Reconsidering Deep Air?

[scubadada]

I would not advise others how to behave. In 2000 dives, I have chosen to dive deeper than rec limits just 32 times. All these dives were goal oriented. 29 of these dives were 130-149 ft. Only 3 were deeper than 150 ft, deepest 161 feet. These dives were made with consideration of the risks. I may make that decision again. The decision is yours to make.

 

[Celt]

If it works for you then that's fine, but telling others it's a good idea because you do it yourself without issues is pretty reckless IMO.

Would you mind telling me where I told anyone what to do

 

[Degenerate]

Would you mind telling me where I told anyone what to do

Wasn't just related to this thread, you've been advocating deep air several times before.
Interesting that you only decided to respond to that part of my reply though.

 

[Celt]

Wasn't just related to this thread, you've been advocating deep air several times before.
Interesting that you only decided to respond to that part of my reply though.

Quote the post where I told another diver how they should dive, that’s the last thing I would do unlike some

 

[Akimbo]

I meant what adjustment can the diver making the 800 foot dive in the video make.

In my experience, none short of using a RCV ROV.

 

[rjack321]

I think you’re mixing up my post with something else but what’s your point, my point is diving air to 187 feet is a minor risk for some people when compared to other risks they may have taken.

Indeed, sometimes people do really risky stuff, especially in their youth. Base jumping, wingsuit flying, breath hold cave diving, riding motorcycles without helmets at extreme speeds after having a beer, the list goes on and on.

Just because there are riskier things to do in the world does not make 187ft on air "safe" or even minor (compared to what?). You can dramatically cut the risk of your 187ft dive. Minimize being narced plus having a less dense gas to lessen the CO2 threats. Your choice of gas is analogous to choosing to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. There is a generally available, risk reduction tool right there in front of you and you are refusing to use it because you prefer the wind in your hair. Or are too cheap to buy the helmet. Or think that only other people crash.

*shrugs* dive however you like, but your safe enough arguments are weak sauce.

 

[Degenerate]

Quote the post where I told another diver how they should dive, that’s the last thing I would do unlike some

I'm gonna have to put my tail between my legs and apologize here, I seem to have confused you with another member.
Sorry Mac

 

[drbill]

For some time I used to dive repeatedly to 200 fsw on air to film for an episode of my cable TV program on "deep ecology." I remember one day I averaged 180 fsw on three dives. I took a few months to get to 200 fsw, doing deeper and deeper dives to test my response. Fortunately I had little narcosis (as judged by my filming) as I was doing 300-350 dives/year and my body was full of nitrogen! Today I stay within rec limits as I have no reason to descend to such depths.

 

[Celt]

I'm gonna have to put my tail between my legs and apologize here, I seem to have confused you with another member.
Sorry Mac

No bother thank you.

 

[Akimbo]

60 ft/min is 30 cm/s. According to this paper, that would require a bubble of about 2 cm diameter.

Interesting paper but I question how useful it is in this application. Unless you are really deep, you can't use the same bubble all the time due to expansion and nobody brought a caliper to try measuring them. The technique required divers to ballpark the diameter and constantly switch bubbles, or clouds of bubbles. How did you estimate ascent rates in midwater? It's not like our analog depth gauges were sensitive enough to be useful.