UTD Ratio deco discussion

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Doesn't matter. Zero is Zero. Anyway you spin it, its still Zero.
And there have been zero auto accidents involving Trabants in the USA which makes them the safest automobile by your reckoning.
 
And there have been zero auto accidents involving Trabants in the USA which makes them the safest automobile by your reckoning.

By your reckoning, the rebreathers used by UTD was made no later than 1990. Next.
 
By your reckoning, the rebreathers used by UTD was made no later than 1990. Next.
So?

If there's 5 in the world, and only 1 of those gets a dive a year, that's still less than 30 dives by now. I wouldn't expect any deaths on it.

So unless you can provide the numbers of dives that are done on the ubber-dubber-safe UTD RB, the claim of "there's 0 accidents on our rebreather" is bs. But I guess you're buddies with AD and BH...
 
And ratio deco and comparisons with buhlmann GF 20/80, or was it now 40/80 is totally on topic. I see. So is decompression diving in altitude, totally recreational.

I'm out.
 
So?

If there's 5 in the world, and only 1 of those gets a dive a year, that's still less than 30 dives by now. I wouldn't expect any deaths on it.

So unless you can provide the numbers of dives that are done on the ubber-dubber-safe UTD RB, the claim of "there's 0 accidents on our rebreather" is bs. But I guess you're buddies with AD and BH...


You guys make the claim that it is dangerous, so why don't you guys provide the number and proof instead? So until you can provide the numbers and statistics that it is ubber-dubber dangerous, the claim is just as BS, I guess you are just haters then?

Next.
 
You guys make the claim that it is dangerous, so why don't you guys provide the number and proof instead? So until you can provide the numbers and statistics that it is ubber-dubber dangerous, the claim is just as BS, I guess you are just haters then?

Next.
Don't need statistics. Here is a direct quote from your beloved leader Andrew Geogitsis taken from the UTD blog. Anyone who understands rebreathers will get that AG doesn't understand them and has no business teaching on them.

The interesting part is that I was unable to sustain a workload for 5 minutes to get it to drop more than 0.35. What I found was that after 5 mins, without adding any additional O2 or Diluent, the breathing loop volume had become so diminished due to the O2 metabolism that it become very difficult to breath, and by 7 minutes into the test it was impossible to breath and by 8 mins I had to bailout to open circuit because I could not breath the loop. In other words, I would run out of loop volume before significant or dangerous levels of PPO2 drop. This volume depletion is essentially an "alarm" of sorts that warns the diver that additional gas is needed. Adding O2 would both return the loop volume and the PPO2. Keep in mind we do dive standardized gases on the diluent side, so if the diver simply added dil at depth the PPO2 would still be very close to 1.0 or above, since the standard backgases have a PPO2 of approximately 1.2 at depth. Hence the advantage of using standardized mixes as diluent.

In laymans terms he is suggesting that this experiment he did in a pool is indicative of what would happen at depth. His theory would hold that a diver would run out of loop volume before a dangerous level of PO2 existed in the loop is absolutely bullocks and if he is teaching this application of loop volume is only by sheer luck someone didn't get killed.
 
Last edited:
Don't need statistics. Here is a direct quote from your beloved leader Andrew Geogitsis taken from the UTD blog. Anyone who understands rebreathers will get that AG doesn't understand them and has no business teaching on them.

In laymans terms he is suggesting that this experiment he did in a pool is indicative of what would happen at depth. His theory would hold that a diver would run out of loop volume before a dangerous level of PO2 existed in the loop is absolutely bullocks and if he is teaching this application of loop volume is only by sheer luck someone didn't get killed.

Thank you. So in other words, I don't need statistics but just a quote from any CCR guys out there that they can "rely on the COPIS to inject O2 and trust the computer and sensor would be foolproof to ensure I can sufficient PPO2". And in layman terms it meant if you are task loaded you would conveniently forget about it because you have a computer to do that job for you.

Sounds about as lucky that someone didn't get killed. Wait, people did get killed! Sorry I was not suppose to look at statistics. My bad.
 
Seriously Dave, let's start a thread in the rebreather forum if you want. But I'm sure you already had your debate with AG himself and you probably can't prove anything and now you are taking it out in a thread discussing Essentials of recreational diving. What's your motive?
 
Seriously Dave, let's start a thread in the rebreather forum if you want. But I'm sure you already had your debate with AG himself and you probably can't prove anything and now you are taking it out in a thread discussing Essentials of recreational diving. What's your motive?
So you call me out here:
You guys make the claim that it is dangerous, so why don't you guys provide the number and proof instead? So until you can provide the numbers and statistics that it is ubber-dubber dangerous, the claim is just as BS, I guess you are just haters then?

Next.
then when I rise to the challenge you play victim and call me a hater. I would call out any instructor promoting dangerous activities. So with the rebreather thing and ratio deco thing how is this me being a hater? My motive? To make sure divers know what they are getting themselves into.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you call me out here:

then when I rise to the challenge you play victim and call me a hater. I would call out any instructor promoting dangerous activities. So with the rebreather thing and ratio deco thing how is this me being a hater? My motive? To make sure divers know what they are getting themselves into.

Nope I don't play victim. I invited you to start a separate thread on rebreather and we can continue to discuss. You declined, doubled-down, and continued to alleged that we "promote dangerous activities" but you have neither the statistics nor the numbers to backed you claim; and you are making this claim because? We do it differently than you? What hard numbers do you have to claim RD is dangerous? Sure by all means question it, disagree with it even and that is your right. To call it "dangerous activities"? If that does not make you a hater, what does?

You want to let divers know what they are getting themselves into? Sure send them our way, we will be happy to answer any questions. But to bring in rebreather discussions on a topic discussion essentials of recreational diving? And making claims that it is dangerous but saying you don't need numbers to make that claim? If that does not call into question you motives, what does?

You done in this d**k measuring contest yet?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom