double tank equipment

[Lorenzoid]

I haven't read this whole thread--though the topic interests me--because I have been planning to take a Doubles course later this year. I've seen people do the "valve drill," and I'm pretty sure a day in the water with an instructor is what I'd need to get that down. Redundancy is the main advantage I see in manifolded doubles. To take advantage of that, dealing with failures needs to become muscle memory.

I haven't bought a set of doubles yet because I assume part of the course will be how to select the right set of doubles for the diver's needs. Sure, I could read about that in a book--and I have--but the ability to have a conversation with someone who knows doubles backwards and forwards will be a major advantage.

Carry on.

 

[cool_hardware52]

So you're happy with one example to make your point? Pretty low threshold of proof IMO. One diver out of unknown thousands that's all it takes to make you happy? I don't recall any part of my training that involved fill tanks other than hydro vip and working pressure. So your one example didn't know the details for filling manifold doubles. Big deal! A clear and present danger to the safety of diving! LOL

US corporations spend an estimated 140+ *Billion dollars* annually on training. No doubt some of these folks could skip the training, read a book, and learn from a mentor. Many can not. Corporate America knows this, so they spend the $$.

Can anyone here predict if the original poster in this thread will be effectively educated via books, and the internet, or is he one that needs a more formal setting? If so I'd love to know how you made that determination based on a few words in a single post.

Tobin

 

[Lorenzoid]

The real subJect of the discussion was whether or not there is a need for formal training in connection with doubles, especially those with more complex manifolds. I made it clear that though I had no experience with the things it seemed obvious that they are not that complicated and that any properly trained diver should be able to figure them out effortlessly if they so desire.

I have not seen anything here to indicate the contrary.

"Effortlessly," eh? Now I really feel stupid.

Very little about diving has been effortless for me. Every time I take a course I am reminded that what seemed easy enough when I read it in the coursebook was a different story once I got in the water with the instructor. It's one thing to "figure out" something on dry land and another to repeat it in the water. At least that's how I have found it to be for me.

I suppose it's possible to learn diving completely on one's own, but I think getting some good instruction is more efficient and well worth it in the long run.

 

[Adobo]

So you're happy with one example to make your point? Pretty low threshold of proof IMO. One diver out of unknown thousands that's all it takes to make you happy? I don't recall any part of my training that involved fill tanks other than hydro vip and working pressure. So your one example didn't know the details for filling manifold doubles. Big deal! A clear and present danger to the safety of diving! LOL

Like several others who pop in and out of this thread, you are missing the context of the whole discussion.

We didn't need a mountain of evidence to show that everyone needs to take formal training to dive doubles. All we needed was evidence that the original poster had sufficient knowledge deficit and therefore the original poster would benefit from a competent training in order to learn to dive doubles safely. All one needs to do is read the very first post to find that evidence.

The rest of this is people interpreting and misinterpreting the original discussion or even flat out, not bothering to familiarize themselves with topic before they start sharing their *wisdom*.

---------- Post added June 21st, 2015 at 10:13 AM ----------

Out of curiosity, for those who are having an allergic reaction to the suggestion that the original poster should get competent training to embark on doubles diving, if a newish diver wanted to start diving 32% to 100ft/30m or start diving a drysuit, posted a question in scubaboard, would you have had the same allergic reaction if someone replied by answering the question but also recommended competent training?

 

[Adobo]

If I am mistaken, it is due entirely to my inability to comprehend your wonderfully lucid explanation.

I don't really want to immerse myself anymore into the poo flinging but I did want to say that I have no problems with how Tobin's explained how a manifold works. He put it far more succinctly that I could have. No one else seems to have a problem with his explanation - at least, none that they care to voice out.

 

[agilis]

I don't really want to immerse myself anymore into the poo flinging but I did want to say that I have no problems with how Tobin's explained how a manifold works. He put it far more succinctly that I could have. No one else seems to have a problem with his explanation - at least, none that they care to voice out.

Neither do I. It was quite lucid and clear. There seems to have been a problem with my perception of the valve stem as being a valve, or at least part of a valve, and the part that I had reference to when I wrote that it was always open because it cannot be closed. This, in my view, does not mean that it is excluded from the family of valves, though perhaps I am being to liberal in that regard.

Then again, perhaps not.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I hope I haven't killed too many people.

Your flippancy is hardly appropriate. People have died as a direct result of not understanding manifolds. Mostly errors during filling, you know the "tank monkeys" others in this thread have suggested as reliable source of knowledge regarding manifolds........

I regard the valve stem that screws into the cylinder as a valve, because it does control the flow of gas to a degree. The valve control mechanisms mounted on the manifold, which you conventionally regard as the only valves, also control the flow of gas, and most significantly are able to open and close, while the valve (stem) screwed into the cylinder merely moderates the gas flow to a degree making fine adjustments by the flow control mechanism mounted in the manifold possible.

I understand that by most definitions there are only three valves. Please forgive my idiosyncratic perceptions of what constitutes a valve. Again, this has nothing to do with the topic that was under discussion.

I expected you would have some more CYA nonsense to offer. Looks like you still don't have a clue about manifolds, and lack a working knowledge of the vernacular used.

If manifolds are indeed "manifestly obvious" would you still need to write paragraphs attempting to explain your ignorance?

Tobin

 

[Storker]

I've been in and listened to many discussions, both at work and off, and IMO there are two types of people engaging in discussions. There's the type for whom a discussion is a means to reach deeper understanding on a subject, and for whom admitting that the other party may have a point one hasn't been aware off isn't a big defeat. Those people are quite often scientists, or people with a similar mindset. They have also more often than not a decent self-confidence. Then there's the opposite type, for whom the only point in a discussion is to "win" it. Those people are are quite often politicians, and/or they lack a bit in the self-confidence department. Although these characterizations are a bit stereotypical and most people fall somewhere on the spectrum between these archetypes, quite a few fit the stereotypes very well.

And Tobin, that "Agilis doesn't understand manifolds, nyah, nyah, nyah! schtick" is getting a bit... stale. IJS.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I've been in and listened to many discussions, both at work and off, and IMO there are two types of people engaging in discussions. There's the type for whom a discussion is a means to reach deeper understanding on a subject, and for whom admitting that the other party may have a point one hasn't been aware off isn't a big defeat. Those people are quite often scientists, or people with a similar mindset. They have also more often than not a decent self-confidence. Then there's the opposite type, for whom the only point in a discussion is to "win" it. Those people are are quite often politicians, and/or they lack a bit in the self-confidence department. Although these characterizations are a bit stereotypical and most people fall somewhere on the spectrum between these archetypes, quite a few fit the stereotypes very well.

And Tobin, that "Agilis doesn't understand manifolds, nyah, nyah, nyah! schtick" is getting a bit... stale. IJS.

Stoker, it's not really about manifolds, but I'm repeating myself.

It's about whether or not doubles requires "competent training".

agilis complete lack of understanding of manifolds, coupled with his complete inability / unwillingness to learn about manifolds in an informal setting simply highlights the need for folks to seek "competent training"

Newbies simply don't know what they don't know, and agilis has provided a text book example of that.

Tobin

 

[DaleC]

If we can say that people should gain competent training before attempting to use new equipment, and that that training may be formal, mentoring or self directed, depending on the subject and the orientation of the learner, then I agree. This makes the main point that there is particular knowledge that needs to be gained, not that there is one particular way to gain it.

For some people/subjects that may simply be reading the directions that come with the equipment, for others it may involve asking other users what their experience has been, for others it may include a practical demonstration, and for others it may include a formal class setting.

It really depends on how complex the subject is, the prior understanding of the learner, and how skilled the learner is with each particular style of learning.

Diving doubles is a good example of that situation but is complicated to a degree by what the intended application of use is. If you want to use them for rec diving you really just need to know the mechanics behind their safe operation. If you want to use them for tech diving you need more background into physiology and procedures.

An already experienced rec diver may have enough collateral understanding to make the transition a fairly simple procedure. A new diver may not have enough familiarization so they may need more help from a third party. I would have prefered to hear more from the OP about their prior diving experience to be able to gauge where they might have stood within the spectrum.