Posted by Eins on October 04, 2000 at 12:56:50:
In Reply to: Re: DUI posted by MHK on October 04, 2000 at 09:57:03:
Thanks for asking.
No red herrings, MHK. It's been CF200 all along, and you mentioned this in your post at
“The guys at the WKPP have done studies on the compressability of the crushed neoprene, which is why they dive the 350' and not the 200's.
I will get a copy and send it to you, either privately or publicily whatever you prefer...
JJ is out of town ( well, actually he is here in SoCal and George is unreachable but I have left him a message ) as soon as they can send it out to me I'll prove my point.”
This discussion started at
where you said
"...you need to consider a crushed neoprene -v- a trilam. The neoprene will compress at depth so as to limit any potential bouyancy characterisitics."
THIS SET THE STAGE AND THE CONTEXT WAS COMPRESSION OF “CRUSHED NEOPRENE” IN A DEGREE WHERE IT IS RELEVANT FOR DIVERS' BUOYANCY CHARACTERISTICS. AGAIN, AND EXPLICITLY, YOU WERE NOT TALKING LAB TESTS TO PROVE COMPRESSION IN MICROSCOPIC DIMENSIONS OF µ^-1000 BUT IN DIVER-RELEVANT DIMENSIONS OF TANGIBLE POUNDS. AND IN THIS UNDERSTANDING, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY POSITION THAT DUI CF200 DOES NOT COMPRESS AT DEPTH.
I’m looking forward to seeing WKPP’s results. Not to loose or win this bet but to learn something. My $20 have been mailed to Karl yesterday (10/3).
PS: Please check your e-mail
Post a Followup