Reaching Greater Depths

[stuartv]

No this is not necessarily true.

I picked arbitrary numbers out of the air to help illustrate a point, and you are debating those numbers instead of the point I was illustrating.

You then go onto support my point by giving different numbers and then agreeing with my point - i.e. that based on your personal knowledge of yourself, there is a depth where you expect narcosis to set in but lesser depths (40 feet) where you aren't concerned about it at all.

 

[TSandM]

Stuart, a lot of us are just trying to tell you that going to 130 and deciding you weren't narced isn't valid. Going to 130 and doing math problems and concluding that you aren't narced is invalid. The reason is that it is a frequent phenomenon that the diver doesn't FEEL anything different -- so how are you going to know whether you are slower or less perceptive than normal? The exercises given in the classes, like comparing the time to solve a math problem on land to the time underwater, are invalid for a whole variety of reasons. One is that there is a training effect, which has been DOCUMENTED. Another is that one of the commonly reported symptoms of narcosis is tunnel vision -- asking you to focus on a single task to the exclusion of everything else underwater is unlikely to elicit your awareness of being unaware of your surroundings.

I know you like the training you've had, and like your instructor. We're just trying to tell you that the conclusions you want to draw from the class you want to take may not be valid conclusions at all.

 

[stuartv]

Stuart, a lot of us are just trying to tell you that going to 130 and deciding you weren't narced isn't valid.

I understand that and never said anything to support anyone concluding that I did think that.

I said that my instructor would take me to 130 so that if I did get narked, I could learn what it feels like and he would be there to make sure I got out okay. I never said anything about making any assumptions in the event neither of us could detect any signs of me being narked.

I understand that people can't always tell when they're narked.

I understand that being clear-headed at 100 feet today does not mean you'll be clear-headed at 100 feet tomorrow.

And none of that changes the fact that there are multiple posts in this thread supporting the notion that getting experience with being narked helps a diver plan their dives better by learning how it affects them personally, and what depth they start to become concerned about it. Which seems to me to be a good thing.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I understand that and never said anything to support anyone concluding that I did think that.

I said that my instructor would take me to 130 so that if I did get narked, I could learn what it feels like and he would be there to make sure I got out okay. I never said anything about making any assumptions in the event neither of us could detect any signs of me being narked.

I understand that people can't always tell when they're narked.

I understand that being clear-headed at 100 feet today does not mean you'll be clear-headed at 100 feet tomorrow.

And none of that changes the fact that there are multiple posts in this thread supporting the notion that getting experience with being narked helps a diver plan their dives better by learning how it affects them personally, and what depth they start to become concerned about it. Which seems to me to be a good thing.

you're kinda dense... You WILL be narced at 130 feet.

Second point is that some people feel that it is irresponsible to take you (being very inexperienced) to that depth to "explore your personal limits" of narcosis susceptibility. They feel that it is too deep.

The specific numbers DO matter. 100 is different than 130! Personally, I would not be too worried about going to 130 with an instructor who was good. However, I am more of a proponent of progressing very slowly wrt depth. I would hope that the instructor would require some redundancy for that depth, but good luck.

 

[TSandM]

As I said, I don't have any particular problem with you going that deep with your instructor, assuming both of you have plenty of gas. I'm just trying to tell you that you may not learn much of anything from doing it.

 

[Tony387]

130 ft...not without doubles. New divers have no business at such depths. Just my two cents.

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

130 ft...not without doubles. New divers have no business at such depths. Just my two cents.

Why do you think doubles are appropriate? I would call that overkill.
How about just a pony for redundancy? We are talking Open Water diving right?

 

[Tony387]

Why do you think doubles are appropriate? I would call that overkill.
How about just a pony for redundancy? We are talking Open Water diving right?

That was my point...one little slip and at those depths, you are looking at a decompression dive. No, I wouldn't call it overkill. I certainly would not dive it with an AL80. Redundancy, while a concern, is not the only issue. Gas consumption at 5 atm is what I was thinking of. IMO, a good rule of thumb is a cu ft of gas, for every foot of depth. I was taught that, and while conservative, it works. I could be wrong, but to me, those are doubles depths.

 

[Storker]

Do you advise doubles primarily for the redundancy, for the capacity or both?

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

That was my point...one little slip and at those depths, you are looking at a decompression dive. No, I wouldn't call it overkill. I certainly would not dive it with an AL80. Redundancy, while a concern, is not the only issue. Gas consumption at 5 atm is what I was thinking of. IMO, a good rule of thumb is a cu ft of gas, for every foot of depth. I was taught that, and while conservative, it works. I could be wrong, but to me, those are doubles depths.

Ok - did you do the math for yourself? If not take a look at post #56. If you are going to slip into Deco - that is a diver issue not a gas issue. That said are you advocating doing this dive with double 130's?