Re: OMS- why is it so bad?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Kendall Raine on May 15, 2002 at 09:19:01:

In Reply to: Re: OMS- why is it so bad? posted by Joe R on May 15, 2002 at 06:48:24:


You've done me a disservice. Who's opinion did I discount? I tried to make a systematic analysis of the gear in answer to a specific question, not some unsolicited diatribe about brands. If someone, other than tecdiver, feels I've discounted their opinion then they have my apology. Such was not intended.

The fact that someone uses certain gear to set some record is irrelevant. The logic of the arguments about design either holds or it does not. If John Bennett want to debate me on the logic, I might give his arguments credit for his accomplishments, but the logic of the argument still controls.

As for plastic quick releases, I have seen three instances where they failed. In all cases they failed, I think, because of undetected hairline cracks in the tongue side of the release probably caused by setting heavy tanks on them. One failed underwater and the diver was able to use a double-ender to save himself. It was a deco dive to 250 ffw in Lake Superior and could have been a disaster. One failed on the boat and the rig came crashing down on the deck and the third was my old Dive Rite crotch strap which I replaced before it failed completely. If you set metal down on plastic the metal always wins. Just so you know, removing a set of doubles underwater without quick releases is child's play. There is no need to add such a failure point to the system. This may not seem like a big deal for cruising a reef in 30 fsw, but why would I want gear that I'm not comfortable with at 350 fsw or two miles back in a cave? The good stuff is no more expensive, in some cases cheaper, than stuff which is flawed. Why compromise?

As for bungies, why cram a redundant bladder in the thing if, by designing it right the first time and using the right weighting, a redundant bladder adds no value? You create added bulk and, because of redundant inflator mechanisms, more points of failure. Your experiment might have been more interesting, and realistic, if you had loosend the inflator elbow instead of the rear dump. You clearly didn't follow my analysis about compound solutions. They treat the symptoms of poor design, not the cause.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]