Nitrox mixes above 40%?

[Abdullah]

Is it in the advanced nitrox course as well that using 1.6 instead of 1.4 is taught? I understand that the 1.4 is merely a conservative safety factor on the 1.6. But does it become "common practice" to ignore the 1.4 after "Advanced Nitrox". Or is the 1.4 just a PADI limit?
Thanks!

The PPO2 limits history incldes NOAA and DSAT. PPO2 1.4 is the OSHA limit for recreational dive instructors and guides by (29CFR1910, Subpart T, App C). The OSHA requirement states an employer shall ensure no diver exceeds PPO2 1.4, OR 130 fsw. The diver in OSHA is the employee, not the recreational diver enjoying his hobby. But it is notable that the regulatory "safe" limit is 1.4.

 

[CT-Rich]

Rebreather diving is a completely different animal. A rebreather can quietly kill you and you'll never know anything happened.

Rebreather usage procedures, maintenance and prep is more like what you would expect from an anesthesiologist, not a SCUBA diver.

flots.

I wouln't say this is a load of crap. While I am not a CCR diver, CCR have a decades long history of killing the unwary. With a history like that and the fact that you die you don't get any warning AND the thing needs to be controlled by a computer, the strict discipline of an Tech diver and/or expertise in gases and physiology are super important. CCR is not something you do in a Trust-me sort of way. I think the point was it is not a type of diving to be taken lightly or carelessly.

 

[AfterDark]

I wouln't say this is a load of crap. While I am not a CCR diver, CCR have a decades long history of killing the unwary. With a history like that and the fact that you die you don't get any warning AND the thing needs to be controlled by a computer, the strict discipline of an Tech diver and/or expertise in gases and physiology are super important. CCR is not something you do in a Trust-me sort of way. I think the point was it is not a type of diving to be taken lightly or carelessly.

I'm not sure about the safety of the computer controlled aspect. There are a few CCRs out there that don't have much in the way of computer controls and I can't recall the last time I read about someone buying the farm using one. The KISS unit is one example. Being in the hi-tech field working with cuting edge tech I can say with certainty that I have little to no faith in the ablity of an electronic computer controlled device to deliver consistant and correct performance. I spent all night debugging ECC hardware and the failures I see are plenty. I would be hard pressed to trust my life to such a device. I am in awe of people that will.

 

[fishb0y]

I love reading about the dangers of rebreathers from the those who have never even dove one. If you want facts from an expert, check out Mel Clark's book 'Rebreathers Simplified'. 'Facts' from so called internet experts are much more dangerous than rebreathers!

 

[616fun]

I love reading about the dangers of rebreathers from the those who have never even dove one. If you want facts from an expert, check out Mel Clark's book 'Rebreathers Simplified'. 'Facts' from so called internet experts are much more dangerous than rebreathers!

While the Internet experts do offer confusion, I wouldn't call rebreathers 'safe.' Even the experts are continually stating the dangers present. Very respected and noted experts have found themselves dead diving them.

That said - it's like every other aspect of this sport. Know and manage your risks.

http://youtu.be/WTNX6mr753w

 

[flots am]

I love reading about the dangers of rebreathers from the those who have never even dove one. If you want facts from an expert, check out Mel Clark's book 'Rebreathers Simplified'. 'Facts' from so called internet experts are much more dangerous than rebreathers!

You could ask Rob Davie. He's a rebreather instructor.

Unfortunately, he's dead. From a rebreather.

flots.

 

[PeterNBiddle]

Being in the hi-tech field working with cuting edge tech I can say with certainty that I have little to no faith in the ablity of an electronic computer controlled device to deliver consistant and correct performance.

The CPU in the computer you used to enter in the text above was built in a fab that uses perhaps thousands of computer controlled devices (design, tape out, validation, QA, foundry, etc) to make chips specifically because those computers can be made to deliver consistent and correct performance.

Perfect? No. But the analog universe is hardly bug free...

 

[fishb0y]

Well gee Flots... I guess I should just give up on my rebreather now.

 

[Searcaigh]

Well gee Flots... I guess I should just give up on my rebreather now.

Great idea fishb0y, just pack it up and send it to me, I 'll take care of it for you

 

[AfterDark]

The CPU in the computer you used to enter in the text above was built in a fab that uses perhaps thousands of computer controlled devices (design, tape out, validation, QA, foundry, etc) to make chips specifically because those computers can be made to deliver consistent and correct performance.

Perfect? No. But the analog universe is hardly bug free...

All it takes is 1 glitch / bug at depth to end the dive. With luck the diver can bail out with OC, without luck another used CCR is on the market.

Did I mention software corruption? I've been at this hi-tech job for 15 years. You want me to believe you and not my lying eyes?

---------- Post added March 31st, 2013 at 06:19 AM ----------

Well gee Flots... I guess I should just give up on my rebreather now.

Why? It'll probably give up on you one day. I like the concept but it as a ways to go before I'm convinced. I don't even "trust" my PDC.

I don't mean to bash CCR, I'm just stating my opinion of he technolgy that supports it and many other devices dive and non-dive related. I seem to remmeber that a few times the space shuttle had to be landed manually because of a computer glitch. Think a CCR is more advanced than NASA's hardware?