Print

Print


> I guess I owe you an apology.

Apology accepted.  Just don't let it happen again!

> I defended your method, suggesting that the

My white knight... Oh, thank you.

> reason someone else thought it was overly risky was not because it was, but
> because you assumed others understood things you took for granted and,
> therefore, did not mention.  After your insulting response, I withdraw my
> defense of your suggestion.

Changing your "mind" because of a tone or attitude is ridiculous.
Either something is safe and valid or it's not.  If I YELL it, that
does NOT change the underlying principles.

Changing your mind for these reasons makes you a hypocrite more
than anything.

> I suggested an alternative method which I prefer because it is even more
> effective and eliminates some risks, even if they are minimal.  In response,
> you state that I lack understanding of the physics.  You are mistaken in
> your assessment of my understanding and in several of the points you stated
> as facts.
>
> > > I think Carl left out a lot of things that might explain how this could
> be
> > > done safely.  Many of us fall victim to the same mistake by assuming
> that
> > > what we take for granted is equally obvious to others.  Doing this drill
> in
> > > a pool with less than half a breath of air should be pretty safe.  Doing
> it
> > > at the end of a deep dive might be real foolish.  While I think what
> Carl
> >
> > BALONEY.  You clearly know not what you speak.

As with ALL things diving related if you DO NOT know what you're doing
you shouldn't be doing it.  Yes, they DO teach this in the OWI course.
Something along the lines of "You're certified to do blah blah blah,
if you want to do more, pay more money, take more courses, etc.
etc. etc.".

> Read my statement again.  I stated responded to a statement that your method
> seemed risky by explaining that the respondent simply did not understand

*Seemed risky* ane *being risky* are NOT one and the same.

> that you were taking some things for granted.  You later said the same
> thing.  Unless the depth, decompression status and a host of other factors
> are, in your opinion, not signficant, then my statement is not baloney, it's
> accurate.  I stated that your method was OK provided you do it under
> conditions you assumed would be obvious which were not so obvious to the
> repondent.  Care to rethink your disagreement?

Not at all.  A basic tenant of diving is... try NEW things without
unnecessary task loading.  That might mean testing out new camera gear
in a pool first with NO camera to make sure it's leak proof.  Even
take it in the ocean to a real depth BEFORE you put the camera in.
Note - no camera so even if it floods you're not going to panic and
worry about the cost of the camera.  Same thing goes for new gear.
Try it in a pool first, get the trim setup better.  Do bouyancy and
merely alter the proper amount of weight when switching environemnts
(e.g. fresh to salt).

> > FACT:  You will NOT be able to take a *FULL* 100% lung filling breath
> > and hold it while you're doing almost any type of physical activity.
>
> Incorrect.  I can take as full a breath prior to exercising as I can at any

What part of *WHILE YOU'RE DOING* don't you understand?  I do NOT
believe that
*PRIOR* comes under the heading of *WHILE YOU'RE DOING*...  Now, go out
and start
jogging in place.  Do so for 30 seconds... While you're jogging TRY to
fully
inflate your lungs...  Don't forget, underwater you ALSO potentially
have an exposure suit compressing the chest, etc.

> other time and can certainly hold it.  All freedivers do it all of the time.

REALLY... I bet this would be news to many of them.  In fact, I can
PROVE that this statment is false.  I am also a freediver and I do
not do it all of the time, ergo, this statement is false.

> I've done it just to prove I could descend wearing a life preserver.  You
> probably have done it on occasion.

Freedivers hold their breathe... Ok... care to cite some good books on
freediving that tell me about all the freedivers who take maximum size
breaths and hold it?

> > FACT:  Divers are always taught to "breathe normally".
>
> Incorrect.  Not all divers were taught to breathe normally at all times.  In
> fact, a great many of us were taught not to hold our breath during an ascent
> and nothing more.  In my opinion, the breath continuously and normally

I suggest you take a better course.

> "rule" was used because already task loaded new divers can't be expected to
> refrain from holding their breath when ascending.  It's a workable method,
> but a bogus rule.  There's nothing dangerous about holding your breath while
> descending.

Why cause your body to build up CO2?  That's what breath holding will
do to you... Ever had a "CO2 headache"???

> > As I already said, when exerting yourself (such as when finning inverted
> against bouyancy)
> > you are NOT holding your breathe.
>
> Since I've already commented on your fact, I'll leave that part alone.  The

yes, even though your comment was incorrect, and wrong - good idea not
to
be wrong about the same thing TWICE in the same post.

> post I responded to specifically mentioned the possibility of panic.  In a
> panic situation, you don't have the slightest idea of whether the victim
> will hold his breath or not.

> > FACT: The depth of your lungs in most pools (say a 10' pool) will be
> > roughly 7' for a totat  ATA of less than 1.25 atm, meaning you would have
> to take a
> > larger than 80% breath to exceed their maximum capacity and HOLD it - a
> basic
> > no-no for ANY certified diver but certainly anyone who is doing something
> like
> > this should have at least half a brain - something too many divers LACK.

> If too many divers lack a half a brain, then your idea is poor for too many
> divers, right?  You missed the word panic again.  You also seem to have

Actually Lee, I don't think that most divers should be diving.  And my
criteria
has NOTHING to do with how long a person has been diving or what courses
they have taken - it has far more to do with common sense - which is NOT
too common!

> missed the fact that your original post did nto specify the exercise be done
> in a pool.  At least two other people didn't make this assumption.  I did
> and I assumed that you had too.

It would make very little sense to conduct a test like this at depth,
in the open water.

> > FACT: It is generally considered true that the lungs can withstand a
> > 10% overpressure, making the numbers in the above paragraph even more
> > conservative and implying that you would have to take in close to a 90%
> full breath
> > and hold it.  This is not as simple as it seems.
>
> Incorrect.  Alviolli, which can be damaged in a lung expansion injury are
> generally assumed to be vulnerable to a pressure differential of as little
> as 1.5 psi.  The lungs themselves can withstand more, but a burst lung is
> not the only lung expansion injury that's possible.

Hey, Lee... What's atmospheric pressure... hmmm, 14.7 psi.... What's
10% of that???  1.47 psi... WOW, amazing.  BTW, in general the pressure
differential you're talking about is *NOT* an absolute number, rather,
it IS the 10% I quoted above.  Think about the old balloon lesson from
OW I...  If you take a ballon from 33' to the surface, what happens
to it's volume?  If you take a balloon from 99' to 66' - WHICH IS THE
SAME
ABSOLUTE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL - what happens to ITS volume...  Just
think
about where the largest potential for overexpansion injuries is and why.

> > > suggested can be done safely, I do not favor his method (I haven't seen
> way
>
> > Because you CLEARLY don't understand it or the biology and physics
> > behind it.
>
> Read what I said again.  I specifically stated that your method could be

I have and you have made numerous incorrect and/or faulty statements.

> done safetly under the right conditions, but that I favor my method over
> yours.  If I clearly don't understand the biology and physics, then perhaps
> I was as wrong as you suggest, when I suggested your method was not as
> dangerous as it initially appeared to those who didn't assume you were
> taking things you didn't say for granted, things that make all the
> difference between a safe practice and a hazardous one.

No, merely your understanding was flawed.

> > A REAL WORLD scenario of a runaway inflator will do just what I indicated.
> > It will compress your torse if you wear a jacket BC making breathing
> > even MORE labored (and making it even harder to take a deep breathe!)...
>
> Incorrect again.  First, I don't wear a jacket style BC.  If you paid
> attention to what was going on in the list, you would have known this.  I
> use a Halcyon wing.  Second, modern BC's are designed to inflate away from
> the diver and do not compress the torso unless the straps used to keep in
> from flopping around are pulled much tighter than necessary.  Finally, who
> said anything about a runaway inflator?

That's just one of the reasons for performing a test like this.  Oh,
sorry,
I have to lay out EVERY LITTLE DETAIL.  Even "modern" BCs that are
designed to inflate away from you will put pressure on you when they
inflate.

> > This is theoretically true, however, as I just mentioned it is actually
> > quite a different scenario.  Lifting weights that are NOT clipped off to
> > you require additional muscles come into play requiring more energy, O2,
> > etc.
>
> Holding on to a weight requires very little energy relative to the energy
> required to lift it from the bottom or, hold it down (in the case of
> buoyancy.  In fact, lifting weight will meet the need we started out to meet
> whereas your method will not.  I can measure the weight lifted quite easily.
> How were you planning to measure the buoyancy you resisted?  Remember, our
> original goal was to see how much buoyancy you could resist.

Quite easily.  Once you're at the "breaking" point and cannot overcome
any more bouyancy, remove your equipement and clip off a sufficient
amount of weight to make the setup neutral.  Adjust for your body
bouyancy and you have the answer.

If I were to play "devils" advocate I would say that trying TO LIFT
weights was more dangerous because the diver MIGHT try to use any and
all available bouyancy and that MIGHT include a "FULL LUNG" of air
thereby exposing them to the potential overexpansion injury.

> > > weight you're lifting is not problematic unless, of course, you're
> dropping
> > > a hard weight on the bottom of a pool.  Further, lifting weight can be
> done
>
> > Nothing that says that you can't put something on the bottom of the pool
> > to protect it, or, suspend the weight from above such that it would not
> hit
> > the bottom.
>
> Humor challanged today, are we?
>
> > > without a tank, eliminating the risk of a lung expansion injury even if
> > > everything comes apart at once.  Hopefully, I don't have to say that you
> > > hold the weight rather than fasten it to yourself.
>
> > Since I'm not aware of *anyone* that has ever had a lung expansion
> > injury doing this I don't think that either your or I can adequately
> assess the
> > risk other than saying that to our knowledge it has never happened.
>
> Incorrect.  While I have not heard of anyone who's experienced a lung
> expansion injury this way, I also am unaware of anyone other than you who
> has tried this.  Even if I did, I don't have to witness a problem to know
> there is a risk of one.  I continue to maintain that:
> 1. The risk is greater in your method than in mine (even if minimal in
> yours).

You can BELIEVE anything you want, that does not make it true.  I'm SURE
there are some people that still think the earth is flat.

> 2. My method allows you to quantify your ability to fin against force while
> yours does not.

Wrong again.  You are good at being wrong though!

> Having said all that, I think you need to go back and read my post again,
> this time with an open mind.  I specifically stated that the risk of your

Nah, you just need to think first.

> suggestion was not as great as it appeared, adding conditions that you might
> have taken for granted that would make a difference in the overall level of
> perceived risk.  You have attacked and insulted someone who was supporting
> you when you did it.  If your problem is with the fact that I have a method
> I prefer, too bad.  I get to have an opinion too.

First, I didn't attack y ou because you were "supporting" me, I pointed
out that you were wrong in several instances.  You're STILL wrong in
several items.
Yep, we all know that opinions are like ******** - everyone has one.

Carl