Recreational Trimix

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Easy to say when you're not even diving normal trimix :mooner:
Right on, as usual Richard. I hesitate to pay ~$100 for fills for a dive I can perfectly execute with ~$30 worth of gas. But that's a conversation we've had time and again and I doubt anyone wants to go revisit that horse carcass. There is no way I'd be paying around $1000 for neon fills even though it could be even more optimal than helium. Would you?
attachment.php


Well... maybe when I get my CCR...
 

Attachments

  • Picture2.jpg
    Picture2.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 248
Right on, as usual Richard. I hesitate to pay ~$100 for fills for a dive I can perfectly execute with ~$30 worth of gas. But that's a conversation we've had time and again and I doubt anyone wants to go revisit that horse carcass. There is no way I'd be paying around $1000 for neon fills even though it could be even more optimal than helium. Would you?

Well... maybe when I get my CCR...

Any video or pictures from these perfect dives? Screen shots of profiles? We're listening... I'm sure liteheaded and others would love to hear more about mixed gas topics you have no formal training in and no experience with either (again) - yet for some curious reason demand scientific "proof" of the validity of everyone else's experiences.
 
Any video or pictures from these perfect dives? Screen shots of profiles? We're listening... I'm sure liteheaded and others would love to hear more about mixed gas topics you have no formal training in and no experience with either (again) - yet for some curious reason demand scientific "proof" of the validity of everyone else's experiences.
I did post #65 before I read your post #64. Post deleted. 64 was a sucker punch. I was not expecting it as I thought the mood of this thread had lightened. Richard, how do you know my training level? Have we ever met in person? Have we ever dove together? Maybe you have dove with people that have dove with me?

I have nothing against experimentalists. Science cannot and will not ever explain everything perfectly. But when an answer gets published I do believe readers like me have the right to question it and demand more solid explanation of its basis if it is not clear enough on the first time. It's not about everything needing to have 100% scientific proof before it is usable, it is about having a sloppy rationalization process as the foundation of your knowledge.

And sometimes it is also about mis-characterizing something for what it really is not, irrespective of how well it works. If it works well, then just say so. If there is no clear evidence as to why it works so well, it's about being honest enough to acknowledge that. People can still use it. But it is not right to paint it with fake brush strokes in order to "legitimize" it more. It works well then you, the end user, should decide if that is good enough for you. How can anybody become a "thinking diver" if they are not allowed to ask for evidence of claims?
 
Last edited:
How can anybody become a "thinking diver" if they are not allowed to ask for evidence of claims?

If you're relying entirely on external scientific validation, you're not really thinking for yourself, though, and you're dealing with decompression research which is a scientific field of study for which there are considerable uncertainties. So every time you do a decompression dive you have to find some way of distilling all the information that you have and turning that into a decompression schedule that you are going to follow.

Myself, on the one hand, I've know that people used to be scared of helium. I know there's a lot of fear over "helium bends". On the other side there's GI3 ranting about helium weenie factors in deco programs and that nitrogen is what'll bend the snot out of you. I know there's the more solid science that BRW discusses in that passage that was quoted, but translating that paragraph into practical decompression profiles is difficult. There's also a training agency that dives helium mix like nitrogen, only with mandatory deep stops. I know that I, myself, tend to feel better with helium and worse with nitrogen the way that I dive. I also know of a case of a diver bent on 21% in a mixed team with 21/35 divers and another case of a diver blowing off shallow stops on 21/35 who walked away fine.

Rational people may come to different conclusions given all that. I tend towards thinking that helium is better than nitrogen provided that you do your deep stops and don't pop (blow off the shallow if you must). Other people may discount GI3 (easy), discount the experience of GUE divers as having all the same flaws as experimental medicine, discount the two deco examples I've got as low-N, and discount my own experiences as being subjective. There's *no* good experimental evidence, however, either way.

So as a technical diver you need to pick: Team Helium or Team Nitrogen. Science will not answer the question for you, it is inherently uncertain. You must, in fact, become a thinking diver and listen to what your dives are telling you.
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with admitting that there is no external scientific validation for this or that. I think that as thinking divers we are perfectly empowered to chose methodologies that may not be 100% scientifically validated -- I do not know of a scientifically validated algorithm that 100% accurately describes what goes on in the human body.

When I or anybody else asks, "has there been any statistically controlled trials that support this practice", I expect a truthful answer. It is not an effort to attack or debunk anything. I do not have an agenda and I'm not tied to any agency. If the answer is, "no, there are no statistically controlled trials or no scientific evidence", that is fine. It does not negate the fact that it may work perfectly and may be perfectly usable. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

A toxicologist and a voodo witch doctor are both capable of killing people with poisons. In fact, the voodo witch doctor may be even more proficient at it due to his line of work. That does not mean that the voodo witch doctor is now entitled to say that he is a PhD in toxicology. Where are his class transcripts? Where are his university titles... Not that those really matter when the time comes to knock someone off the face of the planet.
 
Last edited:
Translating BRW's conceptual take on why shallow Helium has shorter NDL's than Air or Eanx 32 into practical and proper decompression profiles is not difficult: the NAUI RGBM Deco Tables have been out since 2003.

Attached are the comparative NDL's for Ean 32 and Helitrox; and example deco profiles for bottom times at 30m and 33m, for Ean 32 and Helitrox w/ & w/o O2
 

Attachments

Translating BRW's conceptual take on why shallow Helium has shorter NDL's than Air or Eanx 32 into practical and proper decompression profiles is not difficult: the NAUI RGBM Deco Tables have been out since 2003.

Attached are the comparative NDL's for Ean 32 and Helitrox; and example deco profiles for bottom times at 30m and 33m, for Ean 32 and Helitrox w/ & w/o O2

Wow, I had no idea I had been bent that much...
 

Back
Top Bottom