Why "heavy"? (What are their physical characteristics?)My independent heavy steel double 7ltr,s ...
TIA,
rx7diver
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
Why "heavy"? (What are their physical characteristics?)My independent heavy steel double 7ltr,s ...
That 7ltr tank is negative empty in fresh water.Why "heavy"? (What are their physical characteristics?)
TIA,
rx7diver
Okay, thanks. I remember the old Scubapro (Faber, I think) "Slimline" cylinders. Narrow (6.0" OD, maybe), 63 and 72 cu ft cylinders having a service pressure of 3,000 psig + 10%, IIRC. Neat cylinders, except negative when empty. I always believed that they (especially the 72's) would make a neat set of doubles for diving dry.That 7ltr tank is negative empty in fresh water.
That 7ltr tank is negative empty in fresh water.
Home for lunch, so I pulled out an old Scubapro catalog (the 1986 catalog).Okay, thanks. I remember the old Scubapro (Faber, I think) "Slimline" cylinders. Narrow (6.0" OD, maybe), 63 and 72 cu ft cylinders having a service pressure of 3,000 psig + 10%, IIRC. Neat cylinders, except negative when empty. I always believed that they (especially the 72's) would make a neat set of doubles for diving dry.
rx7diver
I just had to measure my 7,s. There 23in tall and 5in O.D I believe ye call them 50 cuft. I think there 3kg negative full and .8kg negative empty but those figures could be wrong, I just know there heavy when empty and what lead I need with them. My main use for them is as singles shallow or deco bottles.Home for lunch, so I pulled out an old Scubapro catalog (the 1986 catalog).
1. The 60.6 cu ft Scubapro "Slim-Tank" was 22" tall with 6" OD, weighed 22.7# sans valve, and had service pressure 3,000 psig + 10%. Buoyancy sans valve in seawater was -7.8# (full) and -2.8# (empty).
2. The 71.4 cu ft Scubapro "Slim-Tank" was 25.4" tall with 6" OD, weighed 26# sans valve, and had service pressure 3,000 psig + 10%. Buoyancy sans valve in seawater was -8.4# (full) and -2.5# (empty).
rx7diver
Very interesting. Releasing one Capewell on water entry makes sense. I used that technique on the MC1 in strong winds. The S17 with the TU modification appears similar to the MC1. I noticed you carried two knives. The knife that appears to be located near/or on the reserve chute, was that a riggers knife (orange handle with flick blade and hook blade)?When we were approaching the water, we would grab one riser, and with the other hand release the Capwell disconnect. Then, holding the riser, we would release it upon entry into the water. That effectively threw the entire side lines over the ‘phone, and deflated the canopy in one motion. It also placed all those lines way away from us to lessen the potential for entanglement.
In one training jump, when I was just beginning, I had a weird situation happen. I had a half hitch over both sides of one riser group, meaning that I could not pull the pins and use that side for steering as they were effectively tied together. Upon entry, I couldn’t release those lines easily either, and got dragged across the water some distance, and then when trying to get out, got entangled in the suspension lines. I did not panic, but got royally chewed out by the instructors for that one. They asked “What would you do in a mission,” whereupon I pulled out my non-issue Sportsways dive knife, which I had sharpened to a razor edge, and said I’d simply cut the lines. But I didn’t want to do that in a training situation as it would effectively destroy the ‘chute. They then backed off.
We had two different configurations of the Capwell release, and the older one in this photo had the cover, then under it was a release that involved two pinch buttons that released the riser group. Later, with the S-17 parachute, that was replaced by a wire loop, which was much easier to release. (I’m capitalizing the “Capewell” as I think that is the inventer’s name.).
Parascuba Jump-Okinawa-1 by John Ratliff, on Flickr
In this photo, the right riser group’s Capwell release has been activated, and the PJ is holding the riser group in his right (probably dominant) hand. As soon as he hits the water, he releases his grip.
Here is what we looked like prior to the jump.
Rick in Parascuba by John Ratliff, on Flickr
This is Richard “The Bagger” Harder in full parascuba gear. I’m in the smaller photo. Unfortunately, Rick has passed of a heart attack while training for a firefighter competition, stair climbing in full firefighter gear for time. Note the smaller doubles. I loved those doubles, and have a set I cannot fill because the 1/2 inch manifold won’t seal anymore (too many times taken off and on, due to the need for a visual inspection yearly).
SeaRat
So...@SelfDiver This is a valid set of points I had not considered. As you've said, in the event I have a freeflow going on behind my head with my current dive conditions, I'd put even money that I could be at the surface before the tank ran dry, but your point about reg freezing is a good consideration. Something to chew on, as far as failure scenarios go, and something to plan for as I design my current setup.
As for your suggested sidemount idea...I just don't know. It feels (emphasis on feels, I have not attempted to sidemount a tank, and would very much defer to more experienced divers on the matter) that manage the relatively loose sidemounted tank in the heavy current would be an added struggle. Today, for example, the current was pushing us hard enough I often had to press flat against the riverbed and fin like crazy, plus digging in with my screwdrivers just to advance forward. I worry an added AL 80 would represent an encumbrance that I simply would not be able to easily manage in such a situation, though I acknowledge I might be wrong about that fact.
I like backmount, generally speaking, because tanks in backmount are in a known position barring some extreme failure. If I'm on the bottom, and I encounter a logjam or other obstacle, like I often do, I can more easily move past it because I know that my major snag points are on my back (the tank valves and regs) and running back and to the sides (my HP and LP hoses). Sidemount I feel like adds extra variability to that equation, something else I have to manage for, while also dealing with current. Again, this may well be far less of an issue that I feel like it would be, as I've never done sidemount before, but it definitely feels like more of an acquired skill to manage.
If you have some tips on trying it, I'd certainly be down to mount an AL 80 on the side and take it out in the nearby lake for a low-risk test, then work up to more challenging dive conditions with it. One question, to begin with, if I'm backmounting a single and sidemounting another single, would my 38 lb wing be sufficient for such a setup? Per my understanding, I'd need more lead to keep the AL 80 from getting floaty near the end of the dive. I also have a pair of LP 72's, if those would be preferred for such a setup.