Vintage?

[RickI]

I totally agree, Rocket and Jet fins were ideally suited to SCUBA diving. Had no idea they were patented in 1963. Recall the SCUBAPRO Jets being viewed as new somehow when I got them in 1971. Perhaps they were just new to Divers Haven, anyone remember Eddie Malenowski on here?

Don't get me wrong I come from SCUBA diving, for many decades. Used it for work, research and pleasure for a coons age. Have just eased away from it by choice over the years. Carrying too many tanks promoting repetitive niggle hits in trimix in the early 90's helped to move me on. Still have a ton of old, maybe even "vintage" SCUBA gear. That and the desire to do something different or at least with a new slant. Free diving offers some new, old challenges.

Nice ads by the way. I started collecting old Skin Diver Mags again and other diving mags from the 50's and 60's a few years back. Do you have many old publications scanned? Excellent idea for indexing and ready access. Yes, Duck Feet were from the Teams as I recall. Tried them but preferred Jet and later Rocket fins.

 

[duckbill]

Don't mean to pick on you, Slonda, but a couple corrections are in order.

It also isn't "hard to tug on" at depth, it is a demand regulator. It gives you as much air as your lungs "request" by creating an area of lower pressure.

"Demand" does not necessarily mean "supply". A regulator will breathe with more difficulty at depth than it will at the surface, and while under exertion than while at rest, though maybe not perceptively. The design of the regulator will dictate the amount of air which can pass through any given regulator under any given conditions. There is no such thing as a regulator which has no limits. However, most regulators breathe just fine at as shallow a depth as 100 feet, including our venerable Aquarius' .

At depth, more air molecules must move through the regulator due to the pressures involved and the actual amount of air required to fill the lungs. Some regulator types cannot practically be designed to give sufficient airflow at depth and/or while under heavy demand. The balanced system allows for the orifices to be made larger and are the best for heavy demand diving at depth.

(Regarding the Mistral) Even if the spring in the HP seat broke, the device by design would want to stay open, not shut.

Nay, the Mistral seat is upstream. With a broken HP spring the cylinder air pressure would keep the seat shut until inhalation causes the levers to be depressed and the seat is lifted, just as in normal operation. The seat would not "stay open", but would probably chatter all to heck during inhalations. Might be worth an experiment. Just leave the spring out to see what happens.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Well, the Mistral seat may be upstream, but if the main spring broke I would think that when the pin pushed it out, it would have a hard time sealing again due to not being pushed back into position to seat. You would have a very hard time getting it to seal initially if you left the spring off, Duckbill, as the seat would not be able to seat initially; at least that's my take on it.

It used to be that US Divers published the performance of its regulators. Here's a sheet on the performance of the Conshelf (third generation):

Concerning performance of double hose, and specifically the Mistral, here's a graph from a publication I have in Science Diving International, Proceedings of the 3rd Scientific Symposium of C.M.A.S., published in 1973 by the B.S.A.C. titled "An Attempt to Link Objective and Subjective Performance of Sport Divers' Regulators," by R.J. Nyman, J.G. and Van Der Walt. This graph shows the difference between the "Professional" mouthpiece for a LaSpiro Mistral and an Aquastop mouthpiece with non-return valves:

In their paper, Nyman and Van Der Walt state,

Although highly desirable from a safety aspect it must not be forgotten that the mushroom type valve in its cage creates a resistance to flow and this is not desirable from a pure performance aspect.

The mouthpieces that the Cousteau divers used in their 365 feet dive with the Mistral during the Conshelf 3 expedition appear to be Professional mouthpieces (metal, probably without non-return valves). I use my DX Overpressure Breathing regulator (the first in the line of USD single stage regulators) with its original metal mouthpiece, and no non-return valves (although this design does restrict the intake opening due to the inner hose which delivers the venturi air uninterrupted). I have two Healthways Scuba Gold Label regulators, and they were designed with a venturi so forceful that the non-return valve is necessary for proper functioning. Without non-return valves, this last generation Healthways needs either a baffle plate (in the mouthpiece of this regulator) or it will blow by into the exhaust hose, bypassing the diver.

SeaRat

 

[Slonda828]

Don't mean to pick on you, Slonda, but a couple corrections are in order.




Nay, the Mistral seat is upstream. With a broken HP spring the cylinder air pressure would keep the seat shut until inhalation causes the levers to be depressed and the seat is lifted, just as in normal operation. The seat would not "stay open", but would probably chatter all to heck during inhalations. Might be worth an experiment. Just leave the spring out to see what happens.

You are incorrect. If the high pressure spring broke, the instant the demand levers actuated the pin and pushed the HP seat open and air began to flow through the volcano orifice, the regulator woud freeflow because the spring pressure necessary to seal against the volcano orifice would not be there because the spring would be broke. Additionally, if the spring broke, how would the HP seat mate up against the volcano orifice? I know we have all seen seats with multiple mating grooves leak air, this would do much the same thing. Ask Luis, he is an ME. The only situation where I could foresee an upstream first stage sealing shut would be if the spring broke and it somehow managed to mechanically block the HP seat, but even then it would have to exercise an exceptionally linear amount of force to not cause air to flow past the seat at least a little bit.

I understand the concept of upstream. I also understand the concept of flow through an orifice and the concept of the density of air under changing atmospheric pressure. Most regulators (go to www.scubadiving.com if need examples) do not start to fail WOB tests until they are deeper than 100 feet. Many people would argue that diving deeper than 100 feet for any significant duration would best be served by mixes other than compressed air, which would reduce the density of the mixture of gas and lessen the adverse effects of a restrictive orifice diameter. The voodoo that you hear about upstream being a bad thing is with respect to second stages, not first stages.

 

[David Wilson]

Rocket and jet fins came after closed heal Voits, Mares or whatever Jacque Mayol may have been using.

Just reinforcing what others have said, Jet Fins do date from 1963 and they were invented in France by Beuchat of Marseilles. The first versions were full-foot fins, which were standard fins for serious use at the time, at least in Europe. Cressi of Italy invented full-foot fins in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Scubapro came along later, doing a deal with Beuchat to manufacture and market the fins, only producing them open-heel.

Nothing mythological about rubber dive gear turning to tar, at least not in my hot Ft. Lauderdale Beach garage back in the day. Pretty much everything from masks, to snorkels, to regulator exhausts, turned to tar. Of course, they were disused in most cases prior to that time.

If you store gear from the vintage era in such conditions, I agree with you that it won't last long. The diving manuals of the time warned divers that gear should be stored in a cool, dry place to preserve its integrity. A garage is exposed to the extremities of temperature and humidity all year round, hardly conducive to the preservation of equipment made from natural materials. Purchasing gear made from synthetics may be one solution. Another is to look after gear made from natural materials by storing it in an appropriate place. I'm from a generation which regards a traditional woollen suit for street wear as more presentable than a polyester one, even though the former needs to be looked after with more care, which isn't popular nowadays when a priority is placed on low maintenance.

As for shakes, I recall an illustration of something Ben Franklin developed in the early 1700's that inspired that comment. Doubt he was the first or the last to try something like that. I stole the idea of an aluminum snorkel from the 70's Hemingway movie, "Islands In The Stream." Really not certain about actual historical use or not. My point, is that to me, not necessarily others, "vintage" suggests something sufficiently removed into the past to where the age or novelty sets it apart from more recent and familiar objects. If I hadn't sold and used lots of this stuff back in the day, I might not feel this way. Have no trouble putting double hose regulators, rhino hyde bottles, converted CO2 bottle diving tanks, integrated snorkel masks or fire extinguisher spearguns in the vintage category as they all predate my experience, mostly. On the other hand, an SMG speargun, even though it came about in the late 1960's, still doesn't strike me as vintage as much as cool perhaps. (Anyone have any extra cartridge sleeves?) Just my view and sense of irony, not an attempt to impose my definition on others in lieu of their own. I really do think it is relative to the individual and what they preceive.

I've read that Leonardo da Vinci, who certainly predated Benjamin Franklin by a long way, was the original inventor of fins, but his were hand fins. Another Renaissance Italian, Giovanni Borelli designed foot fins of a kind. In the modern era, Frenchman Louis de Corlieu originally designed what we recognise nowadays as fins, while Owen Churchill developed the concept independently in the States and got as far as marketing them on a large scale. I agree with you that it's down to individuals and their perceptions of the concept of vintage to be the determining factor. Another crucial factor is the date of entry of the individual into underwater swimming. I began in the very late 1950s. I would expect, for example, somebody getting started ten or fifteen years later, to have a very different set of values and beliefs when it comes to diving gear. I greeted many of the changes in the 1970s with dismay, because I couldn't see the point of fixing things that weren't already "broke", while those beginning when the modern era dawned liked what they saw in new gear. As human beings develop, our value and belief systems become more complex as new things challenge us daily. One response is to mix technologies from the past with those from the future. A computer enthusiast with a word processing package on his machine may still enjoy writing by hand, using his fountain pen, because the skill of cursive script and the tactile sense of manipulating the pen remains a source of enjoyment and fulfilment. In my own case, I revel in many modern technologies, including computing, but I use them critically, sceptically as well because I exercise judgement and don't just swallow whole salesmen's patter about the superiority of everything that's new. Just because something's new, doesn't mean it's necessarily better for me. That's why I continue to snorkel vintage.

I note that you appreciated the period vintage gear advertisements posted recently in this thread. I certainly do, far more than their successor images of beautiful people draped in clownishly coloured wetsuits, lounging about in tropical destinations. There is a superb collection of old ads at
Skin Diving History

 

[WD8CDH]

Nay, the Mistral seat is upstream. With a broken HP spring the cylinder air pressure would keep the seat shut until inhalation causes the levers to be depressed and the seat is lifted, just as in normal operation. The seat would not "stay open", but would probably chatter all to heck during inhalations. Might be worth an experiment. Just leave the spring out to see what happens.

Hi Duckbill,

I have tried that. The regulator can get quite unstable. It changes a lot with tank pressure and ambient pressure. The airflow between the orifice and the seat can cause an airfoil effect moving the seat in an unexpected manner. I couldn't make it freeflow but boy would it chatter. I suppose with an unrestricted intake hose a very large flow could cause enough venturi effect in the can to suck the diaphragm down enough to maintain a freeflow. Or if the weight of the levers initially had the valve wide open when you turned on the air, it might stay open until you turn the regulator over.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I was working on an industrial very low pressure upstream regulator with that exact problem. It would somewhat hold output pressure (about 5" w.c. ) but the sound that it made would be great for Halloween sound effects.:shocked2:

 

[RickI]

It was a different time, young enthusiasm and no real consideration of preserving gear for decades to come in my case in those years. Although a number of articles did survive to the present day and in good repair. I can see your start was yet in another time and place still. I was wondering how snorkeling/skin diving gear was first marketed to the public in the 1950's in England? Some might have viewed it as a dramatic departure from familiar settings, a challenge for marketers of the time I would imagine. What sort of UW conditions and settings did you pursue, around the British Isles or did you travel to the Med? I recall wetsuits and dry suits were available and yet perhaps not that readily secured? Like early divers in California, there was an abundance of cooler water, at least compared to my haunts in SE Florida.

There is a piece of vintage diving gear I have some particular fondness for. It was conceived in the early 1950's, marketed worldwide for a time in the 1960's. It never really took off however. Recently DARPA tried to reinvent the device under Federal contract, not sure if anything has come from it however. Here is an early circular on the Aqueon:

From: Innerspace Corporation.Thrusters,Hydraulic Motors,Screens

We had a couple of these in the early 1970's and enjoyed some of the unusual swimming capabilities conveyed by the device. I contacted the inventor, Cal Gongwer a couple of years back and purchased another Aqueon and wrote a short article about it HERE.

It is an interesting device, Cal is still active and inventing at almost 93 today I imagine. He is always interested in input from those using his device.

A shot from a couple of years ago of the Aqueon in action

 

[Nemrod]

Concerning performance of double hose, and specifically the Mistral, here's a graph from a publication I have in Science Diving International, Proceedings of the 3rd Scientific Symposium of C.M.A.S., published in 1973 by the B.S.A.C. titled "An Attempt to Link Objective and Subjective Performance of Sport Divers' Regulators," by R.J. Nyman, J.G. and Van Der Walt. This graph shows the difference between the "Professional" mouthpiece for a LaSpiro Mistral and an Aquastop mouthpiece with non-return valves:

In their paper, Nyman and Van Der Walt state,

The mouthpieces that the Cousteau divers used in their 365 feet dive with the Mistral during the Conshelf 3 expedition appear to be Professional mouthpieces (metal, probably without non-return valves). I use my DX Overpressure Breathing regulator (the first in the line of USD single stage regulators) with its original metal mouthpiece, and no non-return valves (although this design does restrict the intake opening due to the inner hose which delivers the venturi air uninterrupted). I have two Healthways Scuba Gold Label regulators, and they were designed with a venturi so forceful that the non-return valve is necessary for proper functioning. Without non-return valves, this last generation Healthways needs either a baffle plate (in the mouthpiece of this regulator) or it will blow by into the exhaust hose, bypassing the diver.

SeaRat

The new silicone diaphragm and the streamline cage valves and silicone valves seem to improve a bit on the breathing performance.

N

 

[captain]

Don't mean to pick on you, Slonda, but a couple corrections are in order.




Nay, the Mistral seat is upstream. With a broken HP spring the cylinder air pressure would keep the seat shut until inhalation causes the levers to be depressed and the seat is lifted, just as in normal operation. The seat would not "stay open", but would probably chatter all to heck during inhalations. Might be worth an experiment. Just leave the spring out to see what happens.

I put one together without a spring and it seems to work fine. Didn't dive it though. It free flowed about a second when the tank valve was opened and then shutoff.

 

[Slonda828]

I put one together without a spring and it seems to work fine. Didn't dive it though. It free flowed about a second when the tank valve was opened and then shutoff.

So it looks like the actual function is somewhere between what I said and what Duckbill said. SCUBA imitating real life as usual. Still, this does prove my point that an upstream first stage will not stick shut if the spring broke. I can't really think of any conceivable way for a mistral or similar reg to fail shut. Maybe if the pin that actuates the HP seat broke, but even then where would it go? It sits inside a machined area of the body so there is really no place for the broken pin to go.