Near reg failure - all ok

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Your "V consumed during ascent" is 0.5Cf/min off. The average ATA from depth is:
(ATA + 1)/2 = ATA/2 + 1/2,
not:
ATA/2

4th column should start with 0.61, and end with 13.20. The last column needs correction also.
I'll tell whoever made that chart, from maybe 17 years ago.
Does the correction change the conclusion?
 
Your "V consumed during ascent" is 0.5Cf/min off. The average ATA from depth is:
(ATA + 1)/2 = ATA/2 + 1/2,
not:
ATA/2

4th column should start with 0.61, and end with 13.20. The last column needs correction also.
By the way, are you sure? Is not the ATA at 66 ft 3.00 as shown, i.e. 2 of water+1 of air above? And at 99 ft 4.00, i.e 3+1?
 
By the way, are you sure? Is not the ATA at 66 ft 3.00 as shown, i.e. 2 of water+1 of air above? And at 99 ft 4.00, i.e 3+1?
Yes I'm sure, ATA at 66 is 3.00, ATA at surface is 1.0, average ATA is (3.0+1.0/)2 = 2.0 (not 1.5). The give away was when the consumption surfacing from 15ft was less than what would be consumed on the surface for the same period of time.

But you are right, it doesn't change the conclusion much, between .25 and 2.2 Cf depending on depth.
 
Yes I'm sure, ATA at 66 is 3.00, ATA at surface is 1.0, average ATA is (3.0+1.0/)2 = 2.0 (not 1.5).

But you are right, it doesn't change the conclusion much, between .25 and 2.2 Cf depending on depth.
OK. Cool.
 
If the chart is wrong why don't you fix it. You said YOU made the following assumptions ...
I think he meant to say "it assumes" rather than "I assume" (notice it was "I tassumes"). And the mistake was in the calculation(of average ATA), not the assumptions.
 
If the chart is wrong why don't you fix it. You said YOU made the following assumptions and provided results of those assumptions and now you blame someone else for apparent mistakes? I'm not sure I understand.

I think he meant to say "it assumes" rather than "I assume" (notice it was "I tassumes"). And the mistake was in the calculation(of average ATA), not the assumptions.
Yes, it was a typo that I've now corrected. I also added a note to the post about it being somewhat in error.
 
About the original post. all the responses I have seen have been about the gear. If you are concerned enough that this powder made it to the inflator or even into the hoses, should there be any concern about your lungs? I do not want to raise an uneasy red flag on the play but are you ok.
 
Those were not full-grown ponies; those were just larvae, not even juvenile tanks.
That was brutal 😂
 
Just saw this thread. Yes, a reg filter clogged with aluminum oxide does get reported occasionally. Definitely something to be aware of and have a plan to deal with at depth.




 

Back
Top Bottom