Posted by Kendall Raine on July 30, 2001 at 08:35:05:
In Reply to: Re: moderation>Repex and CNS posted by MHK on July 29, 2001 at 09:53:11:
OK. It just seems to me that WKPP and Hamilton's NOAA studies are different applications.
Clearly WKPP has been way off any chart in terms of CNS clocks with good results. Part of their ability to do that, I suspect, is the use of habitats. I seem to recall that they pull their 30 ffw stop on 02 in a habitat. You've spent time observing this so please elaborate. Dry v. wet seems to be an important variable in the studies of tox susceptability. WKPP also keeps their working P02's really low (1.0-1.2 ata).
Also, since most of the tox studies were performed dry on 100%, the time lines established were based on abscence of dead spaces and breathing resistence=low C02 buildup. Even the Navy guidelines were developed for combat swimmers on 100% at shallow depths.
Conversley, the NOAA 1.6 for 45 was designed to keep divers using Nitrox underwater at depths of 100-130 fsw during the working phase out of trouble. Hence, different application. Hamilton has been saying since at least the early 90's that one should run the P02's on the working phase of the dive in the range of 1.4.
Post a Followup