Lee Bell wrote:
(snips)

> My thinking is
> at least partly flavored by the fact that my DIR style rig was converted to
> DIN a while back and the boat's fill whips are A clamp.  I have an adapter
> for filling DIN, but the compressor is set for 3,000 psi and except for the
> advanced, extra tip, I'd be lucky to get 2,700 in my 3,500 psi HP 100 tanks.

3,500 psi is 238 Bar. IIRC the European standard is 235 bar, not much
different but different. My point is that, if that is the case, it's
not the manufacturers (they would not remotely spec to each standard,
they would spec to the, minisculely, higher standard) but the
appropriate authorities have a case to answer.

Stupid, eh?

I get upset if my tanks are not filled to specs, but my tank capacity
is "only" 7.7 litres (Oh, OK, 2,000 cu ft filled). Then again the WP
(Working Pressure) of my tanks is 260 bar (3821psi)  so any lack of
fill can be significant (in such a "little" tank).

For those who don't want to do the maths, my tanks, correctly filled,
each give me 2,000 litres or, close as dammit to, 70 cu ft.

In the UK, for example, the standard is to talk about the WP (as
above) of tanks. There they assume that *all* tanks have the same WP,
not so. I'd much rather talk the rated, pressurised, capacity of
tanks. There are too many other variables.

You're taking the tanks with you? If they can't be properly filled,
why bother?

Unless you don't want to bother with reconfiguration of your buoyancy,
IIRC you're pretty keen on buoyancy control.

> I've also got an DIN to yoke adapter for my regulator, but with 6 or 7 dives
> a day, times 12 or more divers, I'm not crazy about the idea of dealing with
> an adapter in the between dive rush to get everybody ready to go again.

I find that rather astonishing. Actually I'm not sure what you're
saying? Do you mean that just because you use DIN you are not able to,
adaptors notwithstanding, get proper fills in the timescale?

> On the other hand, I purchased a somewhat longer than DIR hose yesterday.  I
> put a 60 foot hose on the Sea Hornet regulator Strike donated in Coz and I
> won.  Hopefully it's still in good working order.

Them things is virtually bulletproof.  Strike, I'm sure, wouldn't have supplied
it otherwise.

> I used it once before I
> found that it could not be serviced here.

Strike? Didn't ScubaPro release it in the States under License? I'm
almost certain that they did.

> Another factor that led to my particular brand of conversion is
> Michael Doelle, who you've seen posting here.

Yes, I think so. :-7

I'm (still) one of the people who can properly pronounce his name, as
he can my surname. ;-0

> I'm having trouble picturing the configuration you're describing.  It sounds
> more like a jacket style BCD than a wing.  It may just be my
> misunderstanding.  Not that there's anything wrong with a jacket if that's
> what you like, it's just not my preference.  The plate is the key element in
> my system.  The wing is a long secondary factor.  Is there a picture on line
> somewhere that will help me understand?

Sorry, no. The best way I can describe it is that the wing, it IS a
wing, does not encompass a backplate, does not encompass a DIR style
"single web" style webbing configuration, DOES use webbing only (no
silly "comfort" straps to make it even more difficult to sink) but, by
way of webbing, is relatively "BCD" configured. Does this make sense?

> I'm curious about your choice to dive independent doubles.  I was shopping
> for doubles and a trimix course about the time that I decided that I really
> didn't want to go deep enough for long enough to need them.  The nature of
> the S. Florida coast provides tremendous opportunities for diving in normal
> recreational depths, whether it's wrecks or reefs that are of interest.  At
> any rate, my study of the various multi tank options convinced me of the
> advantages of an isolation manifolded twinset.  All else being equal,
> primarily meaning cost, it seems to be the clear winner for any diving that
> benefits from twins.  Since you dive twins and I don't, I'd be pleased to
> listen to your reasons for your choice.  You never know, I may still do that
> trimix course and, of course, will need twins to put it to good use.

Our diving is restricted to 50 metres (165 ft or so). Not because we
can't go deeper but because the wrecks are no deeper. Yes, there are
deeper wrecks locally (closer to Sydney, south of us) but they are not
for us.We've dived these 50 m wrecks for years and years on, shock,
horror, air and we have no intentions (we're all getting older) to
"expand the envelope".

Well, not locally anyway.

In warm, tropical waters, wearing a lycra skin, no weight, no BCD, who knows.

Before anyone thinks that the above is easy diving, no, it's not. Not necessarily.

> I think I mentioned that I tried an alternate/inflator with my plate and
> wing.  It just didn't work out for me.  An alternate/inflator unit needs a
> longer fill hose, the corrogated one, to be comfortable when breathed and
> the harness on my plate and wing does not provide a convenient place to
> secure it.  Once I got used to the short hose alternate, I liked it better
> anyway.  Just a bit under my chin, with the shorter hose, keeps it real
> handy, but completely out of my way except, of course, when I have to
> remember to put the necklace on first and take it off before dekitting.  8^)
> In my opinion, it's one of the more universally useful elements of the
> system, but not everybody agrees.

Knowing the DIR attitude to the AIR 2 (they hate it) I suspect that
your corrugated hose is considerably shorter than mine, by a matter of inches.

Sheeeesh, what's a cuppla inches between friends?

> Spearfishing on scuba is probably one of the least understood sports I know
> of.  There's a strong presumption that it's slaughter, the fish standing no
> chance and the human haveing all the advantages.  That's just not how it is.
> It's more like hunting dear with a radio blasting out noise.  You aren't
> going to sneak up on anything and the fish here have long since learned what
> a speargun looks like.  Of course, scuba does open the sport to a lot more
> people than could or would participate if it were strictly a freediving
> sport.  The effect on stocks is controlled by the same limits and laws that
> govern hook and line fishermen plus outright prohibitions on spearing many
> species and on spearing in replenishment areas, near piers, in most channels
> and the like.  It's a system that has been working well for a long time.
> Controls on commercial fishing operations, on the other hand, have not
> worked well at all, but we're getting better.

There was a time, not that long ago when I actually wrote about this
activity publicly, when I commented that I was pretty much against
SCUBA and the taking
of game. In accordance with your comments above I've since revised my
"take" on this matter. I am still, however, totally against
spearfishing *competitions*, whether on SCUBA, or not.

> I've never found a need for the amount of light a cannister provides.  The
> most I've ever needed was easily provided by the UK 400 I carry as a primary
> light.  I have two Extreme Exposure Scout lights as backups that I'll
> replace as soon as I can find something better suited to my preferences.
> The Scouts are good lights, but they have a bit too tight a beam for my
> taste.  I prefer a less bright, less penetrating but wider beam.  Almost all
> of my diving is done in good visibility.  Periods of low visibility rarely
> last more than a short time and there's usually good visibility somewhere in
> range of my boat and/or the local dive boats.  Most of the time, a little,
> widely spread, not so bright light is better than a lot of very bright
> light.  If I were to start diving caves again, I'm sure my opinions would be
> different.

Ahhhhhh. "Visibility".

Now, how do we define that? ;-))

Given that since I haven't used a camera now for, oh, at least three
years means that I've also not seen the need (except on night dives)
to carry a light.

Cheers,

Christian