Catt99
Registered
I tried to resist responding to this thread again.
If 1.6 ATAs is safe oxygen exposure for 45 mins (and I am not disputing that it is otherwise because I simply don't know whether it is "safe"), then why wouldn't EANx36 be the ideal gas to 110 ft instead of 90 ft? You're not going to get 45 mins of NDL time at 110 ft (nor at 90 ft though getting close).
Why, exactly? EANx36 at a ppO2 of 1.6 should give you a max depth of ~113 feet and you've already said that 1.6 ATAs is fine for up to 45 mins.
Also, you're being disingenuous by saying " . . . as I said originally, and which you apparently misunderstood." You originally said EANx36 should be limited to 90 ft (see my quote of your post from yesterday) and you edited your post today, almost 24 hours later, without noting the reason you had edited your post (I haven't read closely to see if you made other changes). No biggee if you meant 95 ft and originally typed 90 ft -- but editing your post and then saying "as I said originally" leaves a pretty bad taste for readers paying attention.
You're responding to a thread titled "Reasons NOT to use Enriched Air" in a forum titled "Basic Scuba Discussions" and throwing around phrases like " . . . the general rule is that EANx is ideal and better than air for any depth between 50 ft and 150 ft" and "for dives in the range of XX to XX EANxXX is the best mix." And now you want to make the point that "oh, by the way, novice divers should do something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than I originally suggested" and "it normally requires a tech-deco course to fully explain oxygen exposure time limits" so you won't provide more detail on your basis for the statements in this thread?
I'm really not trying to flame you personally (though my disapproval of your approach to posting is clearly evident) -- whatever motivates / causes your approach, I'd urge you to be more sensitive to the scope of readership on these boards and be cautious about making declarations regarding what is appropriate and safe for the general readership on something as critical as breathing gases.
Diving to 130 fsw on EAN 32 is no sweat. This would give you a ppO2 of 1.6 ATAs for which the safe oxygen exposure time is 45 minutes. At that depth, your NDL limit is going to be a whole lot less than 45 mins.
If 1.6 ATAs is safe oxygen exposure for 45 mins (and I am not disputing that it is otherwise because I simply don't know whether it is "safe"), then why wouldn't EANx36 be the ideal gas to 110 ft instead of 90 ft? You're not going to get 45 mins of NDL time at 110 ft (nor at 90 ft though getting close).
Diving with EAN 36 should be limited to 95 fsw, as I said originally, and which you apparently misunderstood.
Why, exactly? EANx36 at a ppO2 of 1.6 should give you a max depth of ~113 feet and you've already said that 1.6 ATAs is fine for up to 45 mins.
Also, you're being disingenuous by saying " . . . as I said originally, and which you apparently misunderstood." You originally said EANx36 should be limited to 90 ft (see my quote of your post from yesterday) and you edited your post today, almost 24 hours later, without noting the reason you had edited your post (I haven't read closely to see if you made other changes). No biggee if you meant 95 ft and originally typed 90 ft -- but editing your post and then saying "as I said originally" leaves a pretty bad taste for readers paying attention.
Novice divers are recommened to limit their ppO2 exposure to 1.4 ATAs, and if you are a novice, that is what you should also do.
You're responding to a thread titled "Reasons NOT to use Enriched Air" in a forum titled "Basic Scuba Discussions" and throwing around phrases like " . . . the general rule is that EANx is ideal and better than air for any depth between 50 ft and 150 ft" and "for dives in the range of XX to XX EANxXX is the best mix." And now you want to make the point that "oh, by the way, novice divers should do something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than I originally suggested" and "it normally requires a tech-deco course to fully explain oxygen exposure time limits" so you won't provide more detail on your basis for the statements in this thread?
I'm really not trying to flame you personally (though my disapproval of your approach to posting is clearly evident) -- whatever motivates / causes your approach, I'd urge you to be more sensitive to the scope of readership on these boards and be cautious about making declarations regarding what is appropriate and safe for the general readership on something as critical as breathing gases.
Last edited: