I'm not sure I understand... plan to end the dive and be back on shore with 1000 psi remaining?
Why cut yourself that short?
The Rule of Thirds.
- Thread starter Uncle Pug
- Start date
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
I'm not sure I understand... plan to end the dive and be back on shore with 1000 psi remaining?
Why cut yourself that short?
More questions...
Does GUE teach the use of an assumed consumption rate of 1 cu ft/min? I see new divers that consume more when there is no problem. Under stress the air consumption can go streight through the roof.
Do they point out that if the ascent is slower than planned and/or consumption increases that the gas needs change?
Do they point out that the tank can't be completly drained or is that taken care of in the rounding during calculation?
IMO, any gas plan based on consumption rate must be implemented with caution.
Is a dive that requires more gas to ascend that descend beyond the scope of recreational diving?
I think a gas plan that includes a "rock bottom would tend to make more gas available, which is good. However, to make that ascent, while stressed, with stops and within the planned for timming and consumption rates may require a skill set that many don't have. This, I think is why dives requireing stops even in the case of emergencies has been catagorized as technical. Can attempting the stops, under stress, cause problems in itself?
Does GUE teach the use of an assumed consumption rate of 1 cu ft/min? I see new divers that consume more when there is no problem. Under stress the air consumption can go streight through the roof.
Do they point out that if the ascent is slower than planned and/or consumption increases that the gas needs change?
Do they point out that the tank can't be completly drained or is that taken care of in the rounding during calculation?
IMO, any gas plan based on consumption rate must be implemented with caution.
Is a dive that requires more gas to ascend that descend beyond the scope of recreational diving?
I think a gas plan that includes a "rock bottom would tend to make more gas available, which is good. However, to make that ascent, while stressed, with stops and within the planned for timming and consumption rates may require a skill set that many don't have. This, I think is why dives requireing stops even in the case of emergencies has been catagorized as technical. Can attempting the stops, under stress, cause problems in itself?
OP
I will be glad to answer your questions about DIR and GUE in PMs but there are those who object to that in an open forum.
As for your question above.... the answer can only be yes by definition:
If you define a recreational dive as a descent at 60fpm with an ascent of 60fpm.
However if you define a recreational dive as a 60fpm descent with a 30fpm or less ascent and a *safety* stop of 3~5 minutes at 15' then the answer would be no.... it is not beyond the scope of recreational diving.
So we get down to arguing about semantics and definitions of recreational and technical.
Tell me Mike.... do you teach 30fpm ascents and 15' safety stops in your recreational classes?
I have just read all the posts since my last one.
I love heated debates on this board, it is so entertaining.
PUG - go ahead and answer any and all questions regarding DIR and GUE, someone objecting to those opinions have never stopped you before. it would be educational for all of us. just be prepaired to get backed into a corner on some subjects with logic.
Mike - all that math you did earlier on i think was backwards. if the person with the better sac rate determins the turn pressure then their would be no problem. however it is the person with the worse sac rate that should determine the turn pressure. for instance if the better sac rate diver had a complete gas failure, would the worse sac rate diver have enough gas to get both of them out, try the same math in reverse order.
PUG and Mike - you guy probably know my oppinions about DIR/GUE. but i think it is time to seperate the two.
DIR is set of initials that GUE gave to a group of diving techniques and configurations, that where there earlier.
they just packaged the group into their system and gave it a name. most tech divers use portions if not all of the DIR methods.
the problems that tend to come up or not the system itself but mostly attitude and it appiers to me to be from the GUE or GUE wanabe croud.
when GUE said thet this particular configuration and style of diving is "Doing It Right" well they where correct, it is a good system as are several other variations.
the problem is that GUE says that it is the only system, so it is not the system, it is those who preach it as the only system, and those who will bash any other system not GUE reconized.
so I say don't attack the system because you don't like the agency who say their system is the only system, or you don't like the guys who are so willing to critisize or not dive with any other system.
in a previous life I was taught to pick my targets, and to minimize colateral damage, so reconize your target here. and seperate the two for clarity of everybody
I love heated debates on this board, it is so entertaining.
PUG - go ahead and answer any and all questions regarding DIR and GUE, someone objecting to those opinions have never stopped you before. it would be educational for all of us. just be prepaired to get backed into a corner on some subjects with logic.
Mike - all that math you did earlier on i think was backwards. if the person with the better sac rate determins the turn pressure then their would be no problem. however it is the person with the worse sac rate that should determine the turn pressure. for instance if the better sac rate diver had a complete gas failure, would the worse sac rate diver have enough gas to get both of them out, try the same math in reverse order.
PUG and Mike - you guy probably know my oppinions about DIR/GUE. but i think it is time to seperate the two.
DIR is set of initials that GUE gave to a group of diving techniques and configurations, that where there earlier.
they just packaged the group into their system and gave it a name. most tech divers use portions if not all of the DIR methods.
the problems that tend to come up or not the system itself but mostly attitude and it appiers to me to be from the GUE or GUE wanabe croud.
when GUE said thet this particular configuration and style of diving is "Doing It Right" well they where correct, it is a good system as are several other variations.
the problem is that GUE says that it is the only system, so it is not the system, it is those who preach it as the only system, and those who will bash any other system not GUE reconized.
so I say don't attack the system because you don't like the agency who say their system is the only system, or you don't like the guys who are so willing to critisize or not dive with any other system.
in a previous life I was taught to pick my targets, and to minimize colateral damage, so reconize your target here. and seperate the two for clarity of everybody
PUG
now a question more in line with the thread
regarding more gas to ascend than descend
are you taught that you can only ascend to the surface at a rate of 30 ft/min and must complete a safety stop no matter what the emergency.
I would not call that no decompresion diving,
to me no decompression diving or recreational diving for that matter means that I can make a direct ascent to the surface at any time. Direct being the key word here
and if you are taught to use the rule of thirds at the entry level during your training, did they discuss gas matching or sac rates. or is it more a rule of thumb.
hmmm i don't mean that dirogatory, i think the rule of halves + 500 is also a rule of thumb with no gas matching either. but at a recreational level it is taught that the first person to 1200 psi turns the dive.
do you do the same with the rule of thirds, do you always use the rule of thirds or do you teach students when they should apply the rule of thirds.
now a question more in line with the thread
regarding more gas to ascend than descend
are you taught that you can only ascend to the surface at a rate of 30 ft/min and must complete a safety stop no matter what the emergency.
I would not call that no decompresion diving,
to me no decompression diving or recreational diving for that matter means that I can make a direct ascent to the surface at any time. Direct being the key word here
and if you are taught to use the rule of thirds at the entry level during your training, did they discuss gas matching or sac rates. or is it more a rule of thumb.
hmmm i don't mean that dirogatory, i think the rule of halves + 500 is also a rule of thumb with no gas matching either. but at a recreational level it is taught that the first person to 1200 psi turns the dive.
do you do the same with the rule of thirds, do you always use the rule of thirds or do you teach students when they should apply the rule of thirds.
Students are presented the max ascent speed of 60 ft/ min in the text. I inform them that the current thinking is that slower is better (30 ft/min or less) and that in fact some tables are based on slower speeds. And yes I do make students aware that other tables exist. They are of course taught that a 3-5 minute safety stop at 15 - 20 feet is desired for all dives and strongly recommended for some. I also recommend that new divers stay "shallow". So, even thouth the ascent and safety stop recommendations might make the ascent longer than the descent for a "shallow" dive the difference in gas consumtion is very small. As I have stated before, for illustration purposes I give some planning examples for deeper (still within what the industry defines as recreational) dives (the way I would do the dive). I do this to support my position that diving deeper requires more experience and training, even if those depths appear on their "recreational" tables.
I for one do not object to discussions involving any agencies training methods except for when the become overly argumentitive and insulting to some who may not deserve to be insulted.
The questions I asked were not asked to argue semantics. The industry, right or wrong, has defined to some extent the difference between rec and tech. Each step in training gets more indepth. The order things are introduce can be argued but change is slow and changes need to be tested, proven and validated as things progress. There is a big difference between making a slow ascent and making a slow ascent with stops while under stress and sharing air and planning the gas usage for such. My questions stemed from wondering if it was wise to suggest that divers do so without supervised practice. I was asking a question not giving an answer.
I am always pondering ways to improve the way we teach. In fact I spend most of my time doing just that. When I do teach something I must consider it from many angles as I WILL be held reponsible and accountable for the results. This of course is not the case with teaching under an alias on the net.
I for one do not object to discussions involving any agencies training methods except for when the become overly argumentitive and insulting to some who may not deserve to be insulted.
The questions I asked were not asked to argue semantics. The industry, right or wrong, has defined to some extent the difference between rec and tech. Each step in training gets more indepth. The order things are introduce can be argued but change is slow and changes need to be tested, proven and validated as things progress. There is a big difference between making a slow ascent and making a slow ascent with stops while under stress and sharing air and planning the gas usage for such. My questions stemed from wondering if it was wise to suggest that divers do so without supervised practice. I was asking a question not giving an answer.
I am always pondering ways to improve the way we teach. In fact I spend most of my time doing just that. When I do teach something I must consider it from many angles as I WILL be held reponsible and accountable for the results. This of course is not the case with teaching under an alias on the net.
NAUI has 30fpm for rec diving and 60fpm for contingencies.
Net Doc - that make perfect since, i think that is what is taught in most agencies.
Mike I couldn't have said it any better
Quote from Mike
"I am always pondering ways to improve the way we teach. In fact I spend most of my time doing just that. When I do teach something I must consider it from many angles as I WILL be held reponsible and accountable for the results. This of course is not the case with teaching under an alias on the net."
This board should be considered entertainment and a way for us to learn how others do things. but it should not replace trianing or instructions from a certified instructor.
Mike I couldn't have said it any better
Quote from Mike
"I am always pondering ways to improve the way we teach. In fact I spend most of my time doing just that. When I do teach something I must consider it from many angles as I WILL be held reponsible and accountable for the results. This of course is not the case with teaching under an alias on the net."
This board should be considered entertainment and a way for us to learn how others do things. but it should not replace trianing or instructions from a certified instructor.
OP
In "The Adventure of Barny O'Reirdon" author Samuel Lover writes:
"Barny was what was commonly called a leading man. Now, your leading man is always jealous in an inverse ratio to the sphere of his influence, and the leader of a nation is less incensed at a rival's triumph than the great man of a village. If we pursue this descending scale, what a desperately jealous person the oracle of oyster-dredgers and cockle-women must be! Such was Barny O'Reirdon."
Doug you are right... this board should be considered entertainment and while it is a way for us to learn how others do things it does not really represent a threat to anyone's "sphere of influence"... this is, after all, just the internet.
So even if others have sailed to "Fingal" we should not be upset.
The things I share here come not by way of argument... and I have nothing I care to defend against argument... it is all in the take it or leave it department. I do not want to emulate Barny!
If explanation is genuinely called for then I will gladly oblige... but baiting is a game I prefer to play from the other end of the line.
Up,
What is it about the questions I asked that make them unworthy of discussion?
You mentioned a PM. For my part you may consider the questions asked. If you think it best to answer them in a PM, that would be fine.
What is it about the questions I asked that make them unworthy of discussion?
You mentioned a PM. For my part you may consider the questions asked. If you think it best to answer them in a PM, that would be fine.
Similar threads
