Buddy Line (Poll)

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote:

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!
>
> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous. Nigel's plan to
> have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet strong enough to
> haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a line where it would
> be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense with it when it is
> useful NOT to have it.
>
> Ken
>
>

How about a sound based 'intangible' tether?

Consider this, I once went around the entire circumference of Stoney
Cove at an average depth of around 18m at an average speed of twice
normal finning speed and managed to keep track of buddy the entire time
(and stay within 5m of him) despite only actually looking for him every
couple of minutes and having very little visual contact.
How?
We were both on DPV's and could hear the note of the others DPV motor
(and very clearly if you paused your own motor). Thus, you could track
your buddy much like the ping from radar.

Is there not a market for a wireless/radio or audible system where each
buddy emits a pattern of tones that his buddy can recognise - and keep a
closeness based on volume. In a panic situation, it could even be
altered to produce SOS type signal.

OK, maybe something to throw on the pile of 'too much hassle to wear
every dive, but could be uselfull in very poor viz'

Ken wrote

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!

Yes, but it's still a diving related thread. There haven't been enough of
those lately.

> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous.

I'm not so quick to believe all are agreed that there are times when it's
good to be teathered. Most of the responses I've seen suggest otherwise.

> Nigel's plan to have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet
> strong enough to haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a
> line where it would be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense
> with it when it is useful NOT to have it.

Except for the fact that it seems more complex than a system with a similar
purpose and function that was not only described in the same thread, but
shown on a site reference in the thread. It's OK that Nigel likes
technically sophisticated answers to problems he perceives, like his upside
own twinset. That does not, however, preclude someone suggesting a simpler
answer to the same question.

BTW, I intend no criticism of his upside down twinset. I kind of like
technically sophisticated answers myself.

Lee

Ken wrote

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!

Yes, but it's still a diving related thread. There haven't been enough of
those lately.

> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous.

I'm not so quick to believe all are agreed that there are times when it's
good to be teathered. Most of the responses I've seen suggest otherwise.

> Nigel's plan to have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet
> strong enough to haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a
> line where it would be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense
> with it when it is useful NOT to have it.

Except for the fact that it seems more complex than a system with a similar
purpose and function that was not only described in the same thread, but
shown on a site reference in the thread. It's OK that Nigel likes
technically sophisticated answers to problems he perceives, like his upside
own twinset. That does not, however, preclude someone suggesting a simpler
answer to the same question.

BTW, I intend no criticism of his upside down twinset. I kind of like
technically sophisticated answers myself.

Lee

Ken wrote

> As ever the thread has become something it wasn't!

Yes, but it's still a diving related thread. There haven't been enough of
those lately.

> I think we are all agred that there are times when being tethered to one's
> buddy would be useful, and at times it would be dangerous.

I'm not so quick to believe all are agreed that there are times when it's
good to be teathered. Most of the responses I've seen suggest otherwise.

> Nigel's plan to have a line that can be disconnected easily by either, yet
> strong enough to haul an unconscious diver close is an ideal, to have a
> line where it would be of benfit to have one but to be able to dispense
> with it when it is useful NOT to have it.

Except for the fact that it seems more complex than a system with a similar
purpose and function that was not only described in the same thread, but
shown on a site reference in the thread. It's OK that Nigel likes
technically sophisticated answers to problems he perceives, like his upside
own twinset. That does not, however, preclude someone suggesting a simpler
answer to the same question.

BTW, I intend no criticism of his upside down twinset. I kind of like
technically sophisticated answers myself.

Lee