Don Burke
Contributor
Now I understand completely.bigredbill:
Octo/Safe Seconds - What I am considering - going overboard?
- Thread starter bigredbill
- Start date
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
OP
bigredbill
Contributor
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 0
Takes one to know one, I guess.
Don Burke
Contributor
It would appear much of your life is based on guesswork.bigredbill:
Good luck.
Big Red,
You're coming on a bit strong, and taking offense where no offense was intended.
You've asked a legitimate question, involving a convoluted idea.
Its a convoluted idea because it adds multiple failure points to a system. As any system's potential to fail increases geometrically with the addition of more failure points, and as Murphy's Law of Systems states that anything that can fail eventually will fail, and at the worst possible time - you're setting yourself up for additional grief at some random point in your diving future.
People have tried to explain this, but you choose to defend the concept. Fine, have at it. But don't get so excited.
It sounds like you're aware that you can be headstrong, and you've managed to annoy some of the more mature and rational members of our little kaffeeklatsch here. Sounds like you've been around since Jacques Cousteau, and you're fond of analogies, so let me give you another one that you'll understand. It's like you've walked into the country store, asked a question at the counter, one of the old guys playing checkers in the back gives you what you perceive to be a flip answer, so you go over and take a dump on their checkerboard.
If you want to do it, go do it. Rick didn't mean any offense. Say you're sorry and walk on out of the damned store.
You're coming on a bit strong, and taking offense where no offense was intended.
You've asked a legitimate question, involving a convoluted idea.
Its a convoluted idea because it adds multiple failure points to a system. As any system's potential to fail increases geometrically with the addition of more failure points, and as Murphy's Law of Systems states that anything that can fail eventually will fail, and at the worst possible time - you're setting yourself up for additional grief at some random point in your diving future.
People have tried to explain this, but you choose to defend the concept. Fine, have at it. But don't get so excited.
It sounds like you're aware that you can be headstrong, and you've managed to annoy some of the more mature and rational members of our little kaffeeklatsch here. Sounds like you've been around since Jacques Cousteau, and you're fond of analogies, so let me give you another one that you'll understand. It's like you've walked into the country store, asked a question at the counter, one of the old guys playing checkers in the back gives you what you perceive to be a flip answer, so you go over and take a dump on their checkerboard.
If you want to do it, go do it. Rick didn't mean any offense. Say you're sorry and walk on out of the damned store.
crpntr133
lost, even with a compass
Kinda like asking for an opinion and then getting made because someone gave theirs and you didn't like it. I still don't see what everyoe is all fired up about. An opinion was given, and it wasn't slandering, and all hell breaks loose.
It sounds like you had your mind set Bigredbill before you even posted so why did you even ask. Don't get mad, just do it.
It sounds like you had your mind set Bigredbill before you even posted so why did you even ask. Don't get mad, just do it.
scubafanatic
Contributor
- Messages
- 5,090
- Reaction score
- 914
.....can't say I've ever seen a diver using your 'suggested' configuration......and while it might sound 'elitist' I'd challenge you to find any agency/instructor who'd recommend your configuration either. I guess it would be possible to strap a long hose/octo to each leg too, as an OOA diver swimming toward you from behind will get within grabbing range of your fins before getting within grabbing range of your back...so perhaps that would make even more 'sense' ?
Professional divers know it's imperative all you gear be personallyaccessible.....avoid mounting any gear 'behind' you where you can't reach it.....also reduces the entanglement hazzards not having a bunch of extra gear back there to snag something.
You might be better served getting redundancy in other ways......I have 3 of my single tanks Y-valve equipped.........so I can have 2 independent 1st-stages...and can have a dual-wing bladder (one bladder connected to each of the 1st stages)....this way I'm covered against a wing failure or a complete regulator failure.
Remember, if all else fails, one can resort to good old-fashioned buddy-breathing off one 2nd-stage, which should be doable in the context of the fact we're talking about recreational dives per the original 'question.'
Karl
Professional divers know it's imperative all you gear be personallyaccessible.....avoid mounting any gear 'behind' you where you can't reach it.....also reduces the entanglement hazzards not having a bunch of extra gear back there to snag something.
You might be better served getting redundancy in other ways......I have 3 of my single tanks Y-valve equipped.........so I can have 2 independent 1st-stages...and can have a dual-wing bladder (one bladder connected to each of the 1st stages)....this way I'm covered against a wing failure or a complete regulator failure.
Remember, if all else fails, one can resort to good old-fashioned buddy-breathing off one 2nd-stage, which should be doable in the context of the fact we're talking about recreational dives per the original 'question.'
Karl
OP
bigredbill
Contributor
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 0
If you bothered to read my original post you would see that I was NOT asking for opinions. I was asking if anyone had any EXPERIENCE rigging themselves the way that I proposed. I know at least one diver in Canada does, and thought there might be others.
What I got instead was.....
Then I got....
Next I get -
As for me taking a dump on someone's checkerboard analogy, a better analogy is that I walked into the country store, asked if they had any butter, and was given a lecture on the benefits of lard, and was told I was an idiot for not knowing that from the beginning.
In summary, I did take offense to being addressed as if I were some minion seeking wisdom from on high, rather then as a peer.
One other issue to address, and that is the issue of complex vs. simple vs. redundancy vs. points-of-failure discussion. The idea that simpler is always better and reducing points of failure is to be preferred and is smarter; this a real misreading of a more complex engineering principle. It is very useful to look at reducing points of failure, but this is only the case if you are not consequently reducing redundancy as well. It is a far more complex equation than simply reducing points of failure and declaring your system more reliable. As an example, which is more reliable, a single or a twin engine airplane? In a twin engine airplane you are at least twice as likely to have an engine failure - so is going from multi-engines to a single engine a move to a more reliable system? Of course not, because the discussion has to take place within the context of the entire process. If your aircraft is designed to fly after an engine failure, and if your pilots are properly trained how to handle an engine failure, a twin is a more reliable way of getting back on the ground safely, given everything else being equal. The same engineering approach should be taken when looking at what you take diving. Is the added complexity of taking another 2nd worth the benefit of having it around? Given all things being equal, I would think it might be, some might think it is not.
A 747 has scads of redundent systems which increase the complexity of the aircraft. Is this a bad thing? I think the record is clear that it is not.
If I put that 2nd octo on your back, it becomes so apparently available to your buddy that I have air for him, if only he will come to me, regardless of our orientation to each other, that he is more likely to do the smart thing that he has been trained to do - but which instinct might overrule in a moment of panic. Is it worth it to me to increase my number of failure points slightly in order to reduce the likelihood of my buddy panicking in a OOA situation and subsequently blowing up his lungs? It might be, it might be.....
What I got instead was.....
which I interpret as a backhanded way of insulting my ability to properly equipment myself. What in the world does my looking for information on this board about an old reg I came across in a previous post have to do with my original question on this thread? Answer: Nothing. It is a display of snobbery.Rick Inman:
Then I got....
...which I interpret to mean that I sure don't know how to dive or to buddy in an appropriate manner. Again, this has nothing to do with my original post, but is a way of attempting to appear superior. Anyone who hasn't seen his buddies tank more than his buddies primary has not been diving much.Rick Inman:
Next I get -
In my original post it is quite clear that I have seen the system in action and do not like certain aspects of it.Rick Inman:
As for me taking a dump on someone's checkerboard analogy, a better analogy is that I walked into the country store, asked if they had any butter, and was given a lecture on the benefits of lard, and was told I was an idiot for not knowing that from the beginning.
In summary, I did take offense to being addressed as if I were some minion seeking wisdom from on high, rather then as a peer.
One other issue to address, and that is the issue of complex vs. simple vs. redundancy vs. points-of-failure discussion. The idea that simpler is always better and reducing points of failure is to be preferred and is smarter; this a real misreading of a more complex engineering principle. It is very useful to look at reducing points of failure, but this is only the case if you are not consequently reducing redundancy as well. It is a far more complex equation than simply reducing points of failure and declaring your system more reliable. As an example, which is more reliable, a single or a twin engine airplane? In a twin engine airplane you are at least twice as likely to have an engine failure - so is going from multi-engines to a single engine a move to a more reliable system? Of course not, because the discussion has to take place within the context of the entire process. If your aircraft is designed to fly after an engine failure, and if your pilots are properly trained how to handle an engine failure, a twin is a more reliable way of getting back on the ground safely, given everything else being equal. The same engineering approach should be taken when looking at what you take diving. Is the added complexity of taking another 2nd worth the benefit of having it around? Given all things being equal, I would think it might be, some might think it is not.
A 747 has scads of redundent systems which increase the complexity of the aircraft. Is this a bad thing? I think the record is clear that it is not.
If I put that 2nd octo on your back, it becomes so apparently available to your buddy that I have air for him, if only he will come to me, regardless of our orientation to each other, that he is more likely to do the smart thing that he has been trained to do - but which instinct might overrule in a moment of panic. Is it worth it to me to increase my number of failure points slightly in order to reduce the likelihood of my buddy panicking in a OOA situation and subsequently blowing up his lungs? It might be, it might be.....
scubafanatic
Contributor
- Messages
- 5,090
- Reaction score
- 914
Hi bigredbill,
...it's OK for divers to agree to disagree...I'd don't think anyone on the board meant any harm/ill will. I wish you all the best with you new configuration...I hope it works out for you....if you and your buddies are fine with it, more power to you...it's a free country.
Karl
...it's OK for divers to agree to disagree...I'd don't think anyone on the board meant any harm/ill will. I wish you all the best with you new configuration...I hope it works out for you....if you and your buddies are fine with it, more power to you...it's a free country.
Karl
Hey bigredbill,
It might be helpful to fill out your profile, then people might know if they are talking to a peer.
It might be helpful to fill out your profile, then people might know if they are talking to a peer.
crpntr133
lost, even with a compass
Looks like Rick really got under the skin.
I sit corrected. Withdraw my opinion.
Now lets start over... Sorry Bigredbill I don't rig myself that way nor know of anyone that does, or would for that matter.
I sit corrected. Withdraw my opinion.
Now lets start over... Sorry Bigredbill I don't rig myself that way nor know of anyone that does, or would for that matter.
Similar threads
