Reasons NOT to use Enriched Air?

[nereas]

I certainly don't think it solves everything (and doubt the other poster feels that as well). It's pretty clear that somewhere along a line (representing risk) from 0.0 -> x.x PO2 there's a point that is "right" in terms of degree of risk each person is willing to take given each particular dive profile. For Thal, it might be as high as 1.8 for some portions of certain dives, and might be lower than 1.4 for other dives. For you, it apparently is 1.6 max (but I still don't get at all why you propose a general "rule" about max depths on standard mixes that aren't correlated with the same PO2).

As a recreational diver with no deco / tech training, no extensive experience pushing past PO2 of 1.4, and most importantly no demands on my dive profiles other than having fun and enjoying a dive, I'll stick to planning dives with a MOD based on PO2 of 1.4.

That is exactly what we teach novice amateur NDL divers precisely to do. Nice job! Keep it up.

 

[ianr33]

Once more then I have had enough with this idiocy

NDL at 130 on 32% on my computer is 17 minutes.

Do 3 dives in a day like that and you have been at 1.6ATM O2 for 51 minutes . Sure the NDL on subsequent dives will be shorter but it would still be quite possible to exceed the oxygen limits.

If you want to routinely dive 32% to 130 feet go ahead. I really dont care.

But PLEASE dont tell new divers in the Basic Scuba Discussions that it is safe to do so.

You are a dangerous fool.

 

[Puffer Fish]

I realize it can be fun to argue... but Thalassamania's posts do an excellent job of presenting the known knowledge regarding the risk of using Nitrox. It would seem to be fairly clear that as you approach the dangerous levels (depending on the amount of risk one is willing to accept), a whole bunch of factors come into play regarding both the absolute accuracy of the data, and the conditions one is using the gas under. I don't know about anyone else, but my risk tolerance is really, really tiny.

 

[Thalassamania]

Once more then I have had enough with this idiocy

NDL at 130 on 32% on my computer is 17 minutes.

The accepted NDL for NOAA-32 is 20 min.

Do 3 dives in a day like that and you have been at 1.6ATM O2 for 51 minutes . Sure the NDL on subsequent dives will be shorter but it would still be quite possible to exceed the oxygen limits.

Do three no-D dives to 130 on NOAA-32 in a typical diving day and you'll have a total bottom time of about 40 min (assumes 3 hr SITs). The most 1.6 ata bottom time you could squeeze out in 24 hours is 57 min. The 24 hr. exposure limit is 150 minutes. So what is it that you are talking about?

If you want to routinely dive 32% to 130 feet go ahead. I really dont care.

I have and I'm quite sure I will in the future.

But PLEASE dont tell new divers in the Basic Scuba Discussions that it is safe to do so.

Why, do you think they're stupid or something? Nothing is "safe." Diving is all about intelligent risk management, not blind adherence to unsubstantiated dogma.

You are a dangerous fool.

I guess I'm a dangerous fool too, but I'm in good company, Morgan Wells, Dick Rutkowski, Lee Somers, Sylvia Earle, etc.

 

[ianr33]

). The most 1.6 ata bottom time you could squeeze out in 24 hours is 57 min. The 24 exposure limit is 150 minutes. So what is it that you are talking about?
.

Hate to admit it but you're correct on that

I'm still not going to dive 32% to 130 though. IMHO it would be safer to dive 28% and do a few minutes deco.

Thats the way I would risk manage a 130 foot dive. (Well actually I would do it on air with O2 for deco but thats another thread)

 

[Thalassamania]

Hate to admit it but you're correct on that

I'm still not going to dive 32% to 130 though.

Believe me, I'm not going to grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you down to 1.6 on NOAA-32. That's your (and everybody's) personal decision. But making such a dive does not make one a "dangerous fool." I dare say I know many risk adverse divers who would choose diving to 130 on 32 as the less risky option.

 

[almitywife]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

hi guys, ive been asked to look over this thread but already i see some name calling so how about taking it easy for a few while its reviewed.

in the meantime, please remind yourselves that this is Basic Scuba and its rules include: "This forum is intended to be a very friendly, "flame free zone" where divers of any skill level may ask questions about basic scuba topics without fear of being accosted. Please show respect and courtesy at all times. "

many thanks

---

 

[ianr33]

Believe me, I'm not going to grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you down to 1.6 on NOAA-32. That's your (and everybody's) personal decision. But making such a dive does not make one a "dangerous fool." I dare say I know many risk adverse divers who would choose diving to 130 on 32 as the less risky option.

I never said you were a dangerous fool.You are a big boy and can make your own decisions.

The comment was aimed at Nereas for suggesting in a Basic Scuba Forum that diving to 1.6 is O.K. No training agency (that I am aware of) would condone that.

 

[Thalassamania]

I never said you were a dangerous fool.You are a big boy and can make your own decisions.

The comment was aimed at Nereas for suggesting in a Basic Scuba Forum that diving to 1.6 is O.K. No training agency (that I am aware of) would condone that.

But they're more than happy to graduate "divers" who can not control their buoyancy and who lack basic air sharing ability. Go figure?

 

[Tigerman]

But they're more than happy to graduate "divers" who can not control their buoyancy and who lack basic air sharing ability. Go figure?

No theire not (atleast not officially)...
Basic bouyancy control and air sharing IS part of the curriculum. But then again, how "basic" is defined is of course something we could discuss till sometime in 2017 and Ive seen a couple of divers where "basic" would be "miraculously being able not to plunge down to 4000 feet". Then again, I dont know who certified them and how they passed their checkouts. Im not convinced all instructors are very good at failing people that they could/should fail without anyone but the one failed asking any questions..