Why Recreational Triox ??

[lamont]

If we ever run out of helium we can make it pretty easily from lithium and a neutron source:

Li6 + n0 -> H3 + He4

 

[cornfed]

Ban party baloons and parade floats.

I have a feeling that the helim that goes into a single float would keep a bunch of us diving for a very long time.

Maybe we should all line up at the end of the Macy's parade with some storage bottles and a compressor.

 

[-hh]

He is renewable..

Not so, according to the paper, The Impact of Selling the Federal Helium Reserve (2000) by the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), National Materials Advisory Board.

From page 49: "First, helium is a nonrenewable, finite resource."

The paper goes on to explore future prices. In short, they expect He prices to rise at a nominal of 4-5% annually, which is another way of saying that its not going to get any cheaper than it is today.

Keep in mind where the Helium we buy comes from: the Helium Act of 1925 created a federal strategic helium reserve to ensure that reserves were maintained for the military's dirigible program, but the 1996 Helium Privatization Act (Public Law 104-273), requires the US Government to get out of the "Helium Business".

In other words, our Military Strategic Reserve has been ordered to be "dumped" on the World Market (estimate: through 2015). Its a classical Economics oversupply that depresses current/near-term prices.

So enjoy your He while you can.


-hh

 

[-hh]

Let's use the correct gas to reduce narcosis and C02 retention...

Sure - - but let's first make sure that we have an actual problem, and that the claimed "Solution" actually produces a benefit.

The basic scientific process to do this is:

1. Theoretically predict the current CO2 retention level.
2. Theoretically predict the Triox CO2 retention level.
3. Quantitatively measure and validate (1) through testing.
4. Quantitatively measure and validate (2) through testing.
5. Quantitatively measure the CO2 dose-response curve.
6. Determine if (3 --> 4) produces a significant change on (5).
7. If 6=FALSE, then STOP (eg, no realizable benefit).


MHK has gotten as far as Step #2...but no further.
Until Step #6 is completed, its an unsubstantiated claim.

YMMV on how irresponsible it is to knowingly make unsubstantiated claims.


-hh

 

[Genesis]

Sure - - but let's first make sure that we have an actual problem, and that the claimed "Solution" actually produces a benefit.

The basic scientific process to do this is:

1. Theoretically predict the current CO2 retention level.
2. Theoretically predict the Triox CO2 retention level.
3. Quantitatively measure and validate (1) through testing.
4. Quantitatively measure and validate (2) through testing.
5. Quantitatively measure the CO2 dose-response curve.
6. Determine if (3 --> 4) produces a significant change on (5).
7. If 6=FALSE, then STOP (eg, no realizable benefit).


MHK has gotten as far as Step #2...but no further.
Until Step #6 is completed, its an unsubstantiated claim.

YMMV on how irresponsible it is to knowingly make unsubstantiated claims.


-hh

Cool - someone else "gets it"!

 

[MHK]

MHK,

Assuming no intention of moving on to Tech I, do you think a diver is better off in doubles for this course--that is, will be able to get more out of the course with doubles? I ask this not to join in on the argument but because I intend to take the course and I'd like to know your thoughts.

Some of your choice of cylinder depends on the type of diving that you plan on doing. For example, this class is designed to introduce Nitrox 32%, for many divers, especially those in warm water, have no desire to go deep and are very comfortable staying in the 70' or 80' range. For those divers, in my mind, using a single cylinder of Nitrox 32% seems perfectly reasonable. Whereas other divers may wish to venture into the 100' or 120' range, sadly the discussion is getting misdirected and comingled, but for divers that wish to stay in the 120' range they have a few considerations to plan.

1) Gas consumption
2) Choice of gas
3) Type of cylinder
4) reserve for OOA's

Our belief is that a diver doing a dive in the 120' range is significantly better off using a set of doubles, using a 30/30 mix and adhering to Rock Bottom as a gas management tool. As I've noted in this thread, and other's, we adopt this approach for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, reduced hypercapnia, reduced narcosis, added reserve for OOA's, reduced gas density and so on..

That is how and why we approach our diving the way we do. I respect that other's like Genesis seem to want a peer reviewed study for every concept of the face of the planet, I've tried numerous times to explain it to him but it's clear he has limited interest in understanding our approach but just wants to engage in cyber debate, I'll decline the opportunity. However, if the above analysis doesn't answer your questions, please feel free to e-mail me at mhk@gue.com

Thanks

 

[Genesis]

Our belief is that a diver doing a dive in the 120' range is significantly better off using a set of doubles, using a 30/30 mix and adhering to Rock Bottom as a gas management tool. As I've noted in this thread, and other's, we adopt this approach for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, reduced hypercapnia, reduced narcosis, added reserve for OOA's, reduced gas density and so on..

You just validated what I (and a few others) have been saying Mike - now if only the standards also validated it.

If you want to be in the 120' range, you need redundancy and/or significant additional volume (and both are better!) However, above 100', using the gas seems (to me anyway) to make no sense.

As such I still think that if you're going to teach Triox, it ought to be in doubles or a big single with a bailout cylinder slung as a stage, since if someone is actually going to use the gas they should be doing so with the proper equipment.

 

[DepartureDiver]

As such I still think that if you're going to teach Triox, it ought to be in doubles or a big single with a bailout cylinder slung as a stage, since if someone is actually going to use the gas they should be doing so with the proper equipment.

I might have missed something. What does the gas have to do with the equipment?

 

[Genesis]

I might have missed something. What does the gas have to do with the equipment?

Since the only place the gas makes sense is between 100-130' for nearly all divers, does it not make sense to certify someone for its use only if they can demonstrate the effective use of the equipment needed to safely use the gas?

Would you issue a full Trimix cert to someone who could not perform decompression diving and did not know how to handle doubles or a deco bottle?

If you'd issue this on the basis of it being a "gas cert", then I should be able to get a full Trimix card on the same basis.

 

[cornfed]

However, above 100', using the gas seems (to me anyway) to make no sense.

You have been arguing this point with your shadow the whole time. It's a non-issue so please drop it.