Why Recreational Triox ??

[DeepScuba]

Hey Dave, I almost forgot about writing that to you it was so long ago..........

Anyways, you don't have to defend GUE training with me! I'm for it. My personal situation is that, since I've invested a fair chunk of coin in "tech" training already, I have a problem "starting over" as it were.

I basically have Trimix and Cave certs to round out my training. From there, of course it train train train to keep the skills up.

Lets face it, from various sources, I can basically say that between my current training and given what I have gleaned from GUE guys, I think I could say that I can cover a GUE course about 80%??? What I am saying is, although i haven't taken a given GUE course, I "know" 80% of what's going to be taught, which is to say I can "do it on my own". I hate how that sounds, and yes MHK is gonna say "no you can't" Well I beg to differ. I know how and what you guys dive, I know the philosophy, I know the training. Plus I know I'd have to practice practice practice.

I also know what it is (to some extent) that I don't know.....I'm still "leaching" the info if you get my drift The reason for the 20%???

Anyways, I know you know what I mean, regardless of how poorly I've said it.

As to your "incident". I agree, Narcosis, yes. CO2 retention? sure, possible. Please remember that MHK and thousands upon thousands of diver for decade have done millions of dive on straight air to depths WAY BEYOND 35m (You damn metric guys!!!)

Sure, he'll say but I know better now, Yes we all do. I agree.

It doesn't mean that it can't be done, and done regularly with minimal risk (esp. 35m)

Then I will hear, we know better now. Again, I agree. It doesn't mean one can't regularly do 35m dives with a high probability of a co2 problem.

It's great we have a crusade for less risk when doing deep(er) dives. We reduce this risk greatly in all areas (Narcosis, CO2 retention etc).That's great, and I'm all for it.

But don't get so blinded that we forget that the REALITY of diving shows that even with sinful air diving, it has and continues to be done (esp to 35m) very very safely. I won't even mention how many safe dives were done by MHK (and his friends) to 70m!

This by no means is to retract diving He when we get to depths over XXX? OK 100ft?, I'll buy that for the safety of it.

I think Dave, you and I are in the same boat really. At least our thinking is. I have no probs diving He form 30-40m. For me though, the cost/reward isn't there. BUT, I am, for the tinkering aspect of it, fooling with an He/air/nitrox station at my home.

The cost will still be a concern, but maybe I can mitigate it somewhat.

 

[-hh]

nitrox isn't an essential and irreplacable tool either. Do you argue so strongly against it's use?

The 'essential and irreplacable' contains a pinch of literary hyperbola. On Nitrox, it is generally accepted today that the case made for Nitrox is that it has a set of trade-off's of risks (such as OxTox) for the benefit of longer bottom times.

Overall utility depends on the diver, his dive plan, risk tolerence, and other factors. For some such applications, yes, Nitrox is not an essential tool and I would argue strongly against its use. The most commonly accepted illustraton is a single shallow (40fsw) dive whose duration is limited by the diver's consumption rate instead of N2 loads, which results in an unfavorable cost:benefit ratio (note that increased risks are accounted for as "costs").


-hh

 

[Genesis]

I think HH has hit the nail on the head here with this.

For myself, I have a solution to this problem. I will simply obtain a couple of cylinders of UHP and mix up some of my own 30/30, and see what I think of it on a couple of 130' dives.

Comparisons will be easy to make, since I will also bring a tank filled with 30% Nitrox.

If I can discern a significant difference underwater, then I will concede that it makes sense in that range to use Helium, provided that the cost of doing so is reasonable (it probably will be for me, mixing my own.)

Since I expect to have a "real use" for He-based mixes this summer, assuming that the carrier planned to be sunk does come to Pensacola, the opportunity will present itself for this sort of experiment within a few months.

I'd even go buy a tank of the stuff at "commercial" rates to do this test earlier, but they seem to want to sell me several hundred dollars worth of training FIRST; as a consequence unless someone shows up with a tank of 'Mix (or will have one filled for me to use) I guess it'll have to wait until I have a reason for the tank leases....

(For those who issued "challenges" earlier, why not take the cheap way out and simply show up with a couple of bottles of 30/30 and go diving with me? If there's a case to be made for using it in the range of 100-130' in terms of mental clarity and such, I'll be the first one to agree - once I have some evidence that its significant.)

 

[DeepScuba]

So I beg the question........who's up for just diving the He without the official training for it?

It won't get you on the boat (on some tech dives), but since we're talking Rec diving, who would know?

Would any agree that it's OK, given the candidate really does know the related theory involved? And of course has the "peripheral" understandings of deco etc.

You know, guys like most of you that aren't Trimix cert yet?

 

[MHK]

My statement was based on this page: http://www.gue.com/info/instruct.shtml. I do see that if I dig down a level, that it is now listed. My apologies - I stand corrected.

It's been listed that way for over a year, but I'll accept your apology and presume that it was an unintended oversight.

I chose to overlook your first half dozen troll trolls, but for this purposefully repeated malicious insult, I expect an apology; your post has been reported to the Moderators. I'm sorry Gentlemen.

I welcome any review by the moderators because it's obvious your intent isn't to understand the issue.

You already know why: I declined because I wanted it in writing.

Then may I suggest you sign up for the class because it's in our text book, it's covered in our powerpoint presentation and it's in our course handout. Or you are free to read the Dr. Lanphier studies, the Bennett & Elliot Physiology of Diving Medicine, Bove & Davis, Diving Medicine and there is a great article in the 1992 Aquacorps Journal about the VERY SUBJECTIVE nature of C02 retention. In the final analysis, you opened your initial post having concluded this class isn't for you, but then you go on to insist that you want to "understand" more. I explain it to you, and then you say you want scientific evidence to a subject that you admit is subjective. All of the above referenced citations specifically note the concern respecting C02 retention and the SUBJECTIVE nature, but you still want a quantifiable bright line in the sand such as 100' or a scientific "measurable" quantity. Well guess what?? It doesn't exist, it's one tool in our tool box to help divers more safely dive in the recreational ranges. If you feel it isn't necessary then by all means have at it.. Furthermore I even offered to take time out of my day to further discuss the subject and provide you with my phone number, that still isn't enough. Then you cite some "contractual" analogy which is so utterly flawed as to be ridiculous, while all the while still refusing a class.

Why not just ask us to give you the class for free, and then you can tell us after the class whether or not you feel like paying.. Gesh.. I hate to point this out, but at the end of the day many of my colleagues at GUE rely solely on teaching to pay their bills and feed their family, why is it that you think we should give away the entire class for free over a scuba forum to someone who isn't willing to sign up for a class and has a pre-disposed position to the issue?? Your reputation for trolling on rec.scuba preceedes you, and why I no longer participate in that playground is because threads like this are a waste of my time, and while I used to engage in those type of things I'm trying to move on so I unsubscribed to most of the un-moderated forums. You on the other hand seem to want to continue to drag me into your childish games so I ask that you please go back to rec.scuba, they seem to enjoy that much more and I ask that you not try to ruin this forum because you'd rather spoil a DIR forum..

You don't understand: "put it in writing" is the same approach I used when negotiating contracts. If you've ever been involved in contract disputes, you might understand the wisdom of this.

I negotiate contracts every single day of my life and I can promise you that the put it in writing approach is NOT an every day occurance. If you and I were entering into a binding contract that would be one matter, but your just trolling about one small part of the class, so I ain't buying..

The significance test for Narcosis is subjective,

So is hypercapnia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but it is traditionally based on the changes in ppN2. Insofar as any contribution of ppCO2 as a potential for hypercapnia or its narcotic effect, you've failed to demonstrate that ppCO2 changes one iota when you switch from Air or EAN to Triox, let alone what might be an effective criteria or not.

As I've stated to you many times C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2, the gas is much more dense, and as you should know the deeper you go the harder a gas is to breath. Those very SUBJECTIVE components mean that a diver is better off diving a gas that is less dense, less narcotic and less likely to retain C02.. That is the generic overview of why we recommend Triox. If that isn't your cup of tea, then please dive however you see fit, it doesn't matter to me one iota how you dive, I could care less. Those that want to know more about it, may sign up for class, may accept my responses to this thread or may call me to discuss. All of those options you have declined so I continue to wish you the best of luck.. any further responses to you simply are a waste of my time..

My goal is to be able to critically examine the value of the course, so that I can express my own opinion about it, including if I want to personally take it. As I've already said repeatedly, I think much of the class is quite worthwhile. The element of the class that I am personally unconvinced of its material value is the Triox portion. This is in the context of what I consider to be Recreational Diving, and not Wreck or Overhead.

If that really is your goal as you claim, then why would you turn down the option to find out more about it for free by simply calling me??? The simple fact is that I don't believe that is your goal, because if you wanted to achieve your goal I've given you an avenue but instead you choose public posturing and when I couple that with your historical antics on rec.scuba, let's just say that I'm skeptical of your motives/goals...

Based on your continuous objections and insults, it seems that what you're really saying is that I don't have a right to a personal opinion when it is contrary to yours.

-hh

I've not insulted you at all and I fully agree that you have the right to your own opinion. I just don't happen to agree with yours, but I respect your right to believe anything that you wish..

If you want to contact me please feel free, but I'll waste no more time with you on this thread so feel free to have the last word..

Regards

 

[-hh]

It's been listed that way for over a year, but I'll accept your apology and presume that it was an unintended oversight.

Yes, it was and I am embarassed to have made the mistake.

Then may I suggest you sign up for the class because it's in our text book, it's covered in our powerpoint presentation and it's in our course handout. Or you are free to read the Dr. Lanphier studies, the Bennett & Elliot Physiology of Diving Medicine, Bove & Davis, Diving Medicine and there is a great article in the 1992 Aquacorps Journal about the VERY SUBJECTIVE nature of C02 retention.

I didn't notice a source to buy your textbooks on the GUE website...did I miss that too? Thanks for the other references, though...I don't have all of them.

In the final analysis, you opened your initial post having concluded this class isn't for you, but then you go on to insist that you want to "understand" more.

The explanation is that I'm willing to be corrected, if relevent information comes to light. Got a problem with people interested in learning?

I explain it to you, and then you say you want scientific evidence to a subject that you admit is subjective. All of the above referenced citations specifically note the concern respecting C02 retention and the SUBJECTIVE nature, but you still want a quantifiable bright line in the sand such as 100' or a scientific "measurable" quantity.

The world is full of interpretational gray areas. I'm simply looking for a reasonably measurable criteria upon which to base a less-uninformed qualitiative risk assessment decision on. You can't even begin to try to measure anything until you invent a yardstick.

Your reputation for trolling on rec.scuba preceedes you...

The Google Web Definition of a trolling is: "Deliberately posting false information in order to elicit responses from people who really want to help." If you're going to make the claim, you had better be able to cite relevant proof. You can PM it to me.

...and why I no longer participate in that playground is because threads like this are a waste of my time...

Some would say that you can't take the heat in that particular Kitchen, such as in this thread . BTW, please note that Google shows that I was not a participant in that thread in any capacity.

As I've stated to you many times C02 is 130 times more narcotic then N2....

I've seen it claimed in your debates with others, but I don't think I've discussed it directly with you. Is this as per a Narcotic Potency as per Meyer-Overton? Please explain where the "130x" claim comes from.

...the gas is much more dense, and as you should know the deeper you go the harder a gas is to breath.

Sure. And buying a good regulator to manage WOB will address a good deal of that, and there's plenty of choices that get an "A" on the USN tests at 198fsw...is that enough of a performance margin for a 130fsw max Rec diver? I'd say yes.

FWIW, to the best of my knowledge, the only time that I've personally experienced anything that was even close to being symptomatic of hypocapnia or difficulty breathing was with an old, unbalanced regulator being used deeper than 120fsw...and yes, "I know better than to do that anymore", and no, it wasn't on that even older Dacor Doublehose that I still have and am willing to sell (its in pretty bad shape, but if you're interested, PM me).

Those very SUBJECTIVE components mean that a diver is better off diving a gas that is less dense, less narcotic and less likely to retain C02....If that isn't your cup of tea, then please dive however you see fit, it doesn't matter to me one iota how you dive, I could care less.

I have no philisophical problem with being 'better off'. Its just that my perspective has been Requirements-Driven, and includes CAIV and other Operational Use breakdowns, which drive a cost:benefit analysis, with risk elements being on the "cost" side, and capabilities being on the "benefit" side. Its a pragmatic process that is often quite conservative at times, but has proven itself to be reliable and robust thousands of times, particularly in preventing catastrophic mistakes when properly applied: I want any mistakes that I make to be survivable ones.

If that really is your goal as you claim, then why would you turn down the option to find out more about it for free by simply calling me???

Fine...PM me your phone#. I'll make scheduling arragements for a date/time in advance via email.


-hh

 

[MikeFerrara]

Would you guys feel better if they changed the name of the class to "Nitrox" and didn't introduce helium?

BTW, we have some wrecks up here like the Wisconsin where we always dive mix. The bottom is at 130 with the deck at 100. You can get a little deeper inside but most of our penetration is about 120 (by the cars). The decission to use helium is based on our experience and the experience of others. In fact at least two ofthe charter captains that go to the wreck might not even take you if they know your plan is to enter without helium.

It seems to make sense to introduce the use of helium in the classes that first touch the depth where divers often choose to use it rather than forcing to student to take tons of tech training before they have the option of using it for a 130 ft dive. Other agencies like NAUI and IANTD seem to agree.

If tis arguement was about a class that was being sold strictly on the basis of offering helium at these depths you guys might have some kind of point. As it is though this class is GUE's "AOW and Nitrox" as well. The intro to trimix looks like a bonus.

 

[chrisch]

Mike Ferrara has a point here - there is a lot of argument about semantics rather than the use of helium. The 30/30 mix does seem a bit odd to me, but then I have not done the GUE course so I will not put up a case against it. However the use of some helium in the mix from 130 to 150fsw makes a lot of sense. From 150fsw onwards helium is essential IMO.
The IANTD rec trimix course is flexible about mixes. GUE are not - and that too has some validity - avoiding confusion etc (with which I agree). Why then pick 30/30, not say 25/25 which gives a 150fsw MWD at 1.4 and an END that is not beyond people in the intermediate phase of their diving??

Chris.

 

[DeepScuba]

Maybe I missed it in all the confusion, MikeF. But what mix are you using for that dive?

I like the idea of introducing it with the "overhead" of a lot of tech training too.

To think that some aren't allowing penetration (or at least don't like it) at those depths I think is getting a little "Wennie-ish". If the arguement wasn't a good one, I'd say they're being overly silly in caution, but still, to think that one can't function at those relatively shallow depths isn't the real deal IMO.

"Ideally" yes,.......mandatory, well not so big a yes. In fact, to me, that's squarely a personal choice and should be left that way and not forced by a boat captain.

Unless of course he doesn't mind if you don't have the "card" to prove you took the "training".

 

[-hh]

Would you guys feel better if they changed the name of the class to "Nitrox" and didn't introduce helium?

For me personally, Most Definitely Yes.

It seems to make sense to introduce the use of helium in the classes that first touch the depth where divers often choose to use it rather than forcing to student to take tons of tech training before they have the option of using it for a 130 ft dive. Other agencies like NAUI and IANTD seem to agree.

If this arguement was about a class that was being sold strictly on the basis of offering helium at these depths you guys might have some kind of point. As it is though this class is GUE's "AOW and Nitrox" as well. The intro to trimix looks like a bonus.

I have no particular problems with an 'intro to Trimix' concept on general principle. However the foundation of all education is that the student is going to apply and extend the principles of what he has learned, which is why chrisch is spot-on when he says: "Why then pick 30/30, not say 25/25 which gives a 150fsw MWD at 1.4 and an END that is not beyond people in the intermediate phase of their diving??".

Particularly with its EAN36 no-deco tables klunge, 30/30 looks to me to be a niche application. There's nothing wrong with being a niche, but rather the philisophical appropriateness of teaching the exception before the rule.


-hh