Can i use this?

[victorzamora]

Akimbo: My point wasn't that you'll die if you only dive with one regulator, my point was that there is a benefit to having multiple first stages. There are TONS of dives done safely on one first stage. There have been and there will be TONS of safe, successful dives on one first stage. Nemrod asked a question that I answered: "If you have one thing that is stone cold reliable, why would you want two of something less so?" My answer was simply meant to be: "To have two first stages".....not an implication of the inherent safety of diving with a single first stage.

Captain: You're right, the OP never mentioned caves......but I don't think my point was exclusive to caves. My point was simply that shutting down one first-stage that had a problem allowed me to continue by using the second one. I was also in sidemount, but the principle of having two first stages is the same and my configuration and location are both irrelevant to that point.

 

[captain]

I don't know what is so confusing here. Doubles without an isolation manifold and dual regulators are functionally the same as large singles. The number of cylinders is irrelevant. The amount of gas is irrelevant. It is the competence and capability of the diver to carry them that matters.

If that is not true, how do you explain the excellent safety record of Cousteau's divers that carried three or four cylinder packs with one regulator? What about the US Navy’s safety record?

I guess it all goes back to some who feel if you don't do it their way you are doing it wrong no matter how benign
the situation is. Like Obamacare one size has to fit all or it isn't acceptable.

 

[victorzamora]

Captain, if that was directed at me I think you're misreading what I'm saying....or I'm not saying it clearly.

I have no problem with it, at all. I don't dive doubles. I wouldn't mind it, I just don't. My original comment (and every one since) was simply answering the question "Why two of something bad when you could have one of something good?" My belief is that the reason to use an isolation manifold, despite the increased number of failure points in the manifold, is to increase the redundancy in the regulators. I have nothing wrong with the manifold presented, or any other single-output manifold. It's clearly a useful way of making one big tank, and making it more stable than a single cylinder. I don't care if you dive this configuration in a cave, in 10ft of water in a pool, or at 800ft in a wreck.....it's no skin off my back. I'm not trying to dictate how anybody dives.

Now, if you were comparing me to Obama.....then I challenge you to a duel! Pistols at dawn?

 

[captain]

Captain, if that was directed at me I think you're misreading what I'm saying....or I'm not saying it clearly.

I have no problem with it, at all. I don't dive doubles. I wouldn't mind it, I just don't. My original comment (and every one since) was simply answering the question "Why two of something bad when you could have one of something good?" My belief is that the reason to use an isolation manifold, despite the increased number of failure points in the manifold, is to increase the redundancy in the regulators. I have nothing wrong with the manifold presented, or any other single-output manifold. It's clearly a useful way of making one big tank, and making it more stable than a single cylinder. I don't care if you dive this configuration in a cave, in 10ft of water in a pool, or at 800ft in a wreck.....it's no skin off my back. I'm not trying to dictate how anybody dives.

Now, if you were comparing me to Obama.....then I challenge you to a duel! Pistols at dawn?

Put the pistols away.