Narcosis at 110?
uglymoney
went to 110. It was around my 17th dive, and part of my
Padi AOW + Drysuit Course - it was one of my included
adventure dives. This particular dive was with fellow
divers - no divemaster. The deep dive with instructor was
only around 85 feet, a depth that I have exceeded on many of
my earlier dives that were in both clear ocean, great lakes
wreck, and quarry diving.
Anyway, before we went down, the two folks with me and
myself agreed that we would check out the small boat at 110,
then go east to a rock wall, head north and gradually ascend
to 15 feet for our stop.
All went well. However I am absolutely convinced that I was
narced. On previous dives (96 ft max cold - 98 ft max warm
- clear vis on both) I had not noticed any effect
whatsoever.
Upon reaching the bottom (15 ft vis low light), while trying
to maintain my buoyancy with the drysuit, I tried to get my
compass bearing and direct my accompanying divers to the
wall. While doing this I started ascending ( I was
overweighted slightly), and it wasn't till around 90 ft or
so that I managed to get enough air out of the valve on the
DUI suit so that I started back down. During this time, my
dive partners lost sight of me (I never lost sight of them).
Anyway, I got back down, got narced again, took note, and
grabbed my composure, took the compass bearing, waved my
buddies on, and we were off to the wall. Arriving at the
wall at around 105', I was relieved that I had completed
such a simple task.
Long story short, I was narced, impaired but still safe and
able to reason - in control other than the unplanned 20 ft
ascent, and completed the dive safely. My buddies upon
hearing my story on the surface seemed to think that I was
not narced, and that I need to go to a clear water cold
quarry to be sure. They have been to 150 on air. Something
I have no desire to do at this point.
I'm sure that I was narced though. Later in the evening, we
did a night dive. I was with an instructor, and a rescue
diver, on a shallow (20 ft) nav to a wall in extremely low
vis. Both my accompaning divers topped out, reportedly due
to anxiety. I was completely fine, and would have continued
the dive had they not bailed. I felt none of the effects
that I felt at 110.
Thoughts?
Nate
--
Of his family I could obtain no satisfactory account. Whence he came, I never ascertained.
Edgar Allan Poe
--
Rich Lockyer
By 100ft you were certainly narc'd.
How dangerous was it? Comparable to a couple of shots. It may affect
you differently under different conditions... hydration, rest,
relative comfort, familiarity with the dive site and buddys, etc...
It is 100% subjective. The only thing that can be said objectively is
that you ARE impaired to a degree by HP nitrogen.
BTW: Forget what PADI told you in the drysuit class. Dive with the
suit's exhaust valve fully open and only enough air to prevent a
squeeze.
Use your wing/BC for buoyancy control. That's what it was designed to
do. Your suit was designed to keep you warm.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Grumman-581
> Thoughts?
Different people get narced at different depths... I remember feeling like I
was starting to get narced at 180 in Coz a couple of years ago, but it
hadn't seemed as bad at 170... Perhaps it is a function of depth and time at
depth (up to saturation, perhaps), so perhaps if I had stayed at 170 a
little longer, I would have felt narced also... Since I was doing a no-deco
dive, I couldn't stay down there that long anyway... I would put the level
of narc at 180 as comparable intoxication to a 6-pack or two -- but without
the need to pee... <grin>
Jammer Six
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€ Thoughts?
Narced isn't safe. It just feels safe.
--
"When I have your wounded."
-Major Charles L. Kelly, callsign "Dustoff", refusing an order to leave a
hot L.Z., July 1, 1964, moments before being killed by a single shot.
infins
:-) Keep Smiling :-)
Claudia
infins
clean up @ catalina island
infins
Capt Jim Wyatt
same depth on the same gas mix from dive to dive.
Some of the primary contributing factors are: (1) Descent rate--->rapid
ascent rates predispose you to inert gas narcosis (2)CO2 retention due to
heavy exercise, poor breathing patterns, gas density(due to increased
depth) and poor performing regulators will also predispose you to
narcosis. Incidentally--CO2 retention has also been demonstrated to
increase the likelihood of Oxygen convulsions.
--
Captain Jim Wyatt
PADI Master Instructor #4612/IANTD Instructor
Florida Keys Reef-Divers, Inc.
www.reef-divers.com
Capt Jim Wyatt
> ->rapid ascent rates
That should have read"Rapid descent rates" vice "Rapid ascent rates"
Dan Bracuk
:Thoughts?
Sounds like you had a good time.
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
The Best of Rec.Scuba
http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tim Smoot
"uglymoney" <nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote in message
news:9e4pbvcvkgb7i2r6o...@4ax.com...
mike gray
>
> You were narc'd. You are more narc'd at 50ft than at the surface.
> By 100ft you were certainly narc'd.
This "linear narc" explanation also explains why folks living in Denver
are so much more clear-headed than folks in Florida, and why climbers
topping Everest are so totally in control of their faculties.
mike gray
>
> € Thoughts?
>
> Narced isn't safe. It just feels safe.
Don't know about that. I'm reading this thread at .78 PPN and it
terrifies me.
uglymoney
<rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
>You were narc'd. You are more narc'd at 50ft than at the surface.
>By 100ft you were certainly narc'd.
>
>How dangerous was it? Comparable to a couple of shots. It may affect
>you differently under different conditions... hydration, rest,
>relative comfort, familiarity with the dive site and buddys, etc...
>
>It is 100% subjective. The only thing that can be said objectively is
>that you ARE impaired to a degree by HP nitrogen.
>
>
>BTW: Forget what PADI told you in the drysuit class. Dive with the
>suit's exhaust valve fully open and only enough air to prevent a
>squeeze.
>Use your wing/BC for buoyancy control. That's what it was designed to
>do. Your suit was designed to keep you warm.
>
Yep, it was the next dive that someone broke that news to
me. I used my BC, kept my drysuit inflated only enough to
prevent squeeze, and had no more near runaway ascents.
nate
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
>I was narced, impaired but still safe
These two statements cannot simultaneously be true.
>My buddies ... have been to 150 on air.
Your buddies are strokes.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) There were bugs in the code, but I
College of Computing never saw them hiding. No, I never
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 saw them at all, `til there was Foo
uglymoney
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
>nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to say:
>>
>>I was narced, impaired but still safe
>
>These two statements cannot simultaneously be true.
>
>
Okay. I was narced, impaired and only one mistake away from
dying a quick gruesome death. I safely completed the dive
in the face of such diversity. :)
>My buddies ... have been to 150 on air.
>
>Your buddies are strokes.
Actually, I'm not sure. I am often a quick judge of people
also, and have definetely formed opinions about the various
people that seem to inhabit the scuba world, and have
concluded that many of them are in fact 'strokes', but my
conclusions are dubious, since I am a simple newbie with a
desire to swim underwater.
So you could be correct, or incorrect. Who cares though?
nate
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>quick gruesome death. I safely completed the dive in the face of such
>diversity. :)
That's better.
>>Your buddies are strokes.
>
>So you could be correct, or incorrect. Who cares though?
You should.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) Thank you for calling Microsoft tech
College of Computing support. May I ask what version of
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 Code Red your server is running?
Alan Street
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€On Sat, 10 May 2003 14:58:30 +0000 (UTC),
€Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
€
€>nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to
€>say:
€>>
€>>I was narced, impaired but still safe
€>
€>These two statements cannot simultaneously be true.
€>
€>
€
€Okay. I was narced, impaired and only one mistake away from
€dying a quick gruesome death. I safely completed the dive
€in the face of such diversity. :)
€
€
Yes, diversity is very important when you get narced. It wouldn't do to
have a non-diverse dive group when dealing with such adverse conditions
;-).
uglymoney
<alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote:
>€Okay. I was narced, impaired and only one mistake away from
>€dying a quick gruesome death. I safely completed the dive
>€in the face of such diversity. :)
>€
>€
>
>Yes, diversity is very important when you get narced. It wouldn't do to
>have a non-diverse dive group when dealing with such adverse conditions
>;-).
Yes, it was especially dangerous as my group was three white
male, all in our thirties. It added to the extreme
adversity.
Also the lake contained albino catfish only. No grey
catfish. A very dangerous place indeed.
Jammer Six
€ So you could be correct, or incorrect. Who cares though?
No one.
What's your Old Lady's name?
We need her phone number. There's only one way to comfort a new widow.
uglymoney
<jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
>In article <3k6qbv0gpc4sdcsmn...@4ax.com>, uglymoney
><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>
>€ So you could be correct, or incorrect. Who cares though?
>
>No one.
>
>What's your Old Lady's name?
>
>We need her phone number. There's only one way to comfort a new widow.
I'll put her number in a bottle and stick it in the library
amongst the self help books for terminally anal people.
It'll be there. You just have to get up the nerve to leave
your house.
Jammer Six
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€ I'll put her number in a bottle and stick it in the library
€ amongst the self help books for terminally anal people.
€
€ It'll be there. You just have to get up the nerve to leave
€ your house.
Don't worry. We'll find her.
Lee Bell
> able to reason - in control other than the unplanned 20 ft
> ascent, and completed the dive safely. My buddies upon
> hearing my story on the surface seemed to think that I was
> not narced, and that I need to go to a clear water cold
> quarry to be sure. They have been to 150 on air. Something
> I have no desire to do at this point.
Long story even shorter, if you had been in a crisis situation while narced,
your chances of survival would have been greatly reduced. Be careful.
> I'm sure that I was narced though. Later in the evening, we
> did a night dive. I was with an instructor, and a rescue
> diver, on a shallow (20 ft) nav to a wall in extremely low
> vis. Both my accompaning divers topped out, reportedly due
> to anxiety. I was completely fine, and would have continued
> the dive had they not bailed. I felt none of the effects
> that I felt at 110.
>
> Thoughts?
Studies have shown that everybody is affected by narcosis by the time
they're at 90 feet on air. Not everybody is impaired to the point of
danger, on every dive. That's just how narcosis is. You friends who bailed
due to anxiety were probably just what they said they were, anxious about
doing a night dive or, perhaps, are a bit claustrophibic.
Lee
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
Quit trolling Gray.
I didn't tell him that he needed helium.
I personally believe that it would have been a good idea, but I didn't
even bring it up until now.
All I told him was that he was narc'd, and he was.
He asked in a way that made it sound like he didn't think it posible
until he got to 150 because of his deep-air buddies.
Perhaps you can go to 150 before you get so impaired so as to be truly
dangerous.
Like drinking and driving, any impairment is worse than no impairment.
Are you impaired after one or two drinks? Certainly. Are you a
danger on the road? Probably not.
One has to determine at what point the impairment ALWAYS becomes
dangerous and at what point you should limit the impairment.
DUI regs used to be 0.15% and have been gradually reduced to 0.08%,
but in some cases, you can still be busted as low as 0.04%.
GUE feels that you should limit the impairment to the equivalent of
100ft (call it 0.04%). Does that mean that you'll make a fatal
mistake at 110, or 120, or even 130? Of course not.
But at 130ft, any mistake CAN become fatal, and you can't make a
logical argument to indicate that you are less likely to make a
mistake when you are more impaired.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Sven
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Studies have shown that everybody is affected by narcosis by the time
>they're at 90 feet on air. Not everybody is impaired to the point of
Interesting story at
<http://scubadiving.com/training/instruction/200211tenways/>
I'm still looking for data to back up the 60 foot statement.
-Sven
--
Freedom before Safety.
Take no Prisoners.
--
uglymoney
<rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
>Quit trolling Gray.
>I didn't tell him that he needed helium.
>I personally believe that it would have been a good idea, but I didn't
>even bring it up until now.
And I've no need for any fancy air mixes at the moment -
however I see no reason to argue against using gas that
prevents narcosis. Should I become somebody with some
experience and ever advance beyond this stage of
newbie-hood, I'll be looking into it.
I was polling the crowd, and trying to get more of a handle
on what exactly I was experiencing at the 110 level.
A few thoughts from this thread apply. I was tired. I was
dehydrated, and I had consumed much caffeine that morning.
It was dark, the water cold (37 degrees), and the visibility
poor.
I thought I was narced, and so I threw it out here. What my
opinion of the divers that were with me, or how much I
valued their advice, is not that revelant to the topic imo.
They were present, with doubles, spare air, spare computers,
regs etc. I'd requested and was granted a tag along as the
other divers on the surface were interested only in trolling
around in a shallow water junkyard.
The dive was great fun, only a slight push from previous
dives, and I can't wait to get back in the water.
Great thoughts from everybody who replied. Thanks. I think
I have a better handle on how I felt. Helps to have
multiple perspectives.
Jammer Six
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€ And I've no need for any fancy air mixes at the moment -
€ however I see no reason to argue against using gas that
€ prevents narcosis. Should I become somebody with some
€ experience and ever advance beyond this stage of
€ newbie-hood, I'll be looking into it.
€
€ I was polling the crowd, and trying to get more of a handle
€ on what exactly I was experiencing at the 110 level.
€
€ A few thoughts from this thread apply. I was tired. I was
€ dehydrated, and I had consumed much caffeine that morning.
€ It was dark, the water cold (37 degrees), and the visibility
€ poor.
€
€ I thought I was narced, and so I threw it out here. What my
€ opinion of the divers that were with me, or how much I
€ valued their advice, is not that revelant to the topic imo.
€ They were present, with doubles, spare air, spare computers,
€ regs etc. I'd requested and was granted a tag along as the
The thing to say is "I don't know anything, and have no idea what I
need."
Shorter, and more accurate.
Everyone get your money down.
uglymoney
<jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
>In article <b3erbvoeedsm49oq0...@4ax.com>, uglymoney
><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>
>The thing to say is "I don't know anything, and have no idea what I
>need."
>
>Shorter, and more accurate.
>
>Everyone get your money down.
Okay. I don't know anything, and I have no idea what I
need.
Also. You are a blowhard and offer nothing of value in your
posts.
And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
at the bottom of the list.
nate
Alan Street
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€On 11 May 2003 03:21:45 GMT, Jammer Six
€<jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
€
€>In article <b3erbvoeedsm49oq0...@4ax.com>, uglymoney
€><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
€
€>
€>The thing to say is "I don't know anything, and have no idea what I
€>need."
€>
€>Shorter, and more accurate.
€>
€>Everyone get your money down.
€
€Okay. I don't know anything, and I have no idea what I
€need.
€
€Also. You are a blowhard and offer nothing of value in your
€posts.
€
€And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
€at the bottom of the list.
€
€
4 posts, 19 1/2 hours. That's got to be a new record Jammer. Are you
getting really good, or are we just experiencing a rash of really thin
skinned newbies?
Alan
James Connell
<snip>
> And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
> at the bottom of the list.
>
> nate
>
> --
> Of his family I could obtain no satisfactory account. Whence he came, I never ascertained.
>
> Edgar Allan Poe
> --
you really don't need to KF Jammer. he's not *that* bad, he's just an
acerbic PIA, he's even entertaining (on occasion, when he's not in his
DIR mode).
Save your filter space for the half doz or so on this group who *REALLY*
need it.
welcome to rec.scuba, you really can learn something here, but grow a
thick skin fast.
Jammer Six
€ And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
€ at the bottom of the list.
Damn. Three posts.
50% more than the record.
I'd have to make it on the first post, and that's going to be tough.
The record would stand forever, though...
It's good to have goals.
Jammer Six
<alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote:
€ 4 posts, 19 1/2 hours. That's got to be a new record Jammer. Are you
€ getting really good, or are we just experiencing a rash of really thin
€ skinned newbies?
Four?
I thought it was three.
The record is two, so I guess this is twice the record.
19-1/2 hours is pretty good, though.
I think the new newbies are too thin skinned, as well as rude.
Ignorant is expected, but rude newbies just need to be beat with sticks.
Oh, well, tomorrow's another day. Maybe I'll make the Single Post All
Time Record tomorrow. It's good to have goals.
Jammer Six
<jcon...@gci.net> wrote:
€ welcome to rec.scuba, you really can learn something here, but grow a
€ thick skin fast.
Not going to happen. She's going to leave.
Everyone get your money down, I need to get even.
--
"I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something
about it."
-Tom Burnett, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Alan Street
<jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
€In article <100520032040593273%alan@nonono_irsi.com>, Alan Street
€<alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote:
€
€€ 4 posts, 19 1/2 hours. That's got to be a new record Jammer. Are you
€€ getting really good, or are we just experiencing a rash of really thin
€€ skinned newbies?
€
€Four?
€
€I thought it was three.
€
I think you're right. You had four posts in the entire thread, but only
three in the subthread that pissed him off.
€The record is two, so I guess this is twice the record.
€
€19-1/2 hours is pretty good, though.
€
€I think the new newbies are too thin skinned, as well as rude.
€
€Ignorant is expected, but rude newbies just need to be beat with sticks.
€
€Oh, well, tomorrow's another day. Maybe I'll make the Single Post All
€Time Record tomorrow. It's good to have goals.
Nah, single posts are too easy. Blasting them out of the group with one
post is like dynamite fishing. It's much more sporting to string them
along for a post or two :-).
Rich Lockyer
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>Also. You are a blowhard and offer nothing of value in your
>posts.
>
>And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
>at the bottom of the list.
I had him KF'd for 6 months... then realized what he was trying to
tell me and understood that he really did have a valid point.
He's a bonehead, but he's correct, if blunt, more often than not.
He's not trying to spare anybody's feelings. He just says what he
believes and if you disagree with it he doesn't care if you live or
die.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Rich Lockyer
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>And I've no need for any fancy air mixes at the moment -
>however I see no reason to argue against using gas that
>prevents narcosis. Should I become somebody with some
>experience and ever advance beyond this stage of
>newbie-hood, I'll be looking into it.
I agree... you don't need trimix, triox, or even nitrox (yet).
You need experience.
At this point, I would also recommend that you remain above 90ft or so
until you become more attuned to what's happening physiologocally at
depth... but I'm not your mommy or your instructor. I'm just a
traffic signal tech in SoCal who likes to dive so feel free to tell me
to piss off.
>A few thoughts from this thread apply. I was tired. I was
>dehydrated, and I had consumed much caffeine that morning.
>It was dark, the water cold (37 degrees), and the visibility
>poor.
Yup... all of the above can contribute to narcosis.
They can also contribute to DCS... why did you undertake a 100ft dive
when tired and dehydrated in cold water?
That's where experience will help.
Nobody will think anything less of you if you decide not to dive
because something isn't "just right".
If they DO think less of you, then you may want to rethink whether or
not you would want to dive with someone who does not put your best
interests higher than their desire to dive.
Diving is awesome.
Nothing down there is worth your life. If you don't feel right, don't
dive, or modify the dive plan to something that you feel better about.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Bob Crownfield
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2003 19:03:13 -0700, Rich Lockyer
> <rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Quit trolling Gray.
> >I didn't tell him that he needed helium.
> >I personally believe that it would have been a good idea, but I didn't
> >even bring it up until now.
>
> And I've no need for any fancy air mixes at the moment -
> however I see no reason to argue against using gas that
> prevents narcosis. Should I become somebody with some
> experience and ever advance beyond this stage of
> newbie-hood, I'll be looking into it.
>
> I was polling the crowd, and trying to get more of a handle
> on what exactly I was experiencing at the 110 level.
>
> A few thoughts from this thread apply. I was tired. I was
> dehydrated, and I had consumed much caffeine that morning.
> It was dark, the water cold (37 degrees), and the visibility
> poor.
>
1, 2, 3, 4 strikes, known warning signs that you will increase your
likelyhood if dive problems.
Bob Crownfield
>
> On 11 May 2003 03:21:45 GMT, Jammer Six
> <jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <b3erbvoeedsm49oq0...@4ax.com>, uglymoney
> ><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >The thing to say is "I don't know anything, and have no idea what I
> >need."
> >
> >Shorter, and more accurate.
> >
> >Everyone get your money down.
>
> Okay. I don't know anything, and I have no idea what I
> need.
>
> Also. You are a blowhard and offer nothing of value in your
> posts.
and thus you show that your judgement is defective.
Salty
> So last weekend I hit a quarry here in the upper midwest and
> went to 110.
<snipping>
Yea... you coulda been narced. I know that I got narced at 110 ft on
Santa Rosa Wall in Coz. I've since been deeper many times and, to my
dismay, I haven't been able to reproduce the feeling. Oh well. Hang
in there dude and welcome to rec.scuba.
Salty
> On Sat, 10 May 2003 13:06:16 GMT, mike gray <oxm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Rich Lockyer wrote:
> >>
> >> You were narc'd. You are more narc'd at 50ft than at the surface.
> >> By 100ft you were certainly narc'd.
> >
> >This "linear narc" explanation also explains why folks living in Denver
> >are so much more clear-headed than folks in Florida, and why climbers
> >topping Everest are so totally in control of their faculties.
>
>
> Quit trolling Gray.
> I didn't tell him that he needed helium.
Good thing ya didn't Rich. I love ya hon but Gray isn't trolling
here. Perhaps you should respect your elders at times.
Salty
> nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to say:
> >
> >I was narced, impaired but still safe
>
> These two statements cannot simultaneously be true.
You're voicing that the contrast is opposing. I'll play devil's
advocate and say that one can be 'impaired' and still be 'safe'.....
esp since you haven't established the definitions of either
"impaired", "narced", "normal", what in the hell else. If you decide
to come up with a defination of impaired, you might want to consider
handicapped divers. I'd also ask you to list the narc level for
'unsafeness'. And then maybe you connect that response time to a
'normal' dive buddy and compare the narced persons time to the most
stupid dive buddy time. LOL The narced person might come out ahead !!
> >My buddies ... have been to 150 on air.
> Your buddies are strokes.
Really ?? Wow. Tell that to all the successful and brave divers who
first hit upon the Andria Doria. They all did it on air. Nothing but
air. Air.
Funny thing is that NONE of them died while diving it. The deaths
happened later. What.... Strokedom takes a while to catch up ?? LMAO
!!!!!
Salty
> uglymoney wrote:
> <snip>
> you really don't need to KF Jammer. he's not *that* bad, he's just an
> acerbic PIA, he's even entertaining (on occasion, when he's not in his
> DIR mode).
> Save your filter space for the half doz or so on this group who *REALLY*
> need it.
<snip>
Well isn't that interesting. Ohhhh Jim... do tell us all whom YOU
consider to be worthy of your killfile. I'm curious to know. There
are soooo many ppl here that have YOU in their killfile because of
your nonsense and they think that you are most deserving. So... do
tell us Jim. LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!
mike gray
> I was polling the crowd, and trying to get more of a handle
> on what exactly I was experiencing at the 110 level.
You may have been feeling many things. It is highly unlikely that narc
was one of them.
The only thing in favor of your being narc'd is the research that
indicates that if you believe you are narc'd, you are more likely to be
narc'd. The power of suggestion is pretty strong, especially when you
are making the suggestion to yerself.
The narcotic effect of inert gases is enormously over-rated among
divers. We spend our lives saturated in Nitrogen. Does that mean we are
all a little bit narc'd all the time?
Contrary to popular belief, you do not become impaired when you travel
from Colorado to Florida, and you do not become impaired as soon as you
submerge.
Contrary to popular belief, the narcotic effect of inert gases is not
linear: you are not twice as impaired at 33' as you are at the surface.
Narc affects different people in different ways at different times and
under different circumstances. But if you are really able to get narc'd
at 110' on air, you might consider getting into the guinea pig biz, and
ya really ought to give up diving and move to Tibet where the Nitrogen
is a bit thinner.
mike gray
> > >My buddies ... have been to 150 on air.
>
> > Your buddies are strokes.
>
> Really ?? Wow. Tell that to all the successful and brave divers who
> first hit upon the Andria Doria. They all did it on air. Nothing but
> air. Air.
> Funny thing is that NONE of them died while diving it. The deaths
> happened later. What.... Strokedom takes a while to catch up ?? LMAO
> !!!!!
There's a reason for that. When diving deep on air, you have to plan yer
dive, dive yer plan, and be very attentive to the effects of narcosis
(deep water narcosis, not this shallow-water shit that is going around
like SARS in Xing Xing).
Then ya get the Helium cowboys that have never learned to deal with narc
but think they'll be protected from harm with their magic gas.
Popeye
>There's a reason for that. When diving deep on air, you have to plan yer
>dive, dive yer plan, and be very attentive to the effects of narcosis
>(deep water narcosis, not this shallow-water shit that is going around
>like SARS in Xing Xing). <-----:-)
>
>Then ya get the Helium cowboys that have never learned to deal with narc
>but think they'll be protected from harm with their magic gas.
Oh.
My.
Godddd d d...
Popeye
Any idea how Iraq got those French weapons?
"If you do, tell it to the UN (whom I think should investigate this
and take sanctions where necessary)" Michael Wolf
Lee Bell
> The narcotic effect of inert gases is enormously over-rated among
> divers. We spend our lives saturated in Nitrogen. Does that mean we are
> all a little bit narc'd all the time?
How else do you explain rec.scuba?
> Contrary to popular belief, you do not become impaired when you travel
> from Colorado to Florida . . .
Nobody travels from Colorado to Florida, they all come from New York, New
Jersey and Canada. of course they become impaired when they come here. How
else do you explain our voting history?
> Contrary to popular belief, the narcotic effect of inert gases is not
> linear: you are not twice as impaired at 33' as you are at the surface.
>
> Narc affects different people in different ways at different times and
> under different circumstances. But if you are really able to get narc'd
> at 110' on air, you might consider getting into the guinea pig biz, and
> ya really ought to give up diving and move to Tibet where the Nitrogen
> is a bit thinner.
Now I have to get a bit more serious. Jayna got seriously narced at a bit
less than 100 feet in 40 Fathom Grotto, but not at 165 feet in the warm
clear, daylit waters of Cozumel.
I've not seen studies that show the effect of self suggestion, but I have
problem at all believing it.
Lee
H. Huntzinger
>
> [uglymoney <nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:]
> > Long story short, I was narced, impaired but still safe and
> > able to reason - in control other than the unplanned 20 ft
> > ascent, and completed the dive safely. My buddies upon
> > hearing my story on the surface seemed to think that I was
> > not narced, and that I need to go to a clear water cold
> > quarry to be sure. They have been to 150 on air. Something
> > I have no desire to do at this point.
>
> Long story even shorter, if you had been in a crisis situation while narced,
> your chances of survival would have been greatly reduced. Be careful.
Agreed. One of the harder elements about Narcosis for some people to
grasp is that it can vary from dive to dive, both in its "depth of
onset" as well as its severity and symptoms. Its just more the reason
to keep a good head about you at all times (take nothing for granted).
> > ... Later in the evening, we did a [shallow] night dive.... Both
> > my accompaning divers topped out, reportedly due to anxiety. I
> > was completely fine, and...felt none of the effects that I felt at 110.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Studies have shown that everybody is affected by narcosis by the time
> they're at 90 feet on air. Not everybody is impaired to the point of
> danger, on every dive. That's just how narcosis is.
Which means no hard and fast rules for what's good versus bad. For
example, while a 150fsw air dive is immediately condemned by some, we
should recognize that its probably relative to the 130fsw air depth
limit of US Agencies (PADI, etc), but some European Agencies set their
limit at 165fsw.
But as you've already learned, regardless of what the number is, the
reality is that its not risk-free down to a foot short of that value:
the risks due to various imparments start far shallower and can very
easily "sneak up" on you, particularly since you may not realize the
significance of your impairment until you have a problem, and then the
increased work taskload becomes "suddenly" far too much to cope with.
Its kind of like driving very fast on an ice-covered road.
> ... You friends who bailed
> due to anxiety were probably just what they said they were, anxious about
> doing a night dive or, perhaps, are a bit claustrophibic.
Agreed. While Claustrophbia can synergistically accentuate Narcosis
imparement, they are nevertheless two distinct responses. Simply yet
another example of the need to keep a good head about you at all times,
from all causes.
-hh
GoosePimp
narc'd at about 100ft with a Nitrox mix (let alone Air). Doesn't like doing
anything over 100ft without Helium.
--
GoosePimp (StompS)
Portland, OR
http://www.geocities.com/pdxinvestr/Stomps.html
"uglymoney" <nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote in message
news:b3erbvoeedsm49oq0...@4ax.com...
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
>Narc affects different people in different ways at different times and
>under different circumstances. But if you are really able to get narc'd
>at 110' on air, you might consider getting into the guinea pig biz, and
>ya really ought to give up diving and move to Tibet where the Nitrogen
>is a bit thinner.
Mike, this is a crap statement and you know it. You are contradicting
yourself in the same paragraph. Give up diving due to a variable
condition that "affects different people in different ways at different
times and under different circumstances"? Get real.
I almost always feel a slight narc at depths below 100 FSW, and as a
result I avoid diving to those depths under most circumstances.
Although I can still function on a really deep dive, I do not like the
feeling of not being mentally "sharp".
Last week, however, I got a slight narc at 80 FSW on the Duane. This
was the first time I ever felt it at that depth on that wreck. Of
course, the current was ripping, I had to exert myself heavily to get
down the anchor line, and then I had to rescue a guy that panicked and
tried to bolt to the surface. So it was not exactly your typical dive.
Are you suggesting that I should give up diving now because I got narced
at 80 FSW on one dive and under one particular set of circumstances?
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) Thank you for calling Microsoft tech
College of Computing support. May I ask what version of
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 Code Red your server is running?
Al Wells
says...
> course, the current was ripping, I had to exert myself heavily to get
> down the anchor line,
Hello, Mom?
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
Al, that was kind of my point - exertion can lead to increased
susceptibility to narcosis.
In this case, the surface current was so strong that we had to employ a
"granny line" to get from the boat to the anchor line, pulling
ourselves hand-over-hand against the current. And in my case, I got to
make the trip twice, since I had to control a panicked diver and escort
him back to the surface. Once we got down on the wreck, the current was
very mild, and it was an altogether pleasant dive - no exertion
whatsoever. It was just the "getting there" that was tough.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) How doth the VAX's C-compiler improve
College of Computing its object code? And even as we speak
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 does it increase the system load.
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>I've got an instructor (with many, many tech dives under his belt) that gets
>narc'd at about 100ft with a Nitrox mix (let alone Air). Doesn't like doing
>anything over 100ft without Helium.
That pretty much describes me as well. A couple of other "interesting"
things about me - I do not drink anything alcoholic, and I rarely take
any non-prescription drugs (and I particularly avoid those that cause
drowsiness). Therefore I have not grown "accustomed" to the feeling of
being mentally impaired, which is probably why even a slight touch of
narcosis makes me uncomfortable.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) Jryy abj lbh'ir tbar naq qbar vg!
College of Computing Whfg unq gb xrrc svqqyvat jvgu vg
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 hagvy lbh oebxr vg, qvqa'g lbh ?!
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
>Then ya get the Helium cowboys that have never learned to deal with narc
>but think they'll be protected from harm with their magic gas.
And then you have the diving drunks who can't tell the difference,
because "being wasted" is pretty much their full-time natural state.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) Bad: Play a Windows CD backward, and
College of Computing you get a satanic message. Worse: Play
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 it forward, and it installs Windows!
Popeye
>Date: 5/11/03 11:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b9lq7n$mh1$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>
>
>oxm...@worldnet.att.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to say:
>>
>>Then ya get the Helium cowboys that have never learned to deal with narc
>>but think they'll be protected from harm with their magic gas.
>
>And then you have the diving drunks who can't tell the difference,
>because "being wasted" is pretty much their full-time natural state.
>
>-JimG
Hear, Hear! :-)
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
>You're voicing that the contrast is opposing. I'll play devil's
>advocate and say that one can be 'impaired' and still be 'safe'.....
I disagree. Any form of impairment is a potential threat to one's
safety. The severity of the threat depends on a combination of (a) the
degree of impairment, and (b) the type of dive. You might be able to
successfully execute a simple reef dive while severely impaired, while
even a slight impairment can be a huge threat on a logistically complex
dive.
>If you decide to come up with a defination of impaired, you might want
>to consider handicapped divers.
Do you know any handicapped divers? Ask one sometime how they would
feel about doing a dive where there was the potential for their dive
buddy to be impaired.
>I'd also ask you to list the narc level for 'unsafeness'.
That's exactly the problem - I can't. In fact, NOBODY can. It's like
asking someone to determine when they are too close to the edge of a
cliff - they won't know until they actually fall off.
My view is that we should all do what we can reasonably do to avoid
situations that have the potential for impairment. Don't dive deep.
Use the appropriate gas. Avoid situations and circumstances that can
increase your susceptibility.
Sometimes, even that is not enough, because conditions on a dive can
change. That's why you need to be even MORE careful than you think you
really need to be.
>> >My buddies ... have been to 150 on air.
>
>> Your buddies are strokes.
>
>Really ??
Yes, really.
>Tell that to all the successful and brave divers who first hit upon
>the Andria Doria. They all did it on air. Nothing but air. Air.
We've all done stupid stuff on air. Diving air to 150 FSW (or deeper)
is not necessarily what makes you a stroke. But diving to 150 FSW on
air, bragging about it, and trying to convince your newly certified
dive buddy that it is OK - that DEFINITELY qualifies you for strokedom.
>Funny thing is that NONE of them died while diving it.
Driving a car is a hazardous activity, yet you drive one every day and
have not died in a car accident. Does that mean that you won't? Does
that mean that no one else will either?
-JimG
--
Alan Street
<babet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
€Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu wrote in message
€news:<b9j42m$hgp$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>...
€
€> nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to
€> say:
€> >
€> >I was narced, impaired but still safe
€>
€> These two statements cannot simultaneously be true.
€
€> Your buddies are strokes.
€
€Really ?? Wow. Tell that to all the successful and brave divers who
€first hit upon the Andria Doria. They all did it on air. Nothing but
€air. Air.
€Funny thing is that NONE of them died while diving it. The deaths
€happened later. What.... Strokedom takes a while to catch up ?? LMAO
€!!!!!
Salty - While I agree that the stroke badge is inappropriate, I
wouldn't be so quick to use Doria deep air divers as the best counter
example. Yes, it's true that the initial few expiditions to the boat
turned out OK, and that the death rate started to climb after trimix
entered the picture. This isn't a cause and effect relationship,
however. Deep diving on air can be a little like playng russian
roulette, and early successes are no guarantee of continued luck. As
the wreck became more popular, the odds started to catch up with the
number dives, with the expected results.
One other thing I don't agree with is the conception that diving the
Doria on air is safer because "you know you're impaired and therefore
don't take as many chances." I've heard this a couple of times from
various NE wreck divers, but the one that comes quickest to mind is
from Sally Warhmann in Deep Descent (pp. 259-260) ".... because I think
when we dove the Doria on air, we were safer. I think technical
[trimix] divers have a false sense of security and consequently they
overextend their time on the wreck. Because they're clearheaded, the
think they can go places and do things they couldn't do on air instead
of using it as a safety factor."
You've probably heard this analogy before, but this is like saying it
safer for me to drive home with 5~6 drinks in me because I know I'm
impaired and I drive more cautiously. For some reason, the nice
policeman that pulls me over isn't going to agree with that assesment,
and ultimately neither is mother nature. To carry the analogy further,
there are clearheaded drivers that will drive fast, race on the street
and do stupid things that get them killed, just like there are divers
that will go into places they shouldn't, push the envelope of the
tables, dive solo and do other things that will get them killed. Saying
that narcosis impairment is a safeguard against this diving behaviour
is like saying 5 martinis is a safeguard against street racing.
Trimix was a tool that was unavailable to the early explorers of the
Doria. No one can fault them for doing the dive on air, and fortunately
most survived. Unfortunately, some people like John Barnett didn't, and
his death seems almost directly attritutable to the gas he was
breathing. But now that trimix is pretty much an everyday gas for deep
diving, I can't see any excuse not to use it on a dive like the Doria.
Diving to 150 feet on air is somewhat in the middle. I know that GUE
does not condone diving over 100 feet on air, yet TDI, IANTD and PADI
have deep air specialty courses to 170 feet. My own view is somewhat in
the middle. I prefer trimix below 100 feet, but have gone to 120 on air
and would do so again if trimix was not available. Would I dive to 150
on air? In theory no. In practice - I guess it would depend on where,
when and what. I'm not going to dive 150' into La Jolla canyon on air
because there's not that much to see, it's damn cold, and trimix is
easily available here in San Diego. But if I were faced with the
opportunity to photograph some really unusual critter or artifact at
150' in a remote island in the Philippines where trimix was
unavailable, I'm not sure I'd be able to resist the temptation :-).
Happy Mother's day all (even Angel).
Alan
GoosePimp
John Francis
>On 11 May 2003 03:21:45 GMT, Jammer Six
><jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <b3erbvoeedsm49oq0...@4ax.com>, uglymoney
>><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>The thing to say is "I don't know anything, and have no idea what I
>>need."
>>
>>Shorter, and more accurate.
>>
>>Everyone get your money down.
>
>Okay. I don't know anything, and I have no idea what I
>need.
>
>Also. You are a blowhard and offer nothing of value in your
>posts.
You're right on one count. He gets his kicks by blowing smoke here.
But he does know something about diving. He just makes it so damned
hard to separate the worthwhile stuff from the bs that it's hard to
know if and when he's actually being helpful. One word of advice
though. Don't use any tanks without your own mark if he's on the
boat. 8)
Actually, that's probably pretty good advice anyway.
JF
Al Wells
says...
> Al, that was kind of my point - exertion can lead to increased
> susceptibility to narcosis.
Is that really nitrogen narcosis, or is CO2 involved? I am an avid
believer in the cleaner decompression properties of helium at any depth,
and very fequently use He mixes at much deeper depths that have an "END"
of maybe 100 ft. I never get "narced" on those dives, even in a current,
cold, or bad vis or in "adrenaline moments". I think narcosis is an issue
at deeper depths, but there are issues other than narcosis at the
shallower depths, and that most cases of "narc" at less than 100 are
maybe something else. The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering"
that most will get somewhere around 150-180, but its insidious nature at
100+ ft.
> In this case, the surface current was so strong that we had to employ a
> "granny line" to get from the boat to the anchor line, pulling
> ourselves hand-over-hand against the current. And in my case, I got to
> make the trip twice, since I had to control a panicked diver and escort
> him back to the surface. Once we got down on the wreck, the current was
> very mild, and it was an altogether pleasant dive - no exertion
> whatsoever. It was just the "getting there" that was tough.
I have been shown a trick for this by a very well known and respected
SoFl wreck diver, who learned it fom Pattie Mount. You just lay yur
stomach on the shot line and slide down. Of course this doesn't solve the
problem of getting to the anchor/shot line via a "geriatric line", but
that's a question of basic methods...
al
uglymoney
<rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2003 21:58:16 -0500, uglymoney
><nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>
>>And I've no need for any fancy air mixes at the moment -
>>however I see no reason to argue against using gas that
>>prevents narcosis. Should I become somebody with some
>>experience and ever advance beyond this stage of
>>newbie-hood, I'll be looking into it.
>
>I agree... you don't need trimix, triox, or even nitrox (yet).
>You need experience.
>At this point, I would also recommend that you remain above 90ft or so
>until you become more attuned to what's happening physiologocally at
>depth... but I'm not your mommy or your instructor. I'm just a
>traffic signal tech in SoCal who likes to dive so feel free to tell me
>to piss off.
Yes. I think you are right on this count. I had been to
98, and 96 ft, with good results, and was only at 110 for
probaby a total of two minutes before we started our
rambling ascent.
I think hanging around the 100 ft range or slightly less is
appropriate for now.
>
>>A few thoughts from this thread apply. I was tired. I was
>>dehydrated, and I had consumed much caffeine that morning.
>>It was dark, the water cold (37 degrees), and the visibility
>>poor.
>
>Yup... all of the above can contribute to narcosis.
>
>They can also contribute to DCS... why did you undertake a 100ft dive
>when tired and dehydrated in cold water?
This I suppose is a matter of degrees of tiredness, and
dehydration. I wasn't exhausted having slept for several
solid hours the night before, and hadn't exactly just walked
out of the sahara.
>That's where experience will help.
Yes, I agree. For instance, before the dive, based on my
relative experiences at depths approaching this dive, I had
not (conciously) experienced narcosis.
>
>Nobody will think anything less of you if you decide not to dive
>because something isn't "just right".
>If they DO think less of you, then you may want to rethink whether or
>not you would want to dive with someone who does not put your best
>interests higher than their desire to dive.
Agreed. As I said, I asked to go on this dive, having been
bored with the other possible dive's available. Glad that I
went.
>Diving is awesome.
>Nothing down there is worth your life. If you don't feel right, don't
>dive, or modify the dive plan to something that you feel better about.
>
Agreed again. Frankly, I felt good about this dive. I
enjoyed every bit of it, and think that I have learned a
great deal from it, and from the thoughts of those here who
have been narced to some degree before.
nate
uglymoney
<fossu...@Ibellsouth.net> wrote:
>The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering"
>that most will get somewhere around 150-180
Could you explain this "hammering"?
Jammer Six
<johnf...@sympatico.ca.remove> wrote:
€ Actually, that's probably pretty good advice anyway.
Mainly because *new* strokes don't know what I look like, and because
there is at least one other diver who does the same thing...
--
"When I have your wounded."
-Major Charles L. Kelly, callsign "Dustoff", refusing an order to leave a
hot L.Z., July 1, 1964, moments before being killed by a single shot.
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
Could be, but I suspect not - high CO2 normally causes headaches, and I
had nothing like that. Furthermore, I never felt winded during the
dive. It wasn't until the next day that I realized how much work I had
done, when I woke up with sore arm and chest muscles.
>I am an avid believer in the cleaner decompression properties of helium
>at any depth, and very fequently use He mixes at much deeper depths
>that have an "END" of maybe 100 ft.
Ditto for me - 30/30 is your best friend, when you can get it.
>The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering" that most will get
>somewhere around 150-180, but its insidious nature at 100+ ft.
Couldn't agree more.
>I have been shown a trick for this by a very well known and respected
>SoFl wreck diver, who learned it fom Pattie Mount. You just lay yur
>stomach on the shot line and slide down.
That's pretty much how I do it - stay close to (and above) the line and
pull. I don't know about the sliding part, though. On our dive, the
anchor line had a good-sized fishhook stuck in it at about 20 feet.
That is not uncommon on the Duane.
>Of course this doesn't solve the problem of getting to the anchor/shot
>line via a "geriatric line", but that's a question of basic methods...
I normally prefer to drift into the line from upcurrent, similar to how
it's done on the Atlantic coast of Florida. That is harder for the boat
crew, though - it takes several passes to deploy all the divers, and
then they have to pick up the folks that miss the line.
Normally, this particular dive charter uses the "drift" method - not
sure why they decided to tie up this time.
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) There were bugs in the code, but I
College of Computing never saw them hiding. No, I never
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 saw them at all, `til there was Foo
mike gray
>
> In article <b9lpfc$m95$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>, Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
> says...
> > Al, that was kind of my point - exertion can lead to increased
> > susceptibility to narcosis.
>
> Is that really nitrogen narcosis, or is CO2 involved? I am an avid
> believer in the cleaner decompression properties of helium at any depth,
> and very fequently use He mixes at much deeper depths that have an "END"
> of maybe 100 ft. I never get "narced" on those dives, even in a current,
> cold, or bad vis or in "adrenaline moments". I think narcosis is an issue
> at deeper depths, but there are issues other than narcosis at the
> shallower depths, and that most cases of "narc" at less than 100 are
> maybe something else. The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering"
> that most will get somewhere around 150-180, but its insidious nature at
> 100+ ft.
Bingo!
mike gray
>
> >The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering"
> >that most will get somewhere around 150-180
>
> Could you explain this "hammering"?
Go get seriously narc'd a few times, and you will begin to discern the
difference.
RAL2OOO
>
>>Is that really nitrogen narcosis, or is CO2 involved?
>
>Could be, but I suspect not - high CO2 normally causes headaches, and I
>had nothing like that. Furthermore, I never felt winded during the
>dive. It wasn't until the next day that I realized how much work I had
>done, when I woke up with sore arm and chest muscles.
>
You do not need to retain enough co2 to get a headache for it to affect your
buzz. Many factors can come into play as far as narc. Visibility, fatigue,
metal outlook (I believe I will get narced therefore I will) anxiety, CO2 as
well as other contaminants.
I have been far more narced swimming slowly in a dark cave at 155' then
swimming hard in clear warm water in bright daylight at 220'. The most wiped
out I ever felt was at about 160,' felt like I was way deeper than 220'. Turns
out a deck hand decided to do a bit of painting near the compressor intake but
that's another thread, poisoning:-(
Narced at 110'? Yes, but I would think he must have had a bit of co2
involvement perhaps mixed with a bit of anxiety for it to rise to a level of
much discomfort.
RAL
mike gray
>
> I've got an instructor (with many, many tech dives under his belt) that gets
> narc'd at about 100ft with a Nitrox mix (let alone Air). Doesn't like doing
> anything over 100ft without Helium.
SWN (shallow water narc) is something quite new and is spreading fast. I
suspect it has been brought here from the orient. Myself, I think
quarantine is the only answer.
mike gray
>
> My instructor is the same...no drugs or alcohol.
Abstinence from smoking and red meat makes it even worse.
mike gray
>
> >Then ya get the Helium cowboys that have never learned to deal with narc
> >but think they'll be protected from harm with their magic gas.
>
> And then you have the diving drunks who can't tell the difference,
> because "being wasted" is pretty much their full-time natural state.
Yeah, that works.
James Connell
you get progressively more 'stupid' the more narced you get.
at first the air just flat tastes good, but as you go deeper things get
worse.
at about 150 i have fish in my compass, i can't (easily) figure a
reciprocal compass course.
i'm curious as to what you did on your deep water dive in AOW.
the instruct should have had you perform a 'simple' task at around 100.
you'd be surprised just how much you are affected at that depth.
if you learned dive tables (some agencies don't teach them), try
recalculating your no deco limits while you're at 100 ft!
time yourself on a (similar) problem at the surface then take (the water
proof kind:) tables and a slate down and try it at depth.
mike gray
> Trimix was a tool that was unavailable to the early explorers of the
> Doria.
Talk about fubar analogies! That's like explaining the stellar quality
of modern furniture with the advent of power tools.
mike gray
> i'm curious as to what you did on your deep water dive in AOW.
> the instruct should have had you perform a 'simple' task at around 100.
> you'd be surprised just how much you are affected at that depth.
If ya want to really please yer instructor, you will really screw it up.
> if you learned dive tables (some agencies don't teach them), try
> recalculating your no deco limits while you're at 100 ft!
> time yourself on a (similar) problem at the surface then take (the water
> proof kind:) tables and a slate down and try it at depth.
And if there is no increase in time?
Try this: make a simple box with three lights and three buttons, the
circuitry of which lights the lights at random and accumulates the time
required to push the button below that light. Do, say, 500 trials high
on the Lhotse face, where the PPN is really low. Try it on the beach.
Try it at 50 fsw, 100 fsw, 150 fsw, 200 fsw and 250 fsw.
Report the results.
Alan Street
<oxm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So you *do* feel that 5 martinis is a good way to minimize street
racing??
James Connell
poke your head up your ass and sneeze - report the results.
on second thought - don't report the results.
James Connell
> uglymoney wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> And. I have a nice killfile, and you've just earned a spot
>> at the bottom of the list.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> Of his family I could obtain no satisfactory account. Whence he came,
>> I never ascertained.
>>
>> Edgar Allan Poe
>> --
>
>
> you really don't need to KF Jammer. he's not *that* bad, he's just an
> acerbic PIA, he's even entertaining (on occasion, when he's not in his
> DIR mode).
> Save your filter space for the half doz or so on this group who *REALLY*
> need it.
>
> welcome to rec.scuba, you really can learn something here, but grow a
> thick skin fast.
>
uh, i'm not sure i want in on this.
Rich Lockyer
<nouglym...@cedar-rapids.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2003 16:16:18 -0400, Al Wells
><fossu...@Ibellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>The real problem of narcosis is not the "hammering"
>>that most will get somewhere around 150-180
>
>Could you explain this "hammering"?
Like heading out on a road trip after a couple of beers.
To paraphrase a Florida cave diver, you aren't impared enough so that
it "rings your bell" and you KNOW that you're messed up, but you are
impaired to the point that you may have a problem.
A routine dive can be like driving home from the bar. Alcohol and
narcosis both impair our intellectual ability, and the first thing to
go is multitasking. You MAY be able to do a puzzle faster at 100ft
than you can at the surface, but that would be because you are
focusing your mental faculties 100% on the puzzle, where on the
surface it may be 50% puzzle, and 50% divided among temperature,
background sounds, etc...
It's easy to make it home from the bar... Leave the parking lot, make
a right. Drive two blocks, remember to stop at the red light (this is
where a lot of DUI's get caught), turn left. Two more blocks, turn
right, two more blocks, in the driveway.
Now here's the problem.... Right after you finish one of the turns, a
pedestrian runs out in front of you. Do you react quickly enough to
avoid him or do you hit him? If you happen to be lighting a smoke,
he's probably a goner.
Narcosis does the same thing. Even before you become acutely aware of
being impaired, you may encounter problems when the unexpected comes
up.
For an interesting read, check out
http://www.baue.org/library/irvine_baue_talk.html#Deep_air
Look for the paragraph beginning "On a more serious note".
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
mike gray
> poke your head up your ass and sneeze - report the results.
> on second thought - don't report the results.
Didn't get a single Mother's Day card?
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>Try this: make a simple box with three lights and three buttons, the
>circuitry of which lights the lights at random and accumulates the time
>required to push the button below that light. Do, say, 500 trials high
>on the Lhotse face, where the PPN is really low. Try it on the beach.
>Try it at 50 fsw, 100 fsw, 150 fsw, 200 fsw and 250 fsw.
>
>Report the results.
How about a narcosis buddy check...
Every few minutes during the dive, display a finger count to your
buddy. He must return with that number plus 1.
It gets interesting when you hold up "5" and he has to use his second
hand to display "6".
It would be really interesting to flash "10".
This needs to be well-organized before the dive with a signal that it
IS a narcosis check so the sign is not confused with gas remaining.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
mike gray
>
>
> So you *do* feel that 5 martinis is a good way to minimize street
> racing??
Off topic. We're talking the effect of hyperbaric Nitrogen, not alcohol.
Laser
>In article <av5tbvc0igmf3uduf...@4ax.com>, John Francis
><johnf...@sympatico.ca.remove> wrote:
>
>€ Actually, that's probably pretty good advice anyway.
>
>Mainly because *new* strokes don't know what I look like, and because
>there is at least one other diver who does the same thing...
What do you look like?
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>GoosePimp wrote:
Mike... not everyone is diving 80 degree water with 200ft viz.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
mike gray
>
>
> Mike... not everyone is diving 80 degree water with 200ft viz.
So that wasn't narc at 245 in Bimini?
Laser
wrote:
>Alan Street wrote:
Easy Mike. It was not available recreationally........
Rich Lockyer
>Really ?? Wow. Tell that to all the successful and brave divers who
>first hit upon the Andria Doria. They all did it on air. Nothing but
>air. Air.
>Funny thing is that NONE of them died while diving it. The deaths
>happened later. What.... Strokedom takes a while to catch up ?? LMAO
>!!!!!
Popularity.
How many people were diving in 1965?
What kind of physical condition were they in?
Bet they didn't look like this:
http://www.linkline.com/personal/rlockyer/s_dsc00385.jpg
But people in worse shape than I am are now attempting the 'Doria and
other tough dives.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Dan Bracuk
:Mike... not everyone is diving 80 degree water with 200ft viz.
But some people are.
Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.
The Best of Rec.Scuba
http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
James Connell
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 22:11:45 GMT, mike gray <oxm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> It would be really interesting to flash "10".
>
>
> http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
in that case you simply give him the +1 - usually with the middle finger.
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>Rich Lockyer wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2003 22:11:45 GMT, mike gray <oxm...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It would be really interesting to flash "10".
>>
>in that case you simply give him the +1 - usually with the middle finger.
Or flash 5 twice plus 1.
PADI trained me to communicate PSI in groups of 5, so 1200 psi would
be 5-5-2. 1700 would be 5-5-5-2.
I find GUE's way much better.... 1700 is 1-sideways 2. Quick and
clear.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>Rich Lockyer <rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> entertained us with:
>:Mike... not everyone is diving 80 degree water with 200ft viz.
>
>But some people are.
And though impaired at 150, they may not feel it.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu
>
>It gets interesting when you hold up "5" and he has to use his second
>hand to display "6".
Why does it take two hands to show 6?
>It would be really interesting to flash "10".
The correct response would "1" followed by "1".
-JimG
--
Jim Greenlee (j...@cc.gatech.edu) In the old days, it used to be fun
College of Computing to crash a system. Nowadays, thanks
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332 to Microsoft, the thrill is gone.
Alan Street
<rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote:
€>> It would be really interesting to flash "10".
€>>
€>in that case you simply give him the +1 - usually with the middle finger.
€
€Or flash 5 twice plus 1.
€
€PADI trained me to communicate PSI in groups of 5, so 1200 psi would
€be 5-5-2. 1700 would be 5-5-5-2.
€
€I find GUE's way much better.... 1700 is 1-sideways 2. Quick and
€clear.
€
€
Except in Europe or Asia, where your buddy think you're telling him 170
bar.
John Mason Jr
"Rich Lockyer" <rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:4ostbv0m2tbq0mo6q...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 22:11:45 GMT, mike gray <oxm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Try this: make a simple box with three lights and three buttons, the
> >circuitry of which lights the lights at random and accumulates the time
> >required to push the button below that light. Do, say, 500 trials high
> >on the Lhotse face, where the PPN is really low. Try it on the beach.
> >Try it at 50 fsw, 100 fsw, 150 fsw, 200 fsw and 250 fsw.
> >
> >Report the results.
>
> How about a narcosis buddy check...
>
> Every few minutes during the dive, display a finger count to your
> buddy. He must return with that number plus 1.
>
> It gets interesting when you hold up "5" and he has to use his second
> hand to display "6".
>
> It would be really interesting to flash "10".
>
Had a buddy do that on the Miller Lite at 140 ft on air warm clear water I
burst out laughing. That is the crux of the problem it is not easily
predicted. In cold dark water a narc at a lesser depth made me feel very
spooked.
> This needs to be well-organized before the dive with a signal that it
> IS a narcosis check so the sign is not confused with gas remaining.
If the sign can be confused it is a bad sign
>
>
>
> --- Rich
> http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
John
Lee Bell
> I've got an instructor (with many, many tech dives under his belt) that
gets
> narc'd at about 100ft with a Nitrox mix (let alone Air). Doesn't like
doing
> anything over 100ft without Helium.
Every man has to know his limitations. Your instructor/tech diver has some
doosies. People have been diving to 130 fsw and more, on air, for longer
than most, if not all, participants in this group have been alive.
Surprising how few of us died in the process.
Lee
Dan Bracuk
:clear.
What?
Bob Crownfield
well done mike !!
Only 3 posts and he lost any semblance of cool.
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>Rich Lockyer <rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> entertained us with:
>:I find GUE's way much better.... 1700 is 1-sideways 2. Quick and
>:clear.
>
>What?
Fingers pointed upward signify 0-5
Fingers pointed sideways signify 6-9
1700 would be 1+7 or one finger up followed by two to the side.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>>It gets interesting when you hold up "5" and he has to use his second
>>hand to display "6".
>
>Why does it take two hands to show 6?
>
>>It would be really interesting to flash "10".
>
>The correct response would "1" followed by "1".
Try it on air at 90ft :)
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Rich Lockyer
wrote:
>> This needs to be well-organized before the dive with a signal that it
>> IS a narcosis check so the sign is not confused with gas remaining.
>
>If the sign can be confused it is a bad sign
True, but numbers are used all the time. The context determines what
the number means.... 5 minutes, 500psi, 50ft stop, or narc check.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
John Mason Jr
And the context is defined by your question, the response must make sense.
If it does not make sense something is wrong
H. Huntzinger
Jim.Gr...@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> fossu...@Ibellsouth.net stopped playing nethack just long enough to say:
> >
> >Is that really nitrogen narcosis, or is CO2 involved?
>
> Could be, but I suspect not - high CO2 normally causes headaches, and I
> had nothing like that. Furthermore, I never felt winded during the
> dive. It wasn't until the next day that I realized how much work I had
> done, when I woke up with sore arm and chest muscles.
>
> >I am an avid believer in the cleaner decompression properties of helium
> >at any depth, and very fequently use He mixes at much deeper depths
> >that have an "END" of maybe 100 ft.
>
> Ditto for me - 30/30 is your best friend, when you can get it.
Since this was a Florida 80fsw dive, and MHK claims that 30/30's sweet
spot is 80-120fsw, what gas were you on?
-hh
Grumman-581
> And then you have the diving drunks who can't tell the difference,
> because "being wasted" is pretty much their full-time natural state.
I'll drink to that ! <burp>