Been to Koh Tao, should I go to PERHENTIANS?

Thus spake H Huntzinger
<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> :

>Don Ward <dwward3863@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's not about the time, it's about the safety.
>
>More like "safety trade-off".
>
>True, you can dive Nitrox on air tables and not approach the deco limits
>as closely and thus be "more safe". However, the risks from Ox-Tox and
>the risks of someone pumping the wrong mix are increased, so its really
>just a big safety trade-off.
>
>
>Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>
>
>-hh

What if you're diving dry and you "off gas"? Does the increase O2 %
increase the risk of an explosion?

--
dillon
Linux, it's not just an OS, it's a way
of life.

And a damn fine one, at that.

"Dillon Pyron" wrote

>>True, you can dive Nitrox on air tables and not approach the deco limits
>>as closely and thus be "more safe". However, the risks from Ox-Tox and
>>the risks of someone pumping the wrong mix are increased, so its really
>>just a big safety trade-off.

You don't have to dive Nitrox on air tables to decrease the nitrogen loading
in your system. You can, in fact, dive beyond what your computer would
allow on air and still have a lower nitrogen load.

As for the toxicity, while the risk certainly moves to a shallower depth
when you dive with more than 21% oxygen, the risk of O2 toxicity is just as
real on air as on nitrox. You simply stay above the MOD for the gas you're
using.

>>Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode

8^)

> What if you're diving dry and you "off gas"? Does the increase O2 %
> increase the risk of an explosion?

Methane and a high percentage of oxygen could be a dangerous combination,
but would probably require a spark to set it off. Assuming you don't fart
sparks, the chance of an explosion is low.

Lee

In article
<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-220478.08314224072005@news.giganews.com
>, {NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com (H Huntzinger) wrote:

> Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode

So on a muli location trip and where one operator where you dive does not
have nitrox your kit would have to be "cleaned" before you could go on to
your next location where they did do nitrox ???????



Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
Take out the "goes diving" bit....
Trip photos on line at www.morg.co.uk

In article <42E3026F.21FDBADA@seatraveler.com>, steve@seatraveler.com
(Steve Kramer) wrote:

> '43,796 people drown...'

And add a few noughts to that if the dock collapsed......

Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
Take out the "goes diving" bit....
Trip photos on line at www.morg.co.uk

morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> > Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>
> So on a muli location trip and where one operator where you dive does not
> have nitrox your kit would have to be "cleaned" before you could go on to
> your next location where they did do nitrox ???????


For mixes below 40%, the answer depends on how gullible you are in
regards to paying for stuff that you don't really need.


-hh

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> As for the toxicity, while the risk certainly moves to a shallower depth
> when you dive with more than 21% oxygen, the risk of O2 toxicity is just as
> real on air as on nitrox. You simply stay above the MOD for the gas you're
> using.

Tox is merely one of the risks...sorry, I oversimplified. There's
several very small risks from switching from "just air" to "modified
air" if for no other reason than there's incrementally more process
steps in managing a tank of Nitrox versus the air baseline.


What this comes down to is the question of trading-off one very small
risk versus a sum of other (probably smaller) risks is worthwhile or
not, which will ultimately depend on the personally-weighted value of
the benefits of doing so.


In the specific case of using Nitrox on Air tables, the classical
benefit of longer bottom times is not utilized. In addition to
whatever risks, it costs more money, both in mix and in equipment, so as
such, I don't see the significantly perceivable benefit that
sufficiently outweighs these factors so as to reasonably justify its
use. YMMV.



> >>Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>
> 8^)
>
> ... Assuming you don't fart sparks, the chance of an explosion is low.

Best to be very careful then around metallic snorkels


-hh

morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> In article
> <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-220478.08314224072005@news.giganews.com
> >, {NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com (H Huntzinger) wrote:
>
> > Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>
> So on a muli location trip and where one operator where you dive does not
> have nitrox your kit would have to be "cleaned" before you could go on to
> your next location where they did do nitrox ???????

Not quite. HH is having you on a bit. But only just a bit. When using a
HIGHER than 36% O2 mix you are supposed to be using a cleaned tank and
regulator (NOT BCD...) Some people believe that the % can be much higher
before requiring specially cleaned gear. For safety sake, most people
with whom I've dived will only use 36% and below with their regular kit.


Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Freelance Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com

--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing
with new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Steve Kramer" wrote

>> > Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>>
>> So on a muli location trip and where one operator where you dive does not
>> have nitrox your kit would have to be "cleaned" before you could go on to
>> your next location where they did do nitrox ???????
>
> Not quite. HH is having you on a bit. But only just a bit. When using a
> HIGHER than 36% O2 mix you are supposed to be using a cleaned tank and
> regulator (NOT BCD...) Some people believe that the % can be much higher
> before requiring specially cleaned gear. For safety sake, most people
> with whom I've dived will only use 36% and below with their regular kit.

In this part of the world, the arbitrary cut off is anything above 40%.

Hugh's comments do raise an interesting point. If it's important to have a
tank and regulator cleaned to O2 service standards for anything above 40%,
O2, why isn't it important to have an O2 clean BCD and drysuit? Is the O2
somehow safer when shot through the inflator hose and into the BCD/drysuit
than it is if shot through a regulator into your mouth?

Lee

Good one, Lee

Lee Bell wrote:

>"Steve Kramer" wrote
>
>
>
>>>>Besides, if your BC isn't O2-cleaned, it can spontaneously explode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So on a muli location trip and where one operator where you dive does not
>>>have nitrox your kit would have to be "cleaned" before you could go on to
>>>your next location where they did do nitrox ???????
>>>
>>>
>>Not quite. HH is having you on a bit. But only just a bit. When using a
>>HIGHER than 36% O2 mix you are supposed to be using a cleaned tank and
>>regulator (NOT BCD...) Some people believe that the % can be much higher
>>before requiring specially cleaned gear. For safety sake, most people
>>with whom I've dived will only use 36% and below with their regular kit.
>>
>>
>
>In this part of the world, the arbitrary cut off is anything above 40%.
>
>Hugh's comments do raise an interesting point. If it's important to have a
>tank and regulator cleaned to O2 service standards for anything above 40%,
>O2, why isn't it important to have an O2 clean BCD and drysuit? Is the O2
>somehow safer when shot through the inflator hose and into the BCD/drysuit
>than it is if shot through a regulator into your mouth?
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>

In article
<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-775AFF.06560825072005@news.giganews.com
>, {NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com (H Huntzinger) wrote:

> For mixes below 40%, the answer depends on how gullible you are in
> regards to paying for stuff that you don't really need.

Obviously we hav'nt fallen into the "gullible" trap yet then !!!!!

Seriously though.......its reading and listening to these kind of
discussions where there are arguments on both sides that make me and my
wife wonder and think "is it worth the hassle" ?

We have done about 500 dives since 98, most of those around the world in
warm water and down to depths of 60m (in Chuuk), all this has been done on
12ltr singles and air,it has not caused us any concerns, during intensive
dive trips we dont fall prey to the "dive dive dive" routine, we prefer
quality to quantity.........4 dives a day is usually plenty for us, and if
we see dive times shortening because of overloading then we miss one and
just chill for a while. So we ask ourselves "has it caused a problem, has
it prevented us from doing what we wanted to do, do we need the extra
hassle", no i dont think so. Air we can get freely at any dive center,
nitrox is not available freely at all the dive centers we have dived with.

I guess we wont get blown up just yet...........but.... farting underwater
is'nt a hazzard is it ????????????

Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
Take out the "goes diving" bit....
Trip photos on line at www.morg.co.uk