How does Nitrox work?

[Sas]

Everything said so far is wrong. The correct answer is: magic.

That's what I was gonna say!

Since joining in 2007, I have totaled 127 thanks... or an average of 63.5 thanks per year (very similar to Don on an annual basis.) The difference is I've only had to make 639 posts to receive those 127 thanks... or just 5.0 posts per one thanks. If I had Don's number of posts, I'd have more than 5752 thanks to his 393.

Not that this indicates I'm better than Don in any way, but rather that I only post relevant... pointed, direct and knowledgeable answers to important questions being asked by divers. i don't come on with a lot of fluff.

Technical and Commercial divers had been using it for years before recreational divers... and they needed to. They still need to today... and I'll continue to believe the risks outweight the benefits in the recreational arena.

What risks? In my opinion, using nitrox is not rocket science... I would like to see statistics as to nitrox related accidents in recreational divers to know whether the risks are that great to rec divers? The benefits of nitrox are great for me. I'm a recreational diver and I spent a lot of money on charter dives. The extra bottom time nitrox gives me really makes these dives more worthwhile in the 25-35m range. I rarely use nitrox as I don't often do repetitive deep dives (tends to be one deeper boat dive and then a shore dive so I'll use nitrox on the first dive) but I still think the course was very worthwhile for the occasional dive I do in that depth range. I am very much limited by my NDL at those depths and it is annoying to have to end dives with stacks of air left.

 

[mrlipis]

A question for Offthewall.
If you had your choice of diving air or nitrox and the nitrox was the same price, what would you use? Given we are diving within the appropriate PPo2, I think we would all use Nitrox. This argument is really about cost vs benefits. I don't know how anyone can argue that a reduced nitrogen loading is not safer and more beneficial.

 

[DandyDon]

Do you specialize in False Science...?

Since joining in 2007, I have totaled 127 thanks... or an average of 63.5 thanks per year (very similar to Don on an annual basis.) The difference is I've only had to make 639 posts to receive those 127 thanks... or just 5.0 posts per one thanks. If I had Don's number of posts, I'd have more than 5752 thanks to his 393.

Not that this indicates I'm better than Don in any way, but rather that I only post relevant... pointed, direct and knowledgeable answers to important questions being asked by divers. i don't come on with a lot of fluff.

Besides the fact that the Thanks systems is only a courtesy and not a measure of real value, it has also only existed for a year or so. If we used your calculations based on the existence of the thanks system, we'd need to use a much shorter and more recent time frame, and then based only on number of posts within forums that allow thanks - as some don't. Most of my posting has been in the Intros forum where there is not a thanks feature. So, you're wrong, plus very wrong.

The point is most of what people post on here is just fluff back and forth between people who have nothing better to do than sit at a computer all day. Some of us jump on - answer a question or two - then jump off and let the fisticuffs fly.

In any event, Don and the others are not wrong in saying Nitrox has benefits... they are wrong in saying it has benefits for everyone regardless of the type of diving they are doing. My original post said simply this... you can go back and read it - "Once you've decided the type of diving you'll be doing, then you can worry about Nitrox."

It's a discussion board. We discuss. Blogs without commenting exist on the internet, if you can get anyone to read yours.

With regard to your "...Don and the others are...wrong in saying it has benefits for everyone regardless of the type of diving they are doing," that's similar to your false science, a false argument since no one said that.

So I'll tell you one last time what I said in summary...

It certainly has benefits in some recreational diving;

It's the cheapest and easiest card to acquire in development of Basic Scuba skills, which is BTW the forum this is in; and

Too many divers put it off "until they need it" then don't have it in time when they do need it.​

thank you...

A question for Offthewall.
If you had your choice of diving air or nitrox and the nitrox was the same price, what would you use? Given we are diving within the appropriate PPo2, I think we would all use Nitrox. This argument is really about cost vs benefits. I don't know how anyone can argue that a reduced nitrogen loading is not safer and more beneficial.

Sure. I rarely use it only because of cost. When it's $3/tank upgrade in Florida, I use it extensively. When it's $10/tank upgrade in Cozumel, I use it once a day maybe. When it's not available on much of the west coast, I dive without it - more carefully, but then not many dive more than 3/dives a day nor do back to back wreck dives on the west coast.

 

[DandyDon]

The point is most of what people post on here is just fluff back and forth between people who have nothing better to do than sit at a computer all day. Some of us jump on - answer a question or two - then jump off and let the fisticuffs fly.

Thot some more about this stupid crack while I was away. I hope you realize that coming onto a discussion board to criticize participation on the board greatly reduces you own validity regardless of your badges and claims.

 

[vladimir]

Don has been on the board since 2003... myself a more recent join in 2007. Since 2003, Don has racked up a very impressive 393 thanks for his postings. I admire that because it means Don takes a lot of time to put up useful and thoughtful posts. On average Don receives 65.5 thanks per year since 2003 or more than 1 per week. Now Don has had to make 28,764 postings to receive those 393 thanks or 73.2 posts per one thanks received.

Since joining in 2007, I have totaled 127 thanks... or an average of 63.5 thanks per year (very similar to Don on an annual basis.) The difference is I've only had to make 639 posts to receive those 127 thanks... or just 5.0 posts per one thanks. If I had Don's number of posts, I'd have more than 5752 thanks to his 393.

Not that this indicates I'm better than Don in any way, but rather that I only post relevant... pointed, direct and knowledgeable answers to important questions being asked by divers. i don't come on with a lot of fluff.

Cheers

Look at all the thanks Don's received on this thread alone.

You seem to be quite proud of your "thank you" count. Maybe you're overestimating the value most of us put on the "thanks" system, which, as Don has astutely pointed out (thanks Don!), is just a courtesy, and a device to render "I agree" posts unnecessary.

 

[offthewall1]

Look at all the thanks Don's received on this thread alone.

You seem to be quite proud of your "thank you" count. Maybe you're overestimating the value most of us put on the "thanks" system, which, as Don has astutely pointed out (thanks Don!), is just a courtesy, and a device to render "I agree" posts unnecessary.

I've received quite a few thanks on this thread myself... I agree they're a courtesy... a courtesy given when someone feels they have gained something from the post. So you're point is what?

I think the thread gives some information on both sides... and I'm sure that many of you have been duped into the greatness of Nitrox and so you therefore stick up for it. It is a worthless argument. Here are some facts:

The Case for Nitrox:
*Increases bottom time within a limited range of depth
*Can reduce surface interval times
*If the profile between muliptle air dives and multiple nitrox dives is the same... nitrogen load is decreased... however if one stays longer because they're diving Nitrox... load is typically the same as a shorter air dive... making the nitrogen loading benefit insignificant other than to increase bottom time (doesnt make it safer / decrease DCS risk)

The Case against Nitrox:
*Higher Cost
*Marginal if any benefit in recreational diving
*Increased risk of Oxygen toxicity
*Limits in maximum depth (MOD) does not allow on the fly alteration of dive plan (in other words don't go taking pics of the shark an extra 20 feet down at 130 if your MOD is 110.
*Not always available
*Gives people a false impression they're diving safer

My biggest problem with Nitrox isn't the cost... it's the hokey sales pitches I hear in dive shops trying to sell it like "snake oil."

The biggest reason I don't personally dive Nitrox is because I like to be able to go where I want underwater - when I want to go there. If I'm diving a wreck that sits 140 to the sand... and my plan is to dive in the wheelhouse at 110... but on the way down I spot a pair of white tips mating at the bottom... I want to be able to safely go down and shoot my video. On the magic gas that isn't a good idea (given the common mixes of 32 and 36%)... but on air... no worries mate!

Yes, I could go with a lower mix percent... say 26%... but the reality is custom blends aren't done at a lot of resorts or on dive boats providing blends. If I'm mixing my own I could mix it and be prepared for anything knowing the bottom was at 140... but most of my dives are done around the world... so that's not so easy.

It's important that newbies understand the limitations Nitrox puts on them... not just the added cost... but the lack of mobility they may experience once they're on it. I don't like limiting my options on dives... and that's the biggest reason I don't use it.... I mean I own a shop for godsake... I don't need to pay much to mix my own.

Cheers to mobility!

 

[vladimir]

I've received quite a few thanks on this thread myself

Well done, Off! Well done!

I think the thread gives some information on both sides... and I'm sure that many of you have been duped into the greatness of Nitrox and so you therefore stick up for it. It is a worthless argument. Here are some facts:

The Case for Nitrox:
*Increases bottom time within a limited range of depth
*Can reduce surface interval times
*If the profile between muliptle air dives and multiple nitrox dives is the same... nitrogen load is decreased... however if one stays longer because they're diving Nitrox... load is typically the same as a shorter air dive... making the nitrogen loading benefit insignificant other than to increase bottom time (doesnt make it safer / decrease DCS risk)

The Case against Nitrox:
*Higher Cost
*Marginal if any benefit in recreational diving
*Increased risk of Oxygen toxicity
*Limits in maximum depth (MOD) does not allow on the fly alteration of dive plan (in other words don't go taking pics of the shark an extra 20 feet down at 130 if your MOD is 110.
*Not always available
*Gives people a false impression they're diving safer

This is a pretty good synopsis, but you seem to be taking pains to state the obvious. Does anybody really think that tradeoffs are suddenly suspended when you start using nitrox? Yes, you can have longer bottom times and yes, you can have shorter surface intervals, and yes, you can have safer dives. But no, you probably can't have them all at once. But you agree that breathing nitrox while diving an air profile is safer, within the maximum operating depth. And you agree that, within maximum operating depths, you can have shorter surface intervals and be equally safe. And you agree that, with enough gas and within maximum operating depths, you can have a longer dive and be equally safe.

Now lets stop beating a dead horse... and let people make up their own minds.

People come here for information and discussion. They are free to stop reading whenever they want, just as you are free to stop posting whenever you feel you're beating a dead horse.

 

[H2Andy]

first, you step in it

then, you try to explain that you didn't really step in it

then you claim you meant to step in it

then you say you're bored with people talking about you stepping in it, which you didn't do OR meant to do anyway



anyway, a lot of good info has surfaced in this thread

 

[DaleC]

I am always interested in this discussion as I use nitrox commonly. I welcome new info but am always curious when someone posts in saying it is of little to no value and tries to back up their opinion by voicing objections that have little to do with valid nitrox use or by making unprovable claims.

Nitrox is not advocated for deep diving so the oxtox risk is a red herring (IMO). How many oxtox incidents have been reported by people using nitrox correctly anyways? It is also not taught that nitrox reduces narcosis so that is a red herring too. With correct use these pose no signifigant risk (to be outweighed by the benefits). Those types of objections are actually a good arguement for taking the course.

Where is the DCS risk? Not in a single dive well within the times and depths allowed by todays conservative tables/computers. In this regard diving air or nitrox are equally "safe". The DCS risk comes into play the harder one pushes the NDL (either by diving longer or by performing repetitive dives. In this regard, nitrox is safer as it creates a situation where less N loading occurs.

The "safety" of reduced N loading must of course be balanced against the "risk" of accumulated oxygen toxicity. Understanding how to manage the two is another reason to take the course.

There is the persistant claim that "feeling fresh" is just a placebo effect. I find this part interesting as I do experience the "effect" and it is the main reason I dive nitrox. Time and time again I have noted the difference driving home after a days diving on both and can say that diving nitrox leaves me feeling less wiped. What this is worth depends on how far one has to drive I suppose. feeling fresh for 1.5 hr's on a busy freeway makes me feel "safer". My missus also appreciates the fact that I feel "fresher" later that same evening (but that is a story for another forum).

Is this antidotal evidence? Why.. Yes it is.

However, I haven't seen anything overwhelming that proves there is nothing physiologically happening either (and I've been looking). One study (that didn't look in the right direction I feel) failed to show demonstrable positive results from nitrox use but that's about it. Balanced against this study are arguements that suggest nitrox use may decrease subclinical DCS (DCS stress) that, oddly enough, presents itself with fatigue like symptoms. It is also suggested that nitrox use reduces the WOB (work of breathing) and lactate acid build up which may also lead to the sense of lower overall fatigue. This second arguement has been documented in other sports but never fully investigated (it seems) because the practicality of carrying ones own supply of nitrox while performing those sports (running, biking) nullifies its use. Perhaps one day a diving study will be done that focusses on these specific issues and how they may relate to the "fresh" feeling that many nitrox users experience.

Lastly, cost is a valid arguement for/against nitrox use. How that plays out, however, is a very personal and subjective thing.

That's just my 2CW (for what it's worth). I have 4.6 post to thanks ratio going so I hope it won't be considered mere "fluff".

 

[Teamcasa]

I think the thread gives some information on both sides... and I'm sure that many of you have been duped into the greatness of Nitrox and so you therefore stick up for it. It is a worthless argument. Here are some facts:

The Case for Nitrox:
*Increases bottom time within a limited range of depth
*Can reduce surface interval times
*If the profile between muliptle air dives and multiple nitrox dives is the same... nitrogen load is decreased... however if one stays longer because they're diving Nitrox... load is typically the same as a shorter air dive... making the nitrogen loading benefit insignificant other than to increase bottom time (doesnt make it safer / decrease DCS risk)

More importantly, I like it, I can afford it and fact or fiction, I feel better after diving it.

The Case against Nitrox:
*Higher Cost
*Marginal if any benefit in recreational diving
*Increased risk of Oxygen toxicity
*Limits in maximum depth (MOD) does not allow on the fly alteration of dive plan (in other words don't go taking pics of the shark an extra 20 feet down at 130 if your MOD is 110.
*Not always available
*Gives people a false impression they're diving safer

More importantly, those who don't like it, have no issue telling folks why.

Really guys, let's face it no post in this thread mind towards the use of Nitrox is going to be changed by reading this thread. However, some new divers will read this thread to get information about diving Nitrox. Have all the pertinent facts been given a fair shake?