|
| | |||||||
|
Welcome to the scubish.com - Scuba Diving Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
| |||
| |||
| > He's been quoted after his record attempt as saying that he didn't do > it for the record, but to further (non-commecrcial OC) diving > knowledge and deco stuff. What a pile of ...... rubbish I think this depends on the information he gives out. The currently unofficially published schedule is very close to original-VPN. If he publishes his schedule, the used algorithm, and a full dive report then this may help estabilish some guidelines for bubble model decompression. Traditional Buhlmann with GF's with a low factor starting about the same depth as VPN with very aggressive shallow stops still shows 15h (956) runtime using the reported gases. His schedule was 415. > He's an attention seeking idiot. If he really wanted to further > knowledge, he wouldn't have tried for a record breaking bounce dive > (which, by the way was only 10 or so metres past John Bennet and he > was there for 60 seconds), but for the more useful 200-230 metre dive > for say 20-30 minutes. But no, won't get headlines for himself like > that. Your only jealous interesting read. I think JB is already looking at this type of diving, although he doesn't usually publish his schedules (which is a pity). Cheers Matt. |
|
#22
| |||
| |||
| "ahar" wrote > Am I the only one to think this guy is a complete loon ? No more than anybody else that puts his life at risk to set a record. > He's been quoted after his record attempt as saying that he didn't do > it for the record, but to further (non-commecrcial OC) diving > knowledge and deco stuff. What a pile of ...... rubbish Who is more the loon, the guy that claims altruistic motives for his record attempt or those that, believing him, help him financially? Lee |
|
#23
| |||
| |||
| >>He's been quoted loads of times before sayiong that he might die in >>the attempt but will still try for the record - he got bent last time >>and told not to try again but he did anyway. > >You sure you're not getting your Marks mixed up? This was >Ellyatt, not Andrews. I got my Marks mixed up, doh! Doesn't Mark Andrews dive deep on trimix as well though, or is he still using air? And was Andrews going to be one of the three divers who were attempting the record in Sharm last summer? I know Ellyatt was one but now I'm all confused! :) Rob F. |
|
#24
| |||
| |||
| "Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" wrote > > We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar. > > Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you guys > > do that? > > Since this is the Nth time you mentioned that, I will reply. > > The point about the metric system is its internal consistency. Unfortunately for the system, nature is not so consistent. As a result, one bar is not one ata. How hard would it have been to make them equal? > 1 bar is 10 Newton/cm^2 = 100000 N/m^2 = 100000 pascals. > (The Pascal is not a very practical unit since it is very small, > so the HectaPascal (1 milibar) and MegaPascal (= 10 bar) may be > more useful.) > > The metric units were defined so that several things were aproximately > 1 or a power of ten (e.g. 10000km ~= 1/4 of Earth's perimeter *, > 1 litre water ~= 1 kg **) and that is quite useful, but it is less > important than the internal consistency. > > * The measure of Earth's perimeter was not very exact, but I cant't > find the exact values (polar and equatorial) now. > ** the original definition of the kilo. > http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/metro/aquoisert/metre.htm > > Since the meter was defined based on the Earth's perimeter and the kilo > on the water's weight, it is just a fortunate coincidence that the > average athmospheric pressure is approximately 1 kgf/ cm^2 =~ 1 bar. I'm ~ 6 feet tall, but I still can't reach as high as somebody that is 6 feet tall. You've done a nice job of describing what a bar is but still have not addressed the question of why. > Defining the bar as anything else would break this internal consistency, > which is more important than the 1.325 % difference between 1 atm and 1 bar. There's an old saying here in the U.S. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Lee |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ULTRA RARE! Vintage Scuba Magazine "Water World" 1957 F.A. on Ebay! | Joe Boater | Australia | 0 | 04-07-2007 05:12 PM |
| New world record - nutter. | Divetheworld | United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland | 2 | 03-27-2007 12:37 AM |
| Scuba World, Negros Oriental Philppines? | R N | Divers Hangout | 0 | 03-26-2007 11:30 PM |
| ULTRA RARE! Vintage Scuba Magazine "Water World" 1957 F.A. on Ebay! | Joe Boater | Divers Hangout | 0 | 03-26-2007 10:49 PM |
| Scuba submergence record | Dan L | United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland | 128 | 01-09-2006 10:09 AM |