DIR- GUE Is it worth taking Fundamentals this late in the game?

[jadairiii]

The most important point I made about 80% as a deco gas is.....

One of the major reasons for 80% back in the early/mid 90's was that you could get a full fill in your 30, 40 or 80 cf alum deco tank, most shops didnt have boosters. Without a booster, my 40 deco bottle of 100%, at best, was a 30 (80 is a 60 and a 30 is about a 22). But with 80%, I had a full tank of deco gas. Dont forget, many, if not most of us were diving air in our back gas. What benefits of pure O2 that were lost, were gained in having more deco gas.

I can tell you in my Tech Nitrox class and Tech deep Air (IANTD) class, this is about 1995, 80% was taught to us for the above reason, and reducing the risk of toxing in rough seas while on the down line and just over all bad buoyancy skills. It was considered "safer" than pure O2. I'm not debating the issue, just telling you what I was taught in 95, by one of the Board of Directors of IANTD.

80% has lingered to this day. Took my IANTD Trimix class in 98-99 and by then IANTD was not really pushing 80%, it was all 100% O2, at least in my class.

 

[justinthedeeps]

@jadairiii thanks for the historical context!

I can report that 80% is alive and well as a deco gas to consider in deep diving plans, by highly trained and accomplished instructors/instructor trainers who are also still very active, and very observant/strict.

I'm pretty sure we could find O.G. divers from that era who saw that it was a good deco gas that you could switch to at 9-10 metres, with certain advantages. And that is certainly what we do now.

I can assure you that in this era, at the level we are diving, it has nothing to do with the reasons that you point to. Why would that be? Why would anyone allow a student to even touch any deco gas at all, if this was a concern? Why keep pointing to this strawman argument from 30+ years ago?

"Bad divers everywhere at all levels" is the GUE boogeyman. While there are indeed many divers who need to work on fundamental skills, this is not ALL non-GUE divers.

What is the consequence of trying to eradicate 80% as a possibility? Now we have a bunch of macho guys proudly saying that they just switch to 100% at 9m/30ft instead, because CNS ox tox is a myth. Well if that works for you, then go ahead ... but no agency is teaching that (right?)

Nobody is trying to "prove" to you that 80% is the only good final gas, or that 100% is terrible. There are easily acceptable merits and use cases for both, or either one. Think it through, dive your plan.

That is one thing I really like about taking courses from high level instructors who are not completely bound up under one single tech agency.

There is one thing I do agree on, which is that if you just boost pure oxygen, you need not worry about blending, or having to put questionable air on top of oxygen. So it is simpler, from a shop or logistics perspective. But I can assure you that it is still done all of time, like hundreds of times per year, in shops all around the world. It hasn't really been an issue, and I don't think anyone has exploded.

 

[grantctobin]

I can report that 80% is alive and well as a deco gas to consider in deep diving plans, by highly trained and accomplished instructors/instructor trainers who are also still very active, and very observant/strict.

I'm pretty sure we could find O.G. divers from that era who saw that it was a good deco gas that you could switch to at 9-10 metres, with certain advantages. And that is certainly what we do now.

And even then, the practice of it grows more and more rare every year

Look around a bit. I doubt you'll find most ITs as the divers you wish to idolize.

 

[justinthedeeps]

And even then, the practice of it grows more and more rare every year

Look around a bit. I doubt you'll find most ITs as the divers you wish to idolize.

I have to say it's pretty sad that SB.com is so broey, vibey, and closed minded these days--but then again, it is dominated by a frat-like demographic that proudly loves GUE, twinsets, and 100% (only).

GUE has made great strides in standardizing the practice of not passing people until they perfect cave-like deco procedures, but that is perhaps the only thing that stands out to me, besides the super intense branding, and the black hole that sucks people up into thinking that everyone else and their input is trash. And you can drill trim, team skills and every single other thing in a similar course or training dives with a non-GUE instructor.

Stepping out to see how others do things, and have been doing things since before GUE pretended to invent everything good, has been very valuable and interesting. I once again recommend that anyone looking at advanced diving.

 

[grantctobin]

I have to say it's pretty sad that SB.com is so broey, vibey, and closed minded these days--but then again, it is dominated by a frat-like demographic that proudly loves GUE, twinsets, and 100% (only).

GUE has made great strides in standardizing the practice of not passing people until they perfect cave-like deco procedures, but that is perhaps the only thing that stands out to me, besides the super intense branding, and the black hole that sucks people up into thinking that everyone else and their input is trash. And you can drill trim, team skills and every single other thing in a similar course or training dives with a non-GUE instructor.

Stepping out to see how others do things, and have been doing things since before GUE pretended to invent everything good, has been very valuable and interesting. I once again recommend that anyone looking at advanced diving.

Yawn. No relation to GUE or training w GUE. Perhaps consider why there are so few continuing to promogulate 80% in the past fifteen years rather than continuing to espouse such silliness and agency bashing.

 

[justinthedeeps]

Yawn. No relation to GUE or training w GUE. Perhaps consider why there are so few continuing to promogulate 80% in the past fifteen years rather than continuing to espouse such silliness and agency bashing.

It's a thread about whether someone should take Fundamentals when they are already a certified tech diver. Maybe. See my post where I lay out why "Fundies" is good.

BUT it looks like you're not allowed to point out that you can drill all the same stuff under other agencies, without the supersize me helping of GUE Attitude (EDGE?)

Several pages later, y'all are still trying to battle me for simply pointing out why people get turned off by GUE.

I think the hostile brodown here has illustrated that perfectly, as well as this pompous condescending attitude that everyone else is a crap diver from the old days.

 

[Nick_Radov]

Now we have a bunch of macho guys proudly saying that they just switch to 100% at 9m/30ft instead, because CNS ox tox is a myth. Well if that works for you, then go ahead ... but no agency is teaching that (right?)

What? I haven't seen anyone on this thread state that they exceed the usual 1.6atm PPO2 limit for deco gas. Where do you even come up with this stuff???

Nobody is trying to "prove" to you that 80% is the only good final gas, or that 100% is terrible. There are easily acceptable merits and use cases for both, or either one. Think it through, dive your plan.

You keep claiming that, and yet so far no one has actually posted a realistic dive plan where 80% makes any sense.

There is one thing I do agree on, which is that if you just boost pure oxygen, you need not worry about blending, or having to put questionable air on top of oxygen. So it is simpler, from a shop or logistics perspective. But I can assure you that it is still done all of time, like hundreds of times per year, in shops all around the world. It hasn't really been an issue, and I don't think anyone has exploded.

If a diver is concerned about getting "questionable air" then deco gas selection is the least of their problems. That same air is presumably being used to top off their bottom gas tanks as the final step of mixing.
But even if you're out in the boonies without access to a booster, so what? We can do a long deco at 20ft / 6m on 100% with an 80ft^3 stage only filled to something like 2000psi / 135bar using a cascade. Seriously, that should be plenty of shallow deco gas for any regular ocean tech dive that anyone would do without support divers.

 

[justinthedeeps]

What? I haven't seen anyone on this thread state that they exceed the usual 1.6atm PPO2 limit for deco gas. Where do you even come up with this stuff???

I didn't come up with it! At least one diver in the ongoing "bailout for chestmount" thread said it themselves. And they implied that others do it too.

I'm guessing that wasn't a GUE diver. But I do blame the "100% only" culture for weird things like this coming to be, as the 'only way'

If a diver is concerned about getting "questionable air" then deco gas selection is the least of their problems. That same air is presumably being used to top off their bottom gas tanks as the final step of mixing.
But even if you're out in the boonies without access to a booster, so what? We can do a long deco at 20ft / 6m on 100% with an 80ft^3 stage only filled to something like 2000psi / 135bar using a cascade. Seriously, that should be plenty of shallow deco gas for any regular ocean tech dive that anyone would do without support divers.

Yeah I think we agree here! This complaint about 80% was posted recently in another thread. Again, no lie.

I can understand the desire to not blend 80%, thinking it pointless. And I think that laziness explains a lot of the resistance to accepting that 80% is a better deco gas than 50% at 9 metres.

Are you arguing that 50% is better than 80% at 9m? I think you are, but your reasons are logistical and organizational in nature. Well, we are using 80% just fine sometimes, and it's not really a problem at all, for logistics and organization.

Let me draft a very clear example about when 80% is saving a lot of time at 9m (and a lot of 50%), but in the meantime, here is a recent post from another thread, where introducing say a 32/20 and an 80/00 cuts runtime, due to more efficient deco.

Warning, this kind of willy nilly exploration of "nonstandard" parameters will appear fatally disgusting to anyone married to Standard Gases:

Question - Bailout gas configs for tech/deep chestmount rebreathers

Correct. This doesn’t work as well if you lose both rebreather and 10/70 Who teaches that?

scubaboard.com

 

[SpeedyJ]

It's a thread about whether someone should take Fundamentals when they are already a certified tech diver. Maybe. See my post where I lay out why "Fundies" is good.

BUT it looks like you're not allowed to point out that you can drill all the same stuff under other agencies, without the supersize me helping of GUE Attitude (EDGE?)

Several pages later, y'all are still trying to battle me for simply pointing out why people get turned off by GUE.

I think the hostile brodown here has illustrated that perfectly, as well as this pompous condescending attitude that everyone else is a crap diver from the old days.

Spare us your victim mentality. People are disagreeing with you just as you are with them. This isn’t a bro fest, no one is saying you’re a ****** diver, no one is giving you attitude. Yet there are now several pages of you throwing thinly veiled insults in your posts while crying “they’re being mean!”

Take a step back and ask if perhaps your own prejudicial views towards GUE are causing you to see malicious intent when none exists.

 

[justinthedeeps]

Yawn. No relation to GUE or training w GUE. Perhaps consider why there are so few continuing to promogulate 80% in the past fifteen years rather than continuing to espouse such silliness and agency bashing.

You're right, and I've invited some bad reactions for being too critical. That's on me, yes.

The reason I brought up that 80% is a better deco gas than 50% at 9 metres is: because it is, according to decompression theory. And we sometimes take advantage of that on Mod3 dive plans to 100+ metres, with long stops at 9 metres. But you are all assuming that I don't know what I am talking about. Pity!

I know that probably doesn't matter to someone who is taking a Fundamentals course, but the strong reactions of denial, disbelief and condescension that you are seeing here to me bringing up something interesting outside of GUE dogma is one data point that you might consider.