double bladder

[OE2X]

I wish my wife had a double bladder. Then we wouldn't have to stop at every rest stop along the way to grandma's house.

 

[jonnythan]

Another thread going down the toilet...

Speaking of which, brb.

 

[BigBoB]

So, it is never acceptable (according to DIR philosophy) to run steel tanks in open water diving?

 

[JeffG]

So, it is never acceptable (according to DIR philosophy) to run steel tanks in open water diving?

Thats a sure fire way to die....beware

 

[RTodd]

So, it is never acceptable (according to DIR philosophy) to run steel tanks in open water diving?

If we are talking 3mm wetsuit and doubles, no it is not. No need for it. For a single tank you may be able to achieve a balanced rig with some steel tanks. But, if your sac rate is decent, you don't really need anything more than an al80 for single tank dives anyway.

 

[reubencahn]

So, it is never acceptable (according to DIR philosophy) to run steel tanks in open water diving?

No, I used single steels (PST E7-100) in both fundamentals and rec triox and the instructors were fine with that. I imagine you could probably double the E7-100s or use double steel 72s with wetsuit as long as you could swim them up from depth while full. But when you start talking about larger double tanks like E8-130s, you're carrying at least 20lbs of gas at the beginning of the dive. Since you have to weight yourself for the end of the dive when those 20lbs are gone plus weight to overcome the buoyancy of the wetsuit which will compress at depth, if you dive this setup, you're going to need to be able to swim up 25 or more lbs from depth. I would suspect this is pretty hard to do. So the no steels with wetsuits isn't a rule. It's a guideline. The rule is a balanced rig, one that trims out correctly and can be swum up from depth in the event of a complete bc failure. In any case, that's my understanding from the courses I've taken and the instructors I've spoken with.

 

[salty]

It is my recollection that the DIRF book states it is an acceptable option.

It's time to take the cotten out of your ears and put it back in your mouth. Re-read the chapter on "Buoyancy Compensators" secound paragraph, and "Choosing A Cylinder" paragraph 6.

 

[jonnythan]

It's time to take the cotten out of your ears and put it back in your mouth. Re-read the chapter on "Buoyancy Compensators" secound paragraph, and "Choosing A Cylinder" paragraph 6.

I know it has bad things to say about them, but, along with Scubaroo, I'm fairly certain the book mentions that it's an acceptable option in certain circumstances.

I'll have to dig my book up later to find the line.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I know it has bad things to say about them, but, along with Scubaroo, I'm fairly certain the book mentions that it's an acceptable option in certain circumstances.

I'll have to dig my book up later to find the line.

Does not the book also contain other things that are a bit...well... questionable... like ACB pockets?

I'm guessing that it wasn't intended to be the DIR bible.

Just talking...I don't mean for this to sound confrontational, BTW.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I'm thinking that this boils down to the supposition that redundant bladders address a problem that can be better dealt with by just removing the problem. In addition, redundant bladders present new problems of their own.