Nitrogen narcosis

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!

At the risk of being accused of drifting of topic, I'll start by staying on topic and say that it is nice she sits upright as your proposed air bounce will not nessecerily have to take you to the seabed.

As for your question, certainly a contender for Lavender, with the length almost spot on. But the width of 15m adds almost half to Lavenders / Acacia Class stated width of 10m, but if it is the stern debris field adding that bit of extra width, then....Only thing, the bulky above decks 'center section' looks somewhat out of place as to what one might expect. Only way to find out is go dive it and see! Good luck!

Oh, and I envy your side scan gear that revealed those images!!! If only we............
Can’t take credit for the imaging gear definitely not mine, it was done by a large survey vessel.
 
Hope you get 10m vis and no current at the bottom so you don't need to drop too far down while breathing air as well as kicking hard.
All contribute to narcosis at depth.
Need to stay on topic.
 
This is an interview that I did with the late Dr Richard Vann about Inert Gas Narcosis. It might be of interest to this thread.
 
This article includes a bit more information on the Mount-Milner Test:Nitrogen Narcosis: A Critical Conversation - DIVER magazine

Re the above article, shame someone had not bothered to check the ft to metric conversion calculation, or for typos as in "I would like to emphasize that deep air diving below 218 fsw (60.6m) is generally not recommended given the alternatives available in today’s industry. This depth represents the outer limits of recommended oxygen exposures at 1.6 ATA of 02."

I'd be surprised if it was Bret's math, as I know he can count and 'assume' he wrote the article in imperial measurement (ft), but as as we know 218ft = 66m which is where air reaches the 1.6 'threshhold', not 60.6m. But don't let that turn you off reading the article!
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom