tank position, why not like firefighters

[fire_diver]

Firefighters don't run reels, firefighters stand upright, firefighters don't work in a zero gravity environment, firefighters don't have 2-5 tanks on them.

I don't have a lot of reel experience, so that could be a possible argument, I'll have to think on it. Working in a gravity situation doesn't change the mechanics of a valve drill.

Firefighters typically carry one tank. It's a work issue. We could manifold tanks, and carry larger ones, but we don't need to spend an hour working our butts off inside a burning structure. However, a RIT team will carry a redundant SCBA system for the rescue of possible OOA firefighters. So the only one bottle issue isn't true. Besides, the orientation of stages is independant and not reliant on the orientation of backgas where the valve drill occurs.

FD

 

[Cfdsmokeater]

Firefighters don't run reels, firefighters stand upright, firefighters don't work in a zero gravity environment, firefighters don't have 2-5 tanks on them.

False, False, True (I wish), False. No I don't have a reel, but I'm running 50-100ft search line. Firefighters stand up???? I wish it was like the movies. Zero gravity?? I wish. Umm, neutral or close to 300lbs negative. I seem to remember their being 1-2 bottles in the RIT pack we carry around.

I was certified long before I became a fireman, and have never had a problem yet with either setup. Well I've been entangled with both, more with a SCBA than the other (more hours in house fires than underwater). In my mind the environments are both IDLH and most aspects similar, but the equipment is different. SCBA units are preplumbed (some what like the mares "hub" unit). This makes for "bottle" switching much easier. Now with my standard (single tank) setup, valve up is much easier. Mostly because that is the intended setup when purchased, trained, and dived.

If a standard equipment setup was made for SCUBA, I think the advantages would be tremendous.

 

[fire_diver]

Tell me about that "search line" you mentioned. When we run rescue scenarios, we make the standard search pattern for owner casualties, or follow the hose to find the firefighter. So I am intrigued in a new way to try.

FD

 

[Bryan]

I was wondering why we dont position scuba tanks like firefighters position their tanks? if you are diving in a cave or wreck, i'm guessing it will be more protected from either falling objects or getting nocked off when the tank valve is toward your butt.

If you route it properly, it will be more water dynamic...what do you think?
J

It has been done... hasn't caught on...

 

[CIBDiving]

sounding a bit grizzly there CIB.. Saying cave diving doesnt count for squat in diving is like saying F1 doesnt count for squat in motoring

Maybe, I had a bad case of Insomnia last nite and can get pretty grouchy after trying to sleep for 6+ hours with no success.

Doesn't change the fact that Most of the world doesn't need a F1 car for grocery getting, of course they don't need an SUV either but that's another story.

Have you noticed that the people Most shocked and against the 'Idea' are DIRers? Same old BS there, the "we know Best because george said so". If having the bottle upside down is good than ALL their finely crafted Hype is bogus.

I've said it before - the valve is up because of history , that's Not the same as Tradition. Machines 'evolve' just like animals do, they rarely change completely to a radicaly different style. It is a slow proccess as one componet is changed to work better it must remain compatible with the other components.

The mares HUB is an example of what happens if you try to reinvent the wheel. Is it a 'good' idea? I think it's a fair idea, but it requires that you scrap Most of your expensive gear (that you trust, an important point) and lock yourself into that design. Not that many people will, the first time purchaser might go for it but like a computer owner how many people when they upgrade go out and buy a Mac instead of replaceing the PC they had, or visaversa?

Most people upgraded to a single hose reg, having learned on the double hose ( that Needed to have the valve up) or having been trained from the start on a 'short hose' single hose. That needed the valve up because hose length wasn't something you were likely to change. Also at first the valve itself was symetrical, the control knob was on inline at the top ( or bottom depending . That by itself was a reason to have the valve on top.

The bottom line is (I'm tired of writing), The advantages of the valve on the bottom isn't great enough to cause a complete redesign of the rig to be ecomonicly viable.

 

[Whatgoesdown]

Something just occurred to me and it would probably take a firefighter to answer it. If the valve stem breaks off how much of a problem is that going to be? I reckon there is a much greater likelyhood of moisture/contamination in a diver's tank. If the valve stem is broken off in an upright tank you'll be able to breathe in all positions except inverted. Make sense or not? And, before somebody says that the likelyhood of the stem breaking is slim, it does still happen!

 

[Bigcape]

Ok, but how many diver have, RIGHT HERE ON SB, said that they have trouble reaching thier valves? How many have said that they need to 'limber up' or 'stretch out' thier shoulders so they can do the drills easier and faster. Why is THAT not a perfect example of a flawed system?

So far the complaints I have read about the valves down configuration are:
-why mess with how it's always been done
-it would require longer hoses
-its just easier to have it pointing upright
-a solution in search of a problem (which is trotted out anytime someone dares to suggest a change)

the pros to doing this? It's a hell of a lot easier to reach your valves. In the words of Cousteau 'even old men and women could do it'.

FD

but how many diver have, RIGHT HERE ON SB, said that they have trouble reaching thier valves? How many have said that they need to 'limber up' or 'stretch out' thier shoulders so they can do the drills easier and faster. Why is THAT not a perfect example of a flawed system?

So far the complaints I have read about the valves down configuration are:
-why mess with how it's always been done If that was the attitude to have, then we would all still be riding in a horse and buggy
-it would require longer hosesI am using a 7ft now, what would be the diff!The SPG hose would actually be shorter.
-its just easier to have it pointing uprightI am in great shape and reaching back is pain in the butt!
-a solution in search of a problem (which is trotted out anytime someone dares to suggest a change)

 

[Bigcape]

In a bad entanglement - you take the thing OFF and clear it. GEEEEESSS.

Lets face it - the reason y'all wear it that way is because you've been taught to wear it that way and for no other reason.

I agree. I was thinking of trying it inverted just for the hell of it. I can scratch ALL of my ***** However I cant hardly touch any of my back.

Yes in a bad entaglement you do take it off. Imagine being able to SEE the entaglement too.

Odds are when you are trimmed out there is still a bit of a tilt the body makes naturaly that would make a roll off less likely.

I am kinda afraid though cause if I try it I might die!!

 

[J.R.]

If a standard equipment setup was made for SCUBA, I think the advantages would be tremendous.

Well... yes and no.

Standard setups are find for 'standard diving'... or 'standard' anything. There's and old rule of thumb that sez' "Universal Parts... aren't".

"Standard setups" would only apply to "standard dives"... and I'm not sure any of us could define a 'standard dive'... The problem here is that every problem has its own set of solutions.

I don't know whether 'valve on the bottom' is a good idea or not... the real issue that need to be addressed in any R&D question is, "What problem are we trying to solve?" I don't see any real problem with the current configuration... but that's me... but, if you're doing some specialty diving or are working in an environment where the current 'standard configuration' doesn't work... well... maybe a better mousetrap should be designed.

Whether the valve is at the top or the bottom really doesn't make any difference to me from an estetic point of view... but...

1: Air rises underwater... (note your BC)... so it would make sense that if you're low air and need to accend... having what air remains in your tank near the valve (I assume we all asscend head up)... is, in my opinion... a "good thing"... (but then... I don't know... does air in a hollow sealed container like a cylinder actually rise??? hummm... not good at physics... may not be a relevant arguement... SOUNDS GOOD THOUGH!!)

2: The issue of pressure dynamics (without reinventing the entire wheel) would indicate that the first stage should be on a relative level with the 2nd...

3: I do "Midwest muck diving"... if I do a butt-plant on the bottom (... hey, it happens)... I don't want muck jammed in my first stage...

4: I'm not overly concerned with valve stems snapping off... its more likely, I would think, loading and unloading the tanks into your vehicle for trasport... or sitting around the shop... and, in those situations... a snapped valve in either configuration would have the same basic result... degree of trauma relative to the initial pressure load inside the tank. However... in my previous post I mentioned the issue of finding the hoses if dropped. I think this is a VALID point... I don't know what all kinds of regulator systems firefighters use... but what I've seen is full face masks... strapped on. Don't see a lot of em' in scuba... just a reg with teeth on one end and a hose on the other...

5: "Reaching your valve" seems, to me... a bit like a bogus argument... that's what we've got buddies and buddy checks for. Re-designing a tank because we forgot fundimental diving skills *seems* like a bit of overkill to me...

"Tradition" is, as noted, not a good arguement... but design proven by years of use in a broad variety of environments IS... firefighting equipment was designed for a firefighting application... scuba gear was designed for scuba applications. All squares are rectangles... not all rectangles are squares...


J.R.

 

[J.R.]

With regard to the Divator Mk II

Check out http://www.interspiro.com/product-mk2.htm

There's also a Scubaboard article on it from 2004:

http://www.scubaboard.com/cms/article15.html

Sept 2005 "Scuba Diving Magazine" ran an article on the MK II full face mask...

http://www.scubadiving.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=4259&pop=1&page=1

I'm guessing that the full face mask will work with 'traditional' tanks as well as the MK II tank setup... masks are pricy... no idea what the tanks cost. Seems like a lot of money to spend to dive a reef and look at fish.

J.R.