This is getting out of hand. Maybe it is because I read pages 1-3 then 12-15 to see where the thread went. After reading the remaining pages, I have found Tobin to be generally well mannered, logical, and consistent in his posts. The information he provides is always top notch and very clearly communicated. I don't see the anger or blowhardedness* that some people are apparently sensing in his posts.
Tobin has been clear that there are all kinds of training and that he never said one should go do a doubles course. I am a diver just starting on his tech career and I found the original question to have a strong hint of someone who "just didin't know". I am not saying that as a negative or to demean them, but reading any number of tech threads on this site in conjunction with a google search on "DIR equipment or tech set up" would have provided loads of material on the proper reg set up and basic equipment. For those that argue this is the place to ask such questions, I agree, but I am also one to do as much research as
i can before I ask the questions.
Agilis clearly has a lot of diving experience, but he doesn't have much technical experience. Rather than admit his was wrong about the operation of a manifold (very first topic covered in TDI intro to tech manual btw) he chose to argue semantics and all about how experienced divers should easily be able to figure it out. I actually started yelling at the screen because HE is the prime example of an experienced diver that should have been able to figure it out, but was completely asshat wrong. Intelligence, willingness to learn, and experience are great, but there are loads of things you need to be thoroughly taught in order to know.
Rather than admit? Rather than admit? Either you are joking or you did not read my posts.
I admitted both my mistake and the fact that I knew nothing about isolation manifolds, immediately and at least a dozen times subsequently. I repeatedly made it clear that I had no experience with isolation manifolds or with technical diving. I never claimed I did.
You are correct, a diver of my experience should be able to figure it out, and I quickly did, when I took the trouble to look at a diagram of one, after it became clear that the manner in which I assumed (and I used that word) they worked was incorrect. My assumption was not based on an incorrect interpretation: it was based on no information, only an assumption and on experience with an earlier iteration of doubles manifolds and cheater bars.
My experience with diving technology pretty much ended in the 90s. Almost all of my equipment, excepting a computer, dates from the 80s and 90s. At my age I have no intention of engaging in technical diving, or anything beyond recreational diving. I learned scuba on my own in the 60s and was formally certified in 1972 after a couple of months of classroom, pool, and open water instruction as was required for Open Water NASDS certification back in those dark days.
At 73 I'm happy to still be able to do recreational diving, especially since most of my diving is solo. In fact, the need for lighter tanks, better weight distribution, and a sleeker, lower profile was what led me into this discussion. My first sentences made it clear that I was not interested in tech diving or isolation manifolds. This was on the first page of this long string.
I cannot comprehend how anyone can say I was arguing semantics only because of what I wrote about the definition of valves. I wrote that my definition was idiosyncratic, my own perception, and not the way in which most divers define them in connection with isolation manifolds.
Simply put, in isolation manifolds I count the section of what is in effect the bottom part of a K valve, the part that screws into each cylinder neck, as a valve, or at least part of a valve. I was certainly not arguing for the general adoption of my perception of what constitutes a valve. Other than the valve issue, I can't imagine what constituted semantic argument in anything I wrote..
A competent diver should be easily able to figure out how these manifolds work. I had zero experience or contact with these manifolds until the manner of operation was explained to me in a post; explained clearly though not graciously. After looking at some diagrams last night they are even simpler than I thought.
I'm not sure what I was so completely asshat wrong about that you began "yelling at the screen". I apologize for getting you so upset. I suggest you refrain from listening to the coming presidential campaign debates lest you break a vein in your head.
I must admit that I almost yelled at my own screen when I reread my posts. I am upset with myself for allowing myself to be baited into imitating the unpleasant tactics of an unpleasant individual.
I also realize that my long posts were a waste of time. Few will actually read them, so careful explanation is evidently a waste of time.
