89 replies to this topic

[Trimix2dive]

how bout flames on the tanks.

[David Evans]

Sweeeeeeeet! Maybe they could be used to cover the "Nitrox" stickers.....

[Trimix2dive]

damn straight my man. now thats an idea man there.

how bout doubles painted as rockets with tail ends as flames.


SWEEEEEEET !!!!

Cover every damn sticker

[steelemagnolia6]

I can't paint flames on mine that would make it look to much like Gordon's car and they'd take my hair spray and throw me out of the club....


Maybe a red eight???

[David Evans]

Believe the Flames are brewing...

^
^
^
^

Posted by Frank (fbp) the Prophet on page 2 of this thread.....

[drdiver]

flames and a Devil with horns????

[fbp]

Surprised it took this long...
and this is just a simmer...

Flames???
Flames You Say !!!!
http://www.scubahides.com/custom.php

or
like this:
http://www.scubahide.../skins_work.php

Go for it... heheh.. I think it'd be kewl...
As noted, like the space shuttle...
Flames on the botton Tank Holders...
Oh, I forgot, some don't allow Tank Holders..

Sigh, whatever happened to the good ole days....

Can't we all just get along...

To continuing the "Discussion"...

[steelemagnolia6]

Bahhhhhhhhhhh who needs flames... How about a jolly roger???

or a with the bullet hole in the center of the forehead???

[Trimix2dive]

smiley face with a bullet in the forehead would work too.

[steelemagnolia6]

Yeah it says something doesn't it.....

[Genesis]

OK, first on the O2.

Welding bottles are not vacuumed before being filled. Not a good idea to use that stuff, but its PROBABLY ok. I get ABO (Aviators BREATHING oxygen) for my mixing which does not require a prescription. Medical grade is actually INFERIOR by label, but as was mentioned, it all comes out of the same cryo flask.

Second, on the DIR "stuff". The very NAME is elitist. It was not chosen in a vacuum either - it was and is INTENTIONAL. If you want to play that game, have at it. I prefer to dive rather than strut around showing up how big my willy is - there's only one person who cares about its size anyway, and she's on her way to dive with some of you this weekend...

As for the various deco strategies, all dives ARE decompression dives. This is why a slow ascent is so important. All the "stop every 10 feet" really does is insure that you ascend SLOWLY - its a bass-ackwards way of saying SLOW THE HELL DOWN on the way up. Yes, you feel better if you do. That's because most recreational divers ascend WAY too fast. 30fpm is a MAXIMUM once you reach where your fastest tissues start to offgas - not a minimum! If you come to a full stop every 10' it is virtually impossible to exceed 30fpm. So there you go.

But be very careful with the DIR stuff. Their method of thinking is indeed tested on their people - all of whom are nowhere near "average". What GI can get away with in terms of deco will bend 90% of the recreational divers out there - he is in a much higher state of physical fitness than most divers, and further, he just has a good genetically-endowed vascular system (from his own testing.) He played guinea pig and won. You can play and lose. Is it really that big of a deal to spend a few more minutes in the water and lower the risk of a bad dice roll today? I don't think so.

The "shape" of a decompression curve is not something to be credited to DIR. Credit where credit is due here - Erik Baker is probably the "father" of the modern decompression curve. Bruce has certainly contributed, but there is a disturbing pattern in computers and tables cut with his math - no two produce the same output, and when I and others have tried to nail him down on which is the 'correct' calibration he has run away from the debate and refused to give a straight answer.

This is frightening, as it means that people have to twist knobs in his algorythm to get "acceptable" output. Now - which setting of those "knobs" is correct? You don't know, neither do I, and neither, apparently, does Bruce, because he won't opine on the matter and allows people to sell his stuff with them twisted this way or that.

Also, beware the claims of "RGBM" in computers. Suunto claims it but they really aren't RGBM. They are running a straight Buhlmann (much older) algorythm with RGBM "microbubble" computations on top of it to figure out if it should penalize you on repretivie dives or not. This is not a true RGBM computer! Ditto for virtually ALL of the others on the market.

The exception is the Hydrospace Explorer, which is a technical computer, has a spotty history in terms of reliability and is VERY spendy.

If you're looking for a tech computer wait a month or two and buy the VR3 when it comes out with VPM in it (very soon). You will be able to switch between VPM (a modern algo) and the current Buhlmann+GF model that is in there now - even between dives if you wish. Or just dive the current model but use a VPM-style ascent profile - not difficult to do with the current unit at all (I own one)

BTW VPM can be had in software form from Ross H (runs on a laptop or palm) to cut custom tables with. This is not a bad option.

[BradfordNC]

Thanks for the input....just curious why they choose the word "stroke" as the insult of choice.

it refers to inexperianced divers who try using their hands to move underwater instead of just using their fins.
surface swimmers use their arms to "stroke" on the surface.

[BradfordNC]

The exception is the Hydrospace Explorer, which is a technical computer, has a spotty history in terms of reliability and is VERY spendy.

the Explorer is far more conservative than the VR3, or the Suunto Vytec.

[bigblueplanet]

On the topic of gasses. Filling in the dive industry is actually regulated. However, pretty much every dive shop on the planet does not fill to the standard. So, it really does not matter to worry about that. If OSHA were to go into almost any US shop they could site the operation for their fill station.

I doubt any dive shop in the US is licensed to dispense oxygen via FDA regulations. The presciption deal really was a move to put oxygen some where in the medical chain of command, so to speak. It is likely it was drivien by getting COPD patients oxygen covered by their insurance. Oxygen is useful in medicine, but to call it a presciption drug is a joke. So, let the debate on oxygen be had by the government types.

Dive stores should fill with USP grade or aviators grade oxygen. Yes, it all comes off the same whip and same supply. Aviator's grade is the same stuff as USP, it does not have moisture removed. Think about it. There is not going to be moisture in a supply of liquid oxygen. The water would be forzen out way before it is delivered to a cylinder.

The moisture issue was an issue when they made oxygen from reverse electrolysis from water. Then, there would be moisture in the oxygen supply that would freeze the regulator up at high altitude. Modern oxygen supplies do not have that problem as they are pulled from liquid oxygen supply.

Welding grade is the same gas, but they do not pre-evacuate the cylinders before filling them. Yes, I know it is cuttin gas, but it is called welding grade by the suppliers I deal with.

The issue for a store comes if something happens. Welding grade leaves open potential action on the product. Technically, welding grade is not considered breathing grade. This could be viewed as a problem. I am not a lawyer, so do not take this as legal advice. It is best to document everything and use USP grade gas for oxygen.

Helium is a different deal. Welding grade may not be pure helium. So, USP is the minimum grade. USP is actually the lowest breathing grade for helium. Commercial, research and several others are higher. Again, they all come off the same whip. Just the certification of what they say is in there is higher. It is all in the garuantee. Many shops seem to be having problems getting helium fills and oxygen fills. I would say talk to the higher ups. It is often just having a discussion with the proper safety person to get them to understand you are not an idiot about it and you can get your gas.

FYI, dive shops do have USP and aviator grade oxygen. I have seen both in many places.

DIR is a movement trying to establish a system for diving that is independent of environment. I am not DIR. There are good DIR divers out there. My beef is their delivery and approach to getting the message out. They are divisive. It comes from the top. In my world, the fish rots from the head down. They would be way more effective if they tried an inclusive method of delivery.

I also question a message that requires the purchase of the message givers equipment and they are the only supplier of the training in the message. So, is the system a philosophical approach or a marketing message. They also have a tendancy to make it sound like they discovered all they teach themselves acting like they do not stand on the shoulders of giants. It has hardly occured in a vacuum.

There are other systems out there. Investigate for yourself what approach is best suited for you.

In general, Cambrian Foundation approach is to rig for wreck and dive cave technique, be multi-mode and multi-environment capable. Train the brain and the skills will follow. There is no one kit for all dives, CCR is useful technology when dived and designed properly. Team accomplishment is more important than any one individual's. It takes many to do any of it.

It is very important to learn to do things one way well. It is also important to learn how to make changes as your diving requires, but even more important to know how to work up those changes once they are made. It is about awareness of all that is going on before, during, and after a dive. The idea is to be able to dive in the environment you choose with the appropriate kit to optimize performance with minimal workup time.

So, DIR is what it is. If you have a desire to learn about it then go and invest in the training. Price should never be the issue when discussing training. It is a cheap investment at any price. I would rather have a good brain surgeon than a cheap one. I have spent twice what I did on my college education on my diving education. I have chased after those I thought to be the best in the area I wanted to learn. I take at least a month of continuing education a year. ALL of the people I have worked with under charge for what they deliver. Every single one. At the time, the price I paid was not easy to come up with, often. But, now it is all so much cheaper than what I took from the courses.

So, I encourage all to learn from all sources. But, realize that in diving there are many self appointed experts. You do not learn to dive on the internet. You must get wet.

Funny thing is that most of those assholes that were discussed earlier in this post dissolve in water.

So, I have yet to see anyone group that has the answers. As one of the leading dive physiologists, Dr, Bill Hamilton likes to say when asked what is the best deco to do is, "I would suggest doing something rather than nothing." It is far from an exact science.

As to GI and WKPP deco work. They are the bunnies in the box as was stated earlier. I would not recommend anyone look at what they do and model from it. They are using extremely dangerous choices in their approach. For example, they move rapidly from 50 to 30 feet after long dives at 250, to allow for getting on oxygen sooner. They do it in a habitat, so oxtox is dealt with. However, they are counting on respiratory washout of the bubbles that are created during this accelleration in the schedule. Not a good thing to do for the average recreational diver. Probably not too good for them either. Also, I would not count on them not having been bent. Several members of the WKPP have been and it is likely that those saying they have not, actually have. Perhaps seeking treamtment away from the diving area. But, I am not here to address any of that. It is an interesting pool of data, how useful is not really known.

DIR does rely on self selecting the best physiology before the process begins. So, the data is not universal nor appliable to recreational divers at all.

They also rely of predive exercise to increase bend prevention. Their thoughts on exercise are off, but they do get a benefit from the work they do. It is far more likely they would receive greater benefit from resistance training. Also, just from a practical stand point, the increase power in going to do more in an emergency than higher VO2 max without any muscle. The research they rely on for their information on nitric oxide is based on aerobic training, simply because it is all that the researcher could afford to study. Resistance training actually produces three to four times the nitric oxide as aerobic exercise does. The doc that did the studies actually said he does not know because all he has studied was aerobic exercise. He has not been able to study anaerobic yet. He thinks it would be likely to show more benefit. Plus, being strong in an emergency is likely to help more than being a marathoner. Also, VO2 max in not only increased through aerobic work. Anyway, this is way off topic.

So, DIR is not as novel as DIR would like to think. 95% of what they present as their own is simply not. No one works in a vacuum. A great diver from any system is going to be a great diver. DIR (GUE stakeholders) would have you believe differently. The problem is that no system produces very many great divers, not even DIR. A whole other discussion topic.

So, any system is only as good as its operator. Use whatever resources you can to build your knowledge pool and work hard to be the best diver you can be. Whatever system you decide to receive training in, find an instructor that you feel you can partner with and work the system to gain all you can. Then, make the changes you feel you need to for your needs and work those changes back into the dives you are doing.

Grant

[bigblueplanet]

Oh. One more thing. As if I have not said enough already.

Stops are not just about slowing ascent down. They actually work better than a slow linear ascent. Experimental data clearly shows that stops work better. In fact, this data goes all the way back to the original work. Linear ascents were compared with staged stops. The result for linear ascents was far worse than for staged stops.

It is also important to realize that with deep stops, extending time at depth for extended periods while conducting deep stops is not without a cost. Time at depth does continue ongassing of inert gasses. Deep stops are important for bubble management, but this is not an RGBM or VPM invention. Richard Pyle is the first to publish actually doing it although most of us were doing some form of it simply because it seemed crazy to rush up to shallow depths to begin decompression.

These bubble models have become more conservative in their shallow stops as they have evolved. So, the dramatic difference seen on earlier models in run times is become less the case.

What is evolving is the use of bubble models to control bubble growth at depth and use of pressure gradient models to manage gradient effects shallow. If you do not grow bubbles coming up, perhaps we can shave some shallow stop time. the problem is if you are wrong that shallow work is in your slow tissues, so the damage can have some significant long term effects. Also, many of the bends we are seeing in tech divers show profound hits in CNS systems. Which probably means the shallow stops are not the issue. Performance at depth is likely the result of inner ear hits. Again, no significant data, just what is backed up by other data. So, we are far from fact on any of the deco stuff. It could be entention of time working deep stops in excess of what the models assume. I have heard of very slow ascents from depth and extended stop times that are not put into the model. These could load in a way that could cause problems, but we just do not know yet.

The best practice at the moment is to use deep stops yet manage shallow work with gradient models. Part of the issue is that there are camps that are putting out theory as fact. Also, clear misunderstanding on how the concepts work. We have seen some cases with people believing it is okay to use excellerated schedules without the use of oxygen. Also, using models with trimix without high oxygen mixtures when the model was developed with high oxygen mixtures being assumed. Not sure why a tech diver would choose to not use oxygen, but perhaps they do not have the required skills to manage their performance to allow for them to feel safe using oxygen. Of course, if that is the case, perhaps these people should not be tech diving. Ah, but that would be fantasy.

Grant

Edited by bigblueplanet, 05 July 2005 - 04:30 AM.