Reason for Rec Triox?

[rjack321]

Can we at least put the whole O2 is, is not, narcotic thing in another thread? Like one of the hundred or so already floating around here. Personally the difference between 21 and 32% is not relevant compared to other factors, cold, decent rate, dark, apprehension, etc. But that's all moot...

since nobody here is claiming that 30/30 has less narcosis due to the O2 right?

If you want a 100% clear head at 80-120 feet, take helium. If you don't feel narced, that may or may not be true/significant if you were to be objectively tested. It may - in all likelyhood- depend significantly on your workload and CO2 at the time too.

 

[lamont]

With respect to oxygen: Most of the folks I know who did an oxygen tollerance test will tell you that at sixty feet in the chamber they felt a little buzz, went on oxygen and the buzz went away, and it came back when they went off oxygen. Not conclusive, and at an endpoint, but still?

I've been hammered at 100 fsw on EAN32 and turned the dive due to narcosis and never been close to it at those depths on 30/30. What exactly is the point of arguing over if O2 is narcotic or not?

 

[Thalassamania]

I've been hammered at 100 fsw on EAN32 and turned the dive due to narcosis and never been close to it at those depths on 30/30. What exactly is the point of arguing over if O2 is narcotic or not?

really just a question of how to best perform a calculation that will give you inaccurate information on how hammered you're going to be tomorrow.

 

[Dive-aholic]

As with a lot of the "science" of diving there is no black and white answer (?)

There is a chance that oxygen is narcotic and a chance that it isn´t. Evaluate the consequences of both possibilities, find your "truth" and consider the risk of being wrong. Then choose your method of calculating narcotic depth and go dive it. Chances are you won´t ever find out if you are right or wrong.

The fact that no-one can call you wrong and prove it is one of the things that makes decompression and most of the other stuff interesting to talk about and since we won´t all ever agree we can keep discussing it endlessly...

Exactly! My OP was about the benefits of helium in the Rec Triox depth range. It seems to be to eliminate narcosis. The thread has evolved beyond that (like so many on the Board and in diving in general do).

Can we at least put the whole O2 is, is not, narcotic thing in another thread?

Why? My question has been answered. The discussion has evolved beyond it. Why cut it off and redirect everyone to another thread?

Personally, I'd like to keep it here because I'd like to continue to read the DIR viewpoint on it. I'm in an area of the country where DIR isn't taught on a regular basis (if at all). There's actually a shop about 2.5 hours away that is supposedly going to start offering DIR courses sometime soon, but I have issues with that shop and won't go there. So my closest DIR exposure is right here.

I met a couple of your friends last night for the first time. We talked for 3 hours, and the conversation could have continued far longer. But I guess that's what happens when you get a few dive addicts together at the same table.

 

[MHK]

Many of the discussions on scuba forums sometimes miss the forest from the trees, and has a tendancy to want a concrete written answer in response to every issue, when in point of fact it is called decompression THEORY for a good reason. Most of the issues being debated at this juncture of the thread are subjective in nature; narcosis, C02 retention, gas density and lipid solubity tables can be discussed ad nausem, but my comments have been in response to the reason behind GUE offering a Rec Triox class.

In short, relating the following comments specifically to the issue of the inclusion of helium. Our thoughts were along the lines of prior to the release of the GUE Rec Triox program helium was considered a voodoo gas only to be used by those "crazy tech divers". No other agency was willing to introduce helium to the recreational world. GUE believed that the benefits associated with helium were also appropriate for dives beginning in the 80' - 100' range. Moreover, what is at the core of GUE training is understanding the bigger picture and then adapting that larger picture to your diving taken as a whole. While for certain dives at 101' can be done on air, and are done so all the time, but that is where I say that if you are looking at the issue from that limited prism, you miss the bigger picture GUE is trying to offer. We standardize our way of diving so we don't have to accept compromises from within our team. We wouldn't dive with a team member that hasn't accepted the way we dive. That isn't to say that others are reckless or dangerous, but it is to offer that each and every compenent of the GUE system is designed to reduce the risk tolerance level which therefore transcends into the notion that every deviation from our standardized protocol, by definition, increases the risk tolerance level. So if our starting point is a baseline of what we believe is our acceptable tolerance level, why would we agree to allow a team member with a higher baseline of risk tolerance to join the team? If you accept the idea that the team is only as strong as the weakest link, then adding risk by a team member deviating from the baseline level of risk tolerance puts the whole team in jeopardy.

Hope that helps clarify our thougths.

Regards,

 

[Dive-aholic]

Thanks, MHK. I understand that concept of GUE. What it says to me, though, is that if the team is willing to dive to 100' on air, then it's okay. If one member of the team wants to dive 30/30, then the whole team must dive 30/30. Currently, my team includes my wife and me (I believe GUE dictates a team of 3, but we're not exactly DIR and a team of 3 isn't realistic where we're at on a regular enough basis). We're in agreement on what we want to dive and are doing so.

I do agree that the team is only as strong as the weakest link and we dive at that standard. But the weakest link also becomes stronger as more experience is gained.

I'm not sure I see all advantages to DIR, but I do see a lot and that's why I'm asking questions.

We wouldn't dive with a team member that hasn't accepted the way we dive.

I just read a post from a non-DIR diver about a dive day with several DIR divers in SoCal. It appears they all had a great time. Maybe your statement is limited to a different type of diving, or am I misinterpreting it?

 

[rjack321]

The narotic properties and speculation about them has been discussed alot here, maybe 15-20 times.

The reason every thread here turns into mush is because they roam all over the place. I think your question about why rec-triox has been answered quite well by Mr. Hall.

With 66 posts and counting, I propose that if you want to know the DIR answer to O2 and narcosis you start another thread. That way future readers can find it and it won't be buried 7 pages in under an unrelated heading.

And maybe, just maybe, they won't start another thread to discuss O2 and narcosis a 21st time.

Shoot, I'm not even a moderator, but focusing the discussion on the topic at hand is basic ordnung.

 

[limeyx]

Thanks, MHK. I understand that concept of GUE. What it says to me, though, is that if the team is willing to dive to 100' on air, then it's okay. If one member of the team wants to dive 30/30, then the whole team must dive 30/30. Currently, my team includes my wife and me (I believe GUE dictates a team of 3, but we're not exactly DIR and a team of 3 isn't realistic where we're at on a regular enough basis). We're in agreement on what we want to dive and are doing so.
...

DIR does not "dictate" a team of 3, but once you do tech1 or cave1 and see what the options are with one OOA diver in a team of 3, compared to a team of two (of course taking into account that in theory with 3 divers the chance of a failure might be a bit higher), you can see why 3 is considered safer.

However, I believe the WKPP did some diving in Leon sinks last year where they elected for teams of 2 due to the size of the cave -- and I think they could be said to be diving "DIR"

And really, it's not as strict as you point out (which is what I think MHK is getting at).
The critical thing is that you dive "compatible" gases and/or profiles within the DIR ranges.

So if you do a 100 foot dive, it's quite OK to have one diver on 32% and one on 30/30 (because they have the same ascent profile and MDL limits)

If I do a dive to 150 feet, I can easily bring 18/45 and a buddy 21/35 because (and here's where all the deco experts get annoyed) for the tech1 range, I would do exactly the same deco profile on either gas, so the difference is irrelevant.

Now, if someone showed up for a 150 dive with 30/30 or 28% then there is no way we could do the dive.

And While I consider myself as doing everything I can to be DIR, would I say I have never done a 100 foot dive on air? Well, at times I have done that, and I am sure that at times in the future I will do it as well. Would I do 150 feet on air, or without Helium? Or 120 ? No way.

Sometimes the details do get in the way, and a 200 post thread about what size boltsnap to use for a lighthead can definitely give a lot of people the impression that "DIR" is all about arguing over gear/procedures and not really doing any diving

 

[MHK]

Thanks, MHK. I understand that concept of GUE. What it says to me, though, is that if the team is willing to dive to 100' on air, then it's okay. If one member of the team wants to dive 30/30, then the whole team must dive 30/30. Currently, my team includes my wife and me (I believe GUE dictates a team of 3, but we're not exactly DIR and a team of 3 isn't realistic where we're at on a regular enough basis). We're in agreement on what we want to dive and are doing so.

I do agree that the team is only as strong as the weakest link and we dive at that standard. But the weakest link also becomes stronger as more experience is gained.

I'm not sure I see all advantages to DIR, but I do see a lot and that's why I'm asking questions.



I just read a post from a non-DIR diver about a dive day with several DIR divers in SoCal. It appears they all had a great time. Maybe your statement is limited to a different type of diving, or am I misinterpreting it?

I don't think you'd find many DIR divers using air at 100', but conceptually the point is that we agree on a baseline, let's say we all agree that dives to 100' we'd use 32% and on dives below 100' we all agree to use 30/30. Then that becomes part of our team protocols and we'd move on from there. Once the team starts accepting compromises where and when does it end? Now I agree that this is in a perfect world, so for example if we all went to Cayman, and He is over a $1 per CuFt it may be cost prohibitive to do a week of diving on 30/30 and we'd accept a 32%, but again that would be a team decision. Moreover, we dive in teams of 2 all the time so I'm not sure where you get the impression we insist on 3 man teams.

In it's most fundamental core GUE is about getting everyone on the same page, diving the same way, and being consistent with a set of diving values agreed to by all on the team. The less amount of divers willing to go beyond the scope of what was agreed to by the team is a very effective way to reduce variables, and the lower amount of variables is helpful in reducing the overall risk associated with your dive.

Hope that helps.

 

[TSandM]

Rob, DIR divers dive with non-DIR people all the time. Shallow dives, skills dives, simple dives in general are fine to do with mixed teams, when you understand that that's what you are doing. For example, I like to dive with new divers, but I have a personal principle that I don't go deeper than I can CESA, because I can't be sure the person I'm with can donate gas and manage an ascent. It's risk management.

As the dives get deeper or more complex, the importance of having the entire team on the same page increases. When I'm diving in the 100 foot range, which is my current hard deck for myself in cold water, I want to dive with my DIR buddies, with whom I've practiced emergency procedures, and whose gas planning and gas consumption I know (and they know mine).

My guess is that, in many ways, you and your wife are already functioning as that kind of team. You're making some gas decisions that wouldn't be DIR, though, because the risks involved in that degree of narcosis aren't recommended in the DIR protocols.