Distribution block question.....

[Mitchell Teeters]

For the record, I have seen the err of my way and will not go the gas distribution block method.

 

[billgraham]

Another quick thought on this--if you've got a rig that is so radically different that it's hard for people to help you, it's difficult to find people to dive with. Sidemount divers are known for being innovative and individual, but any normal independant tanks and regulators, a long hose and a sidemount harness will enable you to dive with just about any kind of team--backmount, sidemount, CCR, whatever.

 

[Kevin Carlisle]

I don't know about your cave class, but in ours, we were required to exit at the same speed or faster that we went in while sharing gas in a zero-vis scenario. If you're taking twice as long, then something is very wrong.

Have you ever been involved in a real emergency? Things are all nice and controlled Luke when an instructor is involved watching.

This is the funniest thread I have read on here in a long time. No wonder we dont see these IT'D guys di img caves down this way. I dont think they would live very long in this sm gadget of theirs.

 

[karstdvr]

Remember I said I wouldn't recommend it and probably no one doing cave or technical dives would dive with you either.

I would agree,from the context this is a tech diving subforum. Unfortunately since sidemount is becoming the next OW rig,especially with PADI marketing it,then recreational OW needs a sidemount subforum to discuss convoluted non-tech diving ideas FWIW.

 

[Kevrumbo]

"If you can adequately explain and rationalize your delusion, then you are Philosopher [or the founder & head of a Diving Certification & Equipment Agency]. . . else you are a paranoid lunatic"

UTD's 10 Covenants - Unified Team Diving
5. Consistent Modular Equipment Configuration – An equipment configuration that is consistent, scalable and interchangable within the team for all types of diving and diving environments.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

5. Consistent Modular Equipment Configuration – An equipment configuration that is consistent, scalable and interchangable within the team for all types of diving and diving environments.

At the expense of additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear, and additional/non-standardized(read as inconsistant, non-scalable, and non-interchangable) steps towards a self rescue.



Does anyone see the WIN in this?

I sures hell don't.

 

[randytay]

At the expense of additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear, and additional/non-standardized(read as inconsistant, non-scalable, and non-interchangable) steps towards a self rescue.

My experience is no where near yours but here's a question: The so-called additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear etc etc as you put it, are they theoretical or have you actually dove with them and find it so? Did you come to this conclusion based on a, again, theoretical comparison or did you actually try both configuration in a team to come to this conclusion?

Case in point as an example but off-topic: When the Gracies were no one famous, everyone said their system was ineffective and idealistic and that they (those who were talking) will knock any Gracies out before they can even attempt a shoot. Those are theoretical. Once in the ring and/or on the mat, the talkers ALL got choked out or tapped out on a submission hold.

No, I am not flaming nor attacking, just asking if you based your conclusion on real world experience or theory.

 

[PfcAJ]

Any system where the solution to fixing a leak involves turning off all your gas (still laughing at this) is poorly thought out. Does anyone need to dive it to be sure of that?

 

[Doppler]

My experience is no where near yours but here's a question: The so-called additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear etc etc....

Do not want to put words into anyone's mouth; however, it may be worthwhile to consider that one does not have to eat **** to know that the taste is awful... and one does not have to dive a convoluted piece of **** to form a strong opinion that it is a convoluted piece of ****.

The principles of Bill Main's outlook -- which is not a bad starting point in a discussion about dive gear and kit configuration -- are: simple, serviced, standard, shared, suitable, and streamlined... I believe failure on three or four points constitutes a strike out and then some.

And of course the mention of Bill Hogarth Main's outlook on kit configuration is only rolled out here because one keeps seeing this tag "DIR Practioner". I am totally in the dark as to what that means, but I do know that guys like JJ stood on the shoulders of pioneers like Bill to develop later itterations of kit "lore." The bottom line is we would do well to go back to the source on occassion just to see what Muppetts we have become.

 

[Kevrumbo]

My experience is no where near yours but here's a question: The so-called additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear etc etc as you put it, are they theoretical or have you actually dove with them and find it so? Did you come to this conclusion based on a, again, theoretical comparison or did you actually try both configuration in a team to come to this conclusion?

Case in point as an example but off-topic: When the Gracies were no one famous, everyone said their system was ineffective and idealistic and that they (those who were talking) will knock any Gracies out before they can even attempt a shoot. Those are theoretical. Once in the ring and/or on the mat, the talkers ALL got choked out or tapped out on a submission hold.

No, I am not flaming nor attacking, just asking if you based your conclusion on real world experience or theory.

At the expense of additional failure points, poorly placed and poorly thought out additional gear, and additional/non-standardized(read as inconsistant, non-scalable, and non-interchangable) steps towards a self rescue.



Does anyone see the WIN in this?

I sures hell don't.

. . . CCR Cave Divers seem to be doing okay with QC6 or QC4 connections into distribution blocks --what makes them so prohibitively unreliable or unapplicable to the Z-system SM???

Any system where the solution to fixing a leak involves turning off all your gas (still laughing at this) is poorly thought out. Does anyone need to dive it to be sure of that?

You don't turn-off ALL your gas . . .only the tank with the downstream leak and disconnect its QC6 feed into the distribution block. You have your buddy there for long-hose donation OR tank swap-out if y'all need to negotiate a restriction on egress. As a last resort, you can always remove & replace that first stage reg with the downstream leak with another functional first stage from an empty tank (and hope you can clear & breath from it). . .