas while becoming disentangled, run his 6 cu ft pony out of air, abandoned his buddy (who surfaced after stopping safely--barely, having no air left when he hit the ladder), and grabbed a reg out of the mouth of a diver doing deco during his sprint to the surface. Did I mention his back gas was a single AL80? He also refused in-water deco, surface O2, to relax and stay still in case he was bent, etc. This yahoo would very likely have died without his pony. He damn near died *with* his pony. (Needless to say, the captain will not see him on the boat again.) It's no wonder captains are skittish. SignatureJohn Eells > > >> Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of > > >> your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > areas and they don't need anyone coming up off the lines. The boats are > tied to the wrecks and almost never have a chase boat. Why does this sound familiar... Star Wars Bar Scene ring any bells? >> why would you want to dive with a pony bottle when "spare air" is so >> good? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sometimes it can be about about managing other peoples' perceptions of > your level of risk, such as a non-diving wife. you get out of the water with 50 bar. Carrying spare air or pony bottles suggest that as a diver you will stuff up > "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you get out of the water with 50 bar. Carrying spare air or pony bottles > suggest that as a diver you will stuff up "But honey, what happens if something breaks, while you're solo diving through a chimney?" Plus, as Al points out...its a contract requirement to catch a ride on a NJ diveboat to have some sort of redundant rig. If you're not go to manifolded twins, would you really prefer a "Spare Death" over a Pony? Particularly when the latter can also be cheaper? -hh >> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > manifolded twins, would you really prefer a "Spare Death" over a > Pony? Particularly when the latter can also be cheaper? I haven't dived NJ ( New Jersey?) and find it interesting that they require you to rig for a stuff up. With all of my diving the surface is only at the most 40m away if something disastourous happens away from a buddy I will do an ESA and pray that the chopper can get to me in time. Actually in all my hundreds of dives I have only had 2 total out of air situations, one mine and one an instructors. Should start a thread about peoples experiences > I haven't dived NJ ( New Jersey?) and find it interesting that they > require you to rig for a stuff up. Yes, New Jersey. If you ever spent even a little time diving off the charter boats here. you'd understand. Captains are forced to insist on divers being prepared to f.ck up, because the incidence of "stuff ups" is historically high. IMO, this is because the training available around here largely sucks. My wife and I trained together. And our initial OW and AOW training definitely sucked. We were smart enough to realize that was the case, and we were lucky enough to find a really good instructor who straightened us out. Without that, we'd probably have given up on local diving almost immediately. > Actually in all my hundreds of dives I have only had 2 total out of > air situations, one mine and one an instructors. An instructor going OOA? That's precious. Logged 600+ dives, 99% of them with the same buddy (my wife), and neither of us has even come close to an OOA, or any other "stuff up" of consequence. Yet. SignatureArt Greenberg artg at eclipse dot net > Logged 600+ dives, 99% of them with the same buddy (my wife), and > neither of us has even come close to an OOA, or any other "stuff up" of > consequence. Yet. One of my dearest friends was a combat dive instructor, combat dive supervisor, and did 13 years with the 7th SFG. He has more logged hours on rebreathers than any person alive. When doing his pre-flight he uses a check list, every time. If someone interrupts, he stops, turns away from the SCUBA and when he is done he starts from line 1. Why? He has it down. Done it 10,000 times. Why? Because he loves his family. >> I haven't dived NJ ( New Jersey?) and find it interesting that they >> require you to rig for a stuff up. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > An instructor going OOA? That's precious. HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got his gauges back on another dive >>> I haven't dived NJ ( New Jersey?) and find it interesting that they >>> require you to rig for a stuff up. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got his > gauges back on another dive As Al pointed out, it will cut yer dive time, but hardly put you into an ooa situation. The real pain is that the noise scares the bugs. Ya have to turn off yer air, get the bug, turn on yer air until ya spot another, turn off yer air.... PITA! esg >>>> I haven't dived NJ ( New Jersey?) and find it interesting that they >>>> require you to rig for a stuff up. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > As Al pointed out, it will cut yer dive time, but hardly put you into an > ooa situation. your right, all of my instructors air pissing out of his HP hose and we should of discussed how long it would take for him to be in a ooa situation, he IMHO quite correctly grabbrd my other reg and we held hands to the surface. I agree with RSC I have only been in one ooa situation. > The real pain is that the noise scares the bugs. Ya have to turn off yer > air, get the bug, turn on yer air until ya spot another, turn off yer > air.... PITA! the noise the bubbles were really quite interesting. More so for my brother > HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got > his gauges back on another dive They might 'tend' to, but HP hose failures haven't been a cause of serious OOA's since they changed regulator 1st Stages to have pinhole orifices 25 years ago (1982). From data that _Undercurrent_ collected where it took an otherwise unrestricted HP port 20 minutes to lose (2500-400)psi, if you assume linearity, this works out to a flow rate of ~105psi/min, or very roughly 3 cubic feet per minute. The original article (February 1999) is still online, here: http://www.undercurrent.org/UCnow/articles/SpareAir9902.shtml At the above measure rate, this means that a full AL80 would indeed take roughly 30 minutes to bleed itself empty from a catastrophically blown HP hose on a post-1982 regulator, and an AL80 halfway through a dive would still take 15 minutes to empty. -hh >> HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got >> his gauges back on another dive [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > blown HP hose on a post-1982 regulator, and an AL80 halfway through a > dive would still take 15 minutes to empty. cool it wasn't an ooa situation. However it was a very interesting situation. A situation that I am pleased to say I didn't panic in and handled it as any true PADI trained diver would, calmly and collectively and had 10 schooners later on > > HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got > > his gauges back on another dive [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > blown HP hose on a post-1982 regulator, and an AL80 halfway through a > dive would still take 15 minutes to empty. Yeah, who worries about a blown hose? >> > HP hose blowing tends to put you in a ooa situation. We actually got >> > his gauges back on another dive [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yeah, who worries about a blown hose? you'd just shoot it > > Yeah, who worries about a blown hose? > > you'd just shoot it Don't let them get to you. Every one of them has had their moment at some point in time. As you said, the main thing is that there was no panic. This has been discussed many many times over the years. We are all agreed, that the main thing is, that no matter what, one doesn't panic. The other thing that has been discussed many times, but not recently . . is that it isn't generally one thing that gets ya. It's usually a combination of things going wrong and that's why if one thing goes wrong, despite it being no "biggie", one should surface and not just "pooh pooh" whatever minor detail has arisen. > This has been discussed many many times over the years. We are all > agreed, > that the main thing is, that no matter what, one doesn't panic. Those of us that are not prone to panic, are often very surprised at those that are. I can't ever recall a significant problem with panic, despite having been in some situations where panic was probably very justified. It's hard for me to comprehend people that react differently. I have no basis for understanding. I know several people that absolutely and completely freeze any time a situation occurs that they're not prepared for. There's no "stop, think, act" series for these people. They get no further than "stop." I suspect this is also a major reason why there are such heated arguments about diving related drills and why some are so absolutely certain that the only way to deal with an emergency is to follow a set process you've practiced over and over, while others are equally certain that the best way to deal with any situation is to consider all options and select among them. I used to think that both approaches can't be right. I've learned, over time, that I was wrong. The best approach may not be, and probably isn't, the same for all people. It's a little like Dirty Harry said. Every man (woman) has to know his (her) limitations. > The other thing that has been discussed many times, but not recently . . > is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being no "biggie", one should surface and not just "pooh pooh" whatever > minor detail has arisen. Case in point. This is a standard type of response to the question. My response would be different, better for me, but maybe not better for you or others. I consider each issue and it's implications relative to other things that might be affected, and make my decision based on my perception of the change in risk. An example that comes to mind is a leak in my low pressure inflator valve that slowly, but continuously, bled gas into my BCD. I considered what it meant to me, how it might be temporarily dealt with, and decided it was not a big enough deal to worry about. In my normal configuration. even a complete failure of my BCD is not a big deal. I simply disconnected the hose until I could address the problem properly. Lee > Yeah, who worries about a blown hose? Perhaps Clinton should have? And yet another topic morphs into a sex thread... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Until recently I was diving on a single 15l cylinder with my main reg and an > octopus as backup. Mares proton ice extreme main reg and Mares metal octopus [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cylinder, and just keep my single main regulator on the 15l and the single > reg on the pony as backup. Just curious, who makes the 151? I would carry the pony like a deco/stage tank, with the reg stowed and the gas turned off. I would put a 39" (standard octo hose) or longer hose on my primary second stage, and put the alternate second stage from the 151 on a necklace. If you are going to back mount the pony, put its second stage out of the way but where you can get at it and rig your primary reg as above. If you need to donate a second stage, you give the OOA diver the one in your mouth (the one he's going to try to take anyway) and go to your alternate on the necklace. > I would carry the pony like a deco/stage tank, with the reg stowed and > the gas turned off. I would put a 39" (standard octo hose) or longer > hose on my primary second stage, and put the alternate second stage from > the 151 on a necklace. That's probably because you've been strongly influenced by DIR concepts. I stole a technique they use for a different purpose and applied it to carrying my pony, when I carry a pony. I bought a couple of their figure 8 straps, the ones used to secure an argon bottle, and use them to retain a small pony, usually a 30 cubic foot one. Like you, I tend to carry it with the valve off. I carry it upside down to make it easier to turn the valve on if necessary. I either clip the pony regulator off to a D ring or use a piece of inner tube to stow it along the bottle. Either way works well. This has the advantage of getting the pony bottle out of my way. It's almost as easy as diving without one. Some think my inability to donate the pony easily is a disadvantage. While acknwledging that it is more difficult, I don't see that as a problem. I'm a lot more willing to share gas than I am to give up control of the gas I brought with me. Like you, I have my alternate on a necklace. I'd say that the necklaced alternate is the most universally useful thing to come out of the DIR group if it were not for the fact that necklaced second stages predate DIR by a significant margin. My first single hose regulator came with one. > If you need to donate a second stage, you give the OOA diver the one in > your mouth (the one he's going to try to take anyway) and go to your > alternate on the necklace. Yep. Discussion of pony bottles brings up another interesting issue. Most, if not all, of the certification agencies have abandoned buddy breathing training in favor sharing gas via the primary and/or alternate. Unless you have a primary and alternate on your pony, or stage, it's probably a good idea to learn and practice buddy breathing from a single second stage, no matter what the agencies say. Lee > Just curious, who makes the 151? It's not a 151, it's a 15l (i.e. 15L, 15-liter)... Depending upon the font you're using in your newsreader, the lower case 'l' might look like the numeral '1'... Remember back when typewriters didn't have a numeric '1' key and we used the lower case 'l' for it? Kind of showing my age, I guess... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. In article <pan.2008.03.07.15.21.22.391000@grumman581-usenet-2008- spambob-net>, grumman581-usenet-2008@spambob.net says... > It's not a 151, it's a 15l (i.e. 15L, 15-liter)... Depending upon the font > you're using in your newsreader, the lower case 'l' might look like the > numeral '1'... > > Remember back when typewriters didn't have a numeric '1' key and we used > the lower case 'l' for it? Kind of showing my age, I guess... Duh. I also remember when typewriters came with girls who knew ho to work them. > In article <pan.2008.03.07.15.21.22.391000@grumman581-usenet-2008- > spambob-net>, grumman581-usenet-2008@spambob.net says... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I also remember when typewriters came with girls who knew ho to work > them. And the other assets... >> Remember back when typewriters didn't have a numeric '1' key and we used >> the lower case 'l' for it? Kind of showing my age, I guess... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I also remember when typewriters came with girls who knew ho to work > them. This'll make you reconsider just how old you are. Do you realize that there's an entire generation that may never have even seen a typewriter. Lee > >> Remember back when typewriters didn't have a numeric '1' key and we used > >> the lower case 'l' for it? Kind of showing my age, I guess... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This'll make you reconsider just how old you are. Do you realize that > there's an entire generation that may never have even seen a typewriter. We still have one that gets a reasonable amount of use in our office. Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! >> >> Remember back when typewriters didn't have a numeric '1' key and we > used [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We still have one that gets a reasonable amount of use in our office. > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! I use the 35mm Glock typewriter but only in DGU situations against those liberals Hillary supporters > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! It's your fault. You mentioned that the l (L) in some fonts looked like an l (One), which led to a comment about how typewriters didn't used to have a 1 (One), using an l instead. The rest is history. That's how things happen around here. We've all known each other for a long time. Many of us have met and been diving with one another. We often describe rec.scuba as a community bar, where anything and everything is likely to be discussed. Lee > > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > describe rec.scuba as a community bar, where anything and everything is > likely to be discussed. And from there, the tangent might mention touch-typing versus hunt and peck. From hunt and peck, the tangent will go into hunting. Hunting, of course often requires guns (next tangent) Thus, another "logically arrived at" gun thread. At least it wasn't started by mentioning that the crack of the failing HP hose sounded "like a gunshot", because then the tangent would NOT have been able to take the scenic bypass :-) -hh > > > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > > > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > HP hose sounded "like a gunshot", because then the tangent would NOT > have been able to take the scenic bypass :-) Another classic. > > > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > > > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And from there, the tangent might mention touch-typing versus hunt and > peck. I dunno, JMHO. It might be a tad more interesting around here, if from "touch", you guys could get to "sex" instead of to "guns". (snip) > I dunno, JMHO. It might be a tad more interesting around here, if from > "touch", you guys could get to "sex" instead of to "guns". Different, to say the least, or maybe not. There's always been a presumed link between firearms and sex. The problem with sex is multilevel: 1. While it's fun to talk about, chances of misinterpretation, and the consequences thereof, are significant. 2. Many of us are married or otherwise committed to another. Not all spouses or significant others are as secure with their spouse as Jayna is. Even Jayna may not be as secure as I think she is. Sex is much higher risk, on a personal level, than guns. 3. Many of us, including some that are married, are ever so slightly perverted, at least in the eyes of those with different sexual standards. Playing with bananas, for example, seems perfectly normal to me, but might not be considered quite so acceptable to another. Sex, politics and religion, are always dangerous topics. Enough relationships have already been ruined by gun topics. Why risk the rest of them? OK, now that I've given all the reasons why discussions of sex are dangerous, let's start one. You go first. <perverted, leering, grin> Lee > OK, now that I've given all the reasons why discussions of sex are > dangerous, let's start one. > You go first. <perverted, leering, grin> God gave women tits so men would talk to them. God gave men a penis because He had to do something with the f.cking thing. Lee Bell wrote >> OK, now that I've given all the reasons why discussions of sex are >> dangerous, let's start one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > God gave men a penis because He had to do something with the f.cking > thing. You're not the "you" I was talking to. I respectfully decline to join a sex discussion with a man. > Lee Bell wrote > >> OK, now that I've given all the reasons why discussions of sex are > >> dangerous, let's start one. > >> You go first. <perverted, leering, grin> > > God gave women tits so men would talk to them. > > God gave men a penis because He had to do something with the f.cking > > thing. > You're not the "you" I was talking to. I respectfully decline to join a sex > discussion with a man. Gotcha. =;-) Hey, while we are at it, ask upchuck about Mitzi Del Bra. >> Lee Bell wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hey, while we are at it, ask upchuck about Mitzi Del Bra. No I can't get any of Mitzi Del Bra's dresses for you you'll have to buy you own for your Saturday night pub trolls. > "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I dunno, JMHO. It might be a tad more interesting around here, if from > "touch", you guys could get to "sex" instead of to "guns". Touch Typing --> those little raised dots on the F & J keys. Raised keyboard Dots --> Braille language Braille language --> Esperanto (both are modern fabricated languages) Esperanto --> Expresso Expresso --> served with Dessert Desserts --> Good Restaurants Good Restaurants --> Good Places to take Dates End of a Date --> "Want to come up for a nightcap?" Nightcap --> are we there yet? :-) -hh >>>>Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > (snip) sex usually only involves 'one shot' guns could provide many! > > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message > > > sex usually only involves 'one shot' guns could provide many! You aren't doing it right. >>>"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message >> >>sex usually only involves 'one shot' guns could provide many! > > You aren't doing it right. it wouldn't surprise me at all > You aren't doing it right. I seem to remember we already had this conversation... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > sex usually only involves 'one shot' guns could provide many! Greg'll come along and suggest everyone else be disarmed. >> sex usually only involves 'one shot' guns could provide many! > >Greg'll come along and suggest everyone else be disarmed. Maybe Greg has been disarmed, perhaps that is why he has such fuzzy thinking > Thanks to everyone for their opinions, but how did a question about diving > regs, get onto a discussion about typewriters! BARKEEP A beer and a shot for the new guy, please. > Duh. > > I also remember when typewriters came with girls who knew ho to work them. And quite a few guys over the years have seen problems develop with how they utlized those typewriting services... <dirty-old-man-grin> SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > It's not a 151, it's a 15l (i.e. 15L, 15-liter)... Depending upon the font > you're using in your newsreader, the lower case 'l' might look like the > numeral '1'... my guess was a new 120, since 104s are now called 130s. Hell, I've known all along mine should have been called 170s. Curtis yes, 15l meant 15 Litre what is a 120, 104s ,130s, 170s Now I'm confused >> It's not a 151, it's a 15l (i.e. 15L, 15-liter)... Depending upon the >> font [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Curtis > yes, 15l meant 15 Litre > > what is a 120, 104s ,130s, 170s > Now I'm confused <snip> A 120 is a 120 cubic foot tank. Similarly, a 104 is 104 cu ft, etc. When there's an "S" after the size, it usually means either two or more of the same kind of tank or, commonly in this NG, doubles. So "104s" often refer to two 104 cubic foot tanks (usually) banded together so the assembly can be bolted to a back plate and (usually) manifolded together. Whether the plural or doubling is intended is usually clear from context. The exception on this list is 170s, which were sort of a joke. So far as I know, nobody makes a tank intended to hold 170 cu ft. But if you overfill large steel tanks (a very common practice in the cave diving community, and to a slightly lesser extent in the general tech diving community) you can stuff more air into them. Overfilled 120s or 130s thusly overfilled might be referred to as "170s." SignatureJohn Eells >> yes, 15l meant 15 Litre >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > community) you can stuff more air into them. Overfilled 120s or 130s > thusly overfilled might be referred to as "170s." I got this doo-hickey form a Rec.scuban ten years ago. Handiest damn thing on the computer, and the price is right. Downloads lickety-split. http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/ Puts an icon on the desktop. It's evolved, too, over the years, with more tabs. Enjoy, compliments of Rudy Benner. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com Darren > what is a 120, 104s ,130s, 170s > Now I'm confused American cylinders are identified by the amount of gas they hold at their rated pressure, if the gas were expanded to 1 ATA pressure. My 30 cubic foot pony/deco bottle, for example, holds an amount of gas at 3,000 psi, that, if allowed to expand to 1 ATA, would fill 30 cubic feet. The standard, and most common tank in the US is an 80 cubic foot tank. 120, 104, 130, and 170s are progressively larger. I currently own 2, 30 cubic foot tanks (3,000 psi), 2 40 cubic foot tanks (3,000 psi), at least 7, 80 cubic foot tanks (7, 3,300 psi and one 3,000 psi) and two 100 cubic foot tanks (3,500 psi.) Lee Blimey over here in the UK we measure by the litre. so for curiosity.... I have 2 x 15 litre tanks and a 3 litre pony. All rated to 232 Bar (1 bar = 14.5 psi) Therefore I have 2 x 15 litre at 3300psi 1 x 3 litre at 3300psi how does this convert into cubic feet As I say, just curious so when I read the posts, it makes more sense Darren that > Darren > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lee > Blimey > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > As I say, just curious so when I read the posts, it makes more sense Simple math conversion... Constants that you might like to know: 28.316736 liters per cu-ft... 1 bar = 14.50377 psi 1 atm = 14.6959 psi Calculation: 232 bar tank = 228.966197712 atm = 3364.87464 psi 15 liters = 0.52962 cu-ft * 228.96197712 atm = 121.26507763222944 cu-ft The 3 liter tank calculation is left as an exercise to the reader, though as a not-so-rough guess, it is quite likely to be 1/5 (i.e 3/15) of the value of the 15 liter tank since their service pressures are equal... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Blimey. Over here in the UK we measure by the litre. It's not the units that are different, but the concepts. We measure by volume too, but we're measuring a different volume. You measure the volume of the vessel, the tank or bottle. Your tank designation is independent of the rated pressure of the bottle. We measure the volume of gas in the bottle, at the tank's rated maximum pressure, it's capacity, regardless of its internal volume. For example, we have low (around 2,600 psi) pressure tanks, standard (usually 3,000 psi) tanks, neutral buoyant (usually 3,300 psi) tanks and high pressure (around 3,500 psi) tanks. You might well have four tanks, with four different internal volumes, that all hold 80 cubic feet of gas. If you took all four tanks, and allowed the gas inside to expand to 1 ata, all four would produce enough gas to fill 80 cubic feet. That makes it a bit hard to relate directly to your tank identification convention. It's not the units, it's the concept behind the methods that's different. Having said that, here's a bit of information that may help you put things in perspective. A standard 80 cubic foot tank (3,000 psi) has an internal volume of approximately 11 liters. A high pressure 100 cubic foot tank (3,500 psi) also has an internal volume of apprximately 11 liters. Lee > how does this convert into cubic feet > > As I say, just curious so when I read the posts, it makes more sense Here's a simple (i.e. quick and dirty) calculator that I created from my previous post... You can look at the source code of the HTML to determine the formula... http://grumman581.googlepages.com/scuba-metric-tank-calc.htm SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. Thank you >> how does this convert into cubic feet >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://grumman581.googlepages.com/scuba-metric-tank-calc.htm
|
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message