Reasons NOT to use Enriched Air?

[Anti-Hero]

Can you please provide the rest of us with a description of the physiological and biochemical bad things that can happen. I am particularly interested in the ones which we don't even know about.

It can lead to a stroke.

 

[String]

Here is how ppO2 exposure limitations work:

for ppO2 of 1.6 ATAs the exposure limit is 45 mins

...Snip...

No it isn't. You're completely ignoring the increased risk of an immediate acute reaction and only using the oxygen clock.

Since tech-deco diving involves long dives of an hour or more, it is normal to limit your own ppO2 to 1.2 ATAs, until the deco time begins.

According to who ?! Lets see your sources. Certainly not TDI,IANTD,BSAC,DSAT.

ers to use 1.4 because this gives them a much greater margin for error.

It is not a margin for safety, it is a margin for error.

Wrong. It also places them further to the safe side of the curve for immediate acute O2 hits. Something you dont seem to realise even exists.


You repeatedly make sweeping statements without providing any reference or source for these. You word it to try and pass it off as common protocol when it is nothing of the sort. You then repeatedly fail to provide any reference to anyone that has asked you.

Some of the comments you make here yet again are ridiculous, incorrect and at best completely without references. Some of the other comments such as clipping the long hose to the necklace are bordering on the insane.

 

[Thalassamania]

Can you please provide the rest of us with a description of the physiological and biochemical bad things that can happen. I am particularly interested in the ones which we don't even know about.

After one particularly strenuous dive Bismark grew hair on his palms ... it was a hairy dive.

 

[Blackwood]

I do not know if you are a GUE-ie but you are starting to sound like one, with all these senseless rules.

One man's senseless is another man's sense.

Like in that other thread where I'd said I'd choose oxygen to deco from a 90 foot dive and you said that if you only bring one deco gas it will always be 50% (actually... that's less of a senseless rule as it is a baseless one).

Not going solo during the highest PO₂ portion of the dive makes sense to me. And while we're at it, so does avoiding charters on which the captain dictates deco procedures.

To me, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (no, not agreeing on a deco schedule doesn't suffice), breaking up the dive team is right up there with violating the gas plan (and I'd submit that the former necessarily results in the later, but that's how I dive and I know you won't agree).

Getting along with other techdivers is a skill that involves minding your own business as much as possible.

I get along with most everyone I've met, regardless of their recreational predilections. I'd no more rag on another team for solo deco as I would suffer it within my own. (I will, however, put in my two cents on a discussion forum )

Besides, in choosing a team mate, I'm personally much more concerned with how they act underwater than above.

 

[Thalassamania]

Buddies make sense, but only if they're part of a team. Teams make sense, but only if they can dive the same schedule.

 

[Bismark]

After one particularly strenuous dive Bismark grew hair on his palms ... it was a hairy dive.

Too funny. At least when we laugh at your posts it is because you intended them to be funny. Unlike some other posts we laugh at.........

BTW, I keep getting my palm hair caught on my zip seals, any suggestions?

 

[Bismark]

No it isn't. You're completely ignoring the increased risk of an immediate acute reaction and only using the oxygen clock.




According to who ?! Lets see your sources. Certainly not TDI,IANTD,BSAC,DSAT.




Wrong. It also places them further to the safe side of the curve for immediate acute O2 hits. Something you dont seem to realise even exists.


You repeatedly make sweeping statements without providing any reference or source for these. You word it to try and pass it off as common protocol when it is nothing of the sort. You then repeatedly fail to provide any reference to anyone that has asked you.

Some of the comments you make here yet again are ridiculous, incorrect and at best completely without references. Some of the other comments such as clipping the long hose to the necklace are bordering on the insane.

I think it is pretty obvious he is not a technical diver. Most likely not a diver at all. We have presented several questions to which he declines to answer any of them. Hopefully, this should be patently obvious to new divers reading this forum. That is pretty much the best that we can do.

 

[Thalassamania]

Too funny. At least when we laugh at your posts it is because you intended them to be funny. Unlike some other posts we laugh at.........

BTW, I keep getting my palm hair caught on my zip seals, any suggestions?

You owe me a keyboard, after I clean the soda out of my nose.

 

[Blackwood]

I've no doubt that he's a diver, and that he engages in stage deco diving.

However, he's as set in his ways as the most fundamentalist "GUE-ie" out there. It sort of defeats the purpose of discussion, but you get what you pay for, I guess

 

[Catt99]

The myth of the magical properties of 1.4 ATAs as a limit is the main cause for my concern. Hopefully you have now got a better picture of that from some of the technical replies, such as Thal.

Thanks for responding. Yes, Thal's summary was concise -- the thrust of it was pretty much why I didn't want to get into a discussion whether planning dives to 1.6 ATA was "safe" or not -- to me it is a point along the line of relative safety as opposed to safe or not safe (and the point moves with the diver in question, dive conditions, etc.)

I was mostly concerned with your unqualified statements as to "general rules" and what depths were appropriate for various standard mixes (which were also described by you as "ideal" for those depths). I don't agree with your opinions and I'm still trying to figure out how you arrived at them.

Mainly, I don't understand how you arrived at these opinions regarding depth break-points on when "ideal" moves from EANx32 to EANx36. If driven with safety in mind, i.e., a concern for PO2, then I don't understand your methodology. Why, in formulating your opinion of appropriate depths for standard mixes, is 1.4 ATAs the limiting factor on EANx36, and 1.6 ATAs the limiting factor on EANx32? Or is there factor other than PO2 that you're considering when coming up with your suggestions? And yes, lively thread