Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false

RonMicjan · 27th December 2006, 03:02

Would it be possible for you to write a post, for once, that didnt come out like a RANT.

Quote: (Originally Posted by DICTIONARY.COM)

rant (rānt) Pronunciation Key
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants

v. intr.
To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.

v. tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.

n.
Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent).
Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment.

As as for being an expert...you are the guy who is intending to market your CCR, or has that changed? which expert is going to write your manual, since you say that you are not one.

I called Joe Dituri and suggested he take a look at that passage for the next printing. I bet if it was your book, you wouldnt like that suggestion of paying to retrain everyone, would you? Nor do I bet you could be convinced to do it. How about a small dose of reality in what you do up in that ivory tower sir? Cause the rest of us are in the real world, where we have to work for a living, do our best and still occasionaly screw up.

Sorry Karl, but I just get sooooooo tired of the continous spewing that comes from you. How about doing a bit of sharing of info, rather than cramming your political views down all of our throats.

sorry to the rest of you, Im done now. Hope that didnt sound like a rant, I made sure not to use a bunch of bold and capitals.

Genesis · 27th December 2006, 03:24

Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan)

I called Joe Ditrui and suggested he take a look at that passage for the next printing. I bet if it was your book, you wouldnt like that suggestion of paying to retrain everyone, would you? Nor do I bet you could be convinced to do it. How about a small dose of reality in what you do up in that ivory tower sir? Cause the rest of us are in the real world, where we have to work for a living, do our best and still occasionaly screw up.

The CPSC can force the recall of dangerous items. Maybe I should write them a "rant"?

Since when is safety-related stuff a "rant", when we have far too many people getting killed on these damn things? How many of them have to be dead because of bad information and agencies hiding the corrections as the errors are discovered!

Bad information like this can kill. In the context of a required class that an industry has crammed down the throats of people trying to buy gear, this isn't a "suggestion" - its a claim that this is how it is, its a piece of dicta that is force-fed down student's throats, and its demonstrably wrong. Hell, I bought it and I understand why I screwed up. Many students will never take that second look and it may lead some of them to be complacent in a way that could kill them.

Maybe it already has..... but we don't know it.

When the brakes in my car have a fault that might get me 1 time in 100 years they send me a letter and I get to take the car back and have them fix it for free. When DELL has one battery in a laptop overheat out of 100,000 they shipped, they recall a few tens of millions of dollars worth of batteries and eat all of them.

When an agency prints a piece of totally inaccurate nonsense in a manual that could lead someone to believe they had a much higher margin of safety than they really do..... they'll look at it when they get around to it, and might fix it in the next printing!

But heh, those hundreds who learned it wrong because the book was wrong and so was their instructor.... tough crap.

38 cents in the form of a stamp and a two page letter to every person holding a card that used that manual as class material is too much money to spend in the name of correcting a safety-related error?

And you claim that I am the one living in an ivory tower?!

***jradomski*** · 27th December 2006, 04:57

I've been mulling over how to respond to this thread... so here goes

First as other pointed out the IANTD tech manual is poorly worded when it comes to this topic.. Thery are right that duration would be 10x greater at depth than at the surface if the percentage remained the same, but since we care about po2, the wording gives the wrong impression..

At depth we can maintain a higher po2 than we can at the surface so overall duration to a hypoxic mix can be greater.. With a constant fo2 device like a SCR, near the surface would be the greates risk because the loop content is chosen to be a best fit at depth.. so if your target po2 at depth was a 1.3 at 4 atas, near the surface you have very little allowable po2 drop before unconsciousness, at depth I have alot more time because of the starting po2.. the rate at which my loop degrades is for all practical purposes the same as pointed out by others, but on a constant fo2 rebreather I have 4x longer to solve a problem than at the sutrface..
so for a constant fo2, the deepr you go the longer you have to survive since the po2 climpbs with depth...
On a constant po2 reb, since you are starting with the same po2, your fo2 drops with depth so you have the same amount of oxygen molecules.. if you start with the same po2 in both instances, you go hypoxic at the same time..

There are a few small caveots, if at surface or (shallow) vs deep, both have the minimum needed loop volume to start, the loop at the shallows will be unbreathable first because the decrease in loop volume will prevent a full breath not because of lack of a sustainable po2..

If you follow everything I said above now you may understand how some agencies (like ANDI) teach as depth increases during a manual SCR mode on a CCR you can extend the duration of breaths between flushes.. This DOES effect your decompression efficiency, but it allows you to extend the gas supplies..

Think of it this way, if I plugged in a 50% mix and ran scr at 10M my max po2 is about a 1.0, and after 5 breaths the decay puts its somehwere around a .95, but if I go to 20m with the same 50%, I am starting with a 1.5 so extending it to 6,7 or more breaths still will have the po2 higher than it was shallower.. Depending on how you calculate your deco, would dictate how long you stretch these out, not how breathable the loop is, since you would be flushing well before this point..

I think is less about the "MYTH" than a misunderstanding and confusing of different types of rebreathers and how they work..

**UWSojourner** · 27th December 2006, 05:00

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program ...

Thanks Ron for a good summary.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Sutty)

Ok, this is getting way past the point I was originally trying to make - that some authorities are suggesting that for a given PO2 your loop would keep you alive for 10 times as long (without adding O2) at 10Atm than at 1 Atm. This is incorrect.

Agreed.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Sutty)

As you see there is a small difference, but not of much note in the real world, and in the direction of the loop becoming hypoxic faster at depth.

Agreed in the range you are addressing ... close to 0 PO2. The range I was looking at (dropping 0.1 from a normal setpoint) seems to have larger differences and, in fact, produces a much higher maintenance requirement at at 10 ATA than at 1 ATA.

The results are the same as you say ... depth does not reduce the need for setpoint diligence ... if anything it increases it.

Thanks, Sutty, for bringing the issue to the board!

Genesis · 27th December 2006, 06:15

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

I've been mulling over how to respond to this thread... so here goes

First as other pointed out the IANTD tech manual is poorly worded when it comes to this topic.. Thery are right that duration would be 10x greater at depth than at the surface if the percentage remained the same, but since we care about po2, the wording gives the wrong impression..

The manual in question is referring to a CCR, not a SCR, and clearly, they do not intend to say that you would have a 7.0 PO2 at that depth. That would cause instant death - nobody is going to parse it that way.

IMHO all who own this book now need to be tracked down and notified, and a "paste over" page, along with a written explanation and apology, need to go out. For those books not yet sold, they should either be fixed with said "paste over" or destroyed and the volume reprinted.

IANTD and the instructors today can (successfully) hide behind their waivers if an accident were to be traced to this. Now perhaps it becomes a bit more clear why I believe that the sort of fix that I put forward in the thread at http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebre...ility-law.html needs to be enacted. While that specific version of the model law would not hold IANTD responsible for an error such as this, the framework would provide a way to do so - so clearly, what's there needs some editing done on the model statute....

Quote:

I think is less about the "MYTH" than a misunderstanding and confusing of different types of rebreathers and how they work..

The IANTD book is about CCRs, not SCRs, and makes no statement implying that a constant-fIO2 unit is under discussion. Indeed, it is absolutely clear (from their talk about a setpoint of 0.7 and the solenoid cadence!) that they are discussing eCCRs in this section of the text.

IMHO you're being far too charitable. Why?

RonMicjan · 27th December 2006, 06:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by Genesis)

IMHO you're being far too charitable. Why?

Because Joe is not an Idiot, and he writes manuals about CCR's for an Agency, and he is a realist. Not to mention that he has probably forgotten more about diving that you have ever learned. In fact, Im guessing that ANDI wont be writing a manual for the K-1 if it ever gets past the prototype stage, because the designer of said K-1 has called all instructors Wh***s and believes they are incompetent, and agencys are all money grubbing crooks who have no concern or standards of care or safety.

The big problem you have Karl, old buddy, is that you have systematically piss-ed off most everyone who can help you market and train divers on your product. You have called us names, run our ideals through the mud, called for our banishment and suggested legal action against us. this is a very small close knit industry and you have completly alienated yourself from it.

Good luck selling your rig, cause you will be dealing with every aspect of it alone. Oh, yeah, and try to get product liability insurance while you are at it, or instructor insurance. Your brilliant idea of leaving your front company penniless while you sneak away with the money is going to leave you in the same mess as when your partner sold MCS right out from underneath you. This would be ruled as fraud and your flimsy corporate veil will be pierced like so much tissue paper.

grabbing my popcorn now while Karl busts a keyboard...

this ought to keep him busy till morning at least

decoweenie · 27th December 2006, 06:57

Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan)

this ought to keep him busy till morning at least

A brilliant thought flashed thru my mind...

If we could form an International team locating in different time zones, and take turns "discussing" with Karl on various issues, we could burn him out pretty fast. Or at least wears his keyboards out...

RonMicjan · 27th December 2006, 07:05

remember to ask karl about the prestigeous KOTM award he received....

decoweenie · 27th December 2006, 07:07

Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan)

remember to ask karl about the prestigeous KOTM award he received....

Do tell...

Genesis · 27th December 2006, 07:16

My "partner" sold MCS out from under me?

Where 'ya getting your crack from Ron? Have another hit dude; I was the majority shareholder of the corporation and there were no shenanigans pulled by myself or any of the other shareholders. Don't believe me? Fine. Call Tom Schnur at Vedder Price, Kaufman and Kammholz in Chicago and bring your checkbook - he was our lead outside corporate counsel and for his customary fee I'm sure he'll be happy to go over any aspect of the sale of the company to Winstar that you care to discuss. It was all above-board and everyone involved was happy with the transaction; it closed without a hitch. I'll tell him to give you the "extra special" price for your consult time if you'd like

As for liability and such I suggest that anyone who thinks that there is a liability issue they can press, at least in this state (Florida), pull and take a very close read of Borden v. Phillips, 752 So.2d 69 (Fla.App. Dist.1 02/16/2000)

Oh hell, I'll do a bit of it for you:

Quote:

The language of the release is clear and unambiguous, reflecting the decedent's assumption of the risks inherent in scuba diving and his intent to release Appellees from all liability, including any liability resulting from their own negligence. Although viewed with disfavor under Florida law, such exculpatory clauses are valid and enforceable when clear and unequivocal. Theis v. J & J Racing Promotions, 571 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1991). The release expressly states that the decedent "understands and agrees" that none of the "Released Parties" (Appellees) "may be held liable or responsible in any way for any injury, death, or other damages to me [decedent] or my family, heirs, or assigns that may occur as a result of my [decedent's] participation in this diving class or as the result of the negligence of any party, including the Released Parties, whether passive or active." The release goes on to state that the decedent intends to exempt and release Appellees from all liability or responsibility whatsoever . . . "HOWEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASED PARTIES, WHETHER PASSIVE OR ACTIVE."
.....
The release also releases Appellees from any "gross negligence" as alleged in the Amended Complaint. The term "negligence" as used in the release is not limited, and therefore should be construed as intending to encompass all forms of negligence, simple or gross, with only intentional torts being excluded from the exculpatory clause. Theis, 571 So. 2d at 94.

cite: Borden v. Phillips, 752 So.2d 69 (Fla.App. Dist.1 02/16/2000)

You will find that the waiver you signed when you take a class, dive somewhere, or do anything else diving-related in this state really does go so far as to release everyone involved even if they pump your tank full of carbon monoxide or is drunk while they're teaching you - despite the fact that there are lots of people out there who will proclaim that "oh you can't release negligence and you SURELY can't release gross negligence."

Uh huh. Tell that to Borden's family, who apparently believed the same thing. By the way, Mr. Borden died offshore Destin in 1995, while taking a diving class - quite literally in my back yard.

If you and your buddies have such great standards of care and concern for the safety of divers, tell me Ron - how come you and your friends shove releases like that under our noses and demand we sign before you'll do business with us?

Do you really wonder why I hold the feelings that I do towards this industry and its so-called "standards of care", when I have right in front of me an appeals court decision from the state I live in that says that if I contract for a diving class, my instructor is stoned on LSD, and I die as a consequence that's just tough crap for me because I signed the release?

27th December 2006, 03:02	#41 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,100	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Would it be possible for you to write a post, for once, that didnt come out like a RANT. Quote: (Originally Posted by DICTIONARY.COM) rant (rānt) Pronunciation Key v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants v. intr. To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave. v. tr. To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience. n. Violent or extravagant speech or writing. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent). Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment. As as for being an expert...you are the guy who is intending to market your CCR, or has that changed? which expert is going to write your manual, since you say that you are not one. I called Joe Dituri and suggested he take a look at that passage for the next printing. I bet if it was your book, you wouldnt like that suggestion of paying to retrain everyone, would you? Nor do I bet you could be convinced to do it. How about a small dose of reality in what you do up in that ivory tower sir? Cause the rest of us are in the real world, where we have to work for a living, do our best and still occasionaly screw up. Sorry Karl, but I just get sooooooo tired of the continous spewing that comes from you. How about doing a bit of sharing of info, rather than cramming your political views down all of our throats. sorry to the rest of you, Im done now. Hope that didnt sound like a rant, I made sure not to use a bunch of bold and capitals. __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job Last edited by RonMicjan : 27th December 2006 at 06:10. Reason: spelling
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 03:24	#42 (permalink)
Genesis Bubbless Box of Death Current Rebreather/s: Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Home Build Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 1,397	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan) I called Joe Ditrui and suggested he take a look at that passage for the next printing. I bet if it was your book, you wouldnt like that suggestion of paying to retrain everyone, would you? Nor do I bet you could be convinced to do it. How about a small dose of reality in what you do up in that ivory tower sir? Cause the rest of us are in the real world, where we have to work for a living, do our best and still occasionaly screw up. The CPSC can force the recall of dangerous items. Maybe I should write them a "rant"? Since when is safety-related stuff a "rant", when we have far too many people getting killed on these damn things? How many of them have to be dead because of bad information and agencies hiding the corrections as the errors are discovered! Bad information like this can kill. In the context of a required class that an industry has crammed down the throats of people trying to buy gear, this isn't a "suggestion" - its a claim that this is how it is, its a piece of dicta that is force-fed down student's throats, and its demonstrably wrong. Hell, I bought it and I understand why I screwed up. Many students will never take that second look and it may lead some of them to be complacent in a way that could kill them. Maybe it already has..... but we don't know it. When the brakes in my car have a fault that might get me 1 time in 100 years they send me a letter and I get to take the car back and have them fix it for free. When DELL has one battery in a laptop overheat out of 100,000 they shipped, they recall a few tens of millions of dollars worth of batteries and eat all of them. When an agency prints a piece of totally inaccurate nonsense in a manual that could lead someone to believe they had a much higher margin of safety than they really do..... they'll look at it when they get around to it, and might fix it in the next printing! But heh, those hundreds who learned it wrong because the book was wrong and so was their instructor.... tough crap. 38 cents in the form of a stamp and a two page letter to every person holding a card that used that manual as class material is too much money to spend in the name of correcting a safety-related error? And you claim that I am the one living in an ivory tower?! __________________ "A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American." http://www.denninger.net http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 04:57	#43 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 3,017	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false I've been mulling over how to respond to this thread... so here goes First as other pointed out the IANTD tech manual is poorly worded when it comes to this topic.. Thery are right that duration would be 10x greater at depth than at the surface if the percentage remained the same, but since we care about po2, the wording gives the wrong impression.. At depth we can maintain a higher po2 than we can at the surface so overall duration to a hypoxic mix can be greater.. With a constant fo2 device like a SCR, near the surface would be the greates risk because the loop content is chosen to be a best fit at depth.. so if your target po2 at depth was a 1.3 at 4 atas, near the surface you have very little allowable po2 drop before unconsciousness, at depth I have alot more time because of the starting po2.. the rate at which my loop degrades is for all practical purposes the same as pointed out by others, but on a constant fo2 rebreather I have 4x longer to solve a problem than at the sutrface.. so for a constant fo2, the deepr you go the longer you have to survive since the po2 climpbs with depth... On a constant po2 reb, since you are starting with the same po2, your fo2 drops with depth so you have the same amount of oxygen molecules.. if you start with the same po2 in both instances, you go hypoxic at the same time.. There are a few small caveots, if at surface or (shallow) vs deep, both have the minimum needed loop volume to start, the loop at the shallows will be unbreathable first because the decrease in loop volume will prevent a full breath not because of lack of a sustainable po2.. If you follow everything I said above now you may understand how some agencies (like ANDI) teach as depth increases during a manual SCR mode on a CCR you can extend the duration of breaths between flushes.. This DOES effect your decompression efficiency, but it allows you to extend the gas supplies.. Think of it this way, if I plugged in a 50% mix and ran scr at 10M my max po2 is about a 1.0, and after 5 breaths the decay puts its somehwere around a .95, but if I go to 20m with the same 50%, I am starting with a 1.5 so extending it to 6,7 or more breaths still will have the po2 higher than it was shallower.. Depending on how you calculate your deco, would dictate how long you stretch these out, not how breathable the loop is, since you would be flushing well before this point.. I think is less about the "MYTH" than a misunderstanding and confusing of different types of rebreathers and how they work.. __________________ Joe Radomski CCR Trimix Instructor Trainer ANDI Instructor Trainer Director #10 All posts are personal opinions and DO NOT reflect any affiliated agency unless specifically stated.
(Online)

27th December 2006, 05:00	#44 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 556	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false And now, back to your regularly scheduled program ... Thanks Ron for a good summary. Quote: (Originally Posted by Sutty) Ok, this is getting way past the point I was originally trying to make - that some authorities are suggesting that for a given PO2 your loop would keep you alive for 10 times as long (without adding O2) at 10Atm than at 1 Atm. This is incorrect. Agreed. Quote: (Originally Posted by Sutty) As you see there is a small difference, but not of much note in the real world, and in the direction of the loop becoming hypoxic faster at depth. Agreed in the range you are addressing ... close to 0 PO2. The range I was looking at (dropping 0.1 from a normal setpoint) seems to have larger differences and, in fact, produces a much higher maintenance requirement at at 10 ATA than at 1 ATA. The results are the same as you say ... depth does not reduce the need for setpoint diligence ... if anything it increases it. Thanks, Sutty, for bringing the issue to the board!
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 06:15	#45 (permalink)
Genesis Bubbless Box of Death Current Rebreather/s: Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Home Build Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 1,397	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) I've been mulling over how to respond to this thread... so here goes First as other pointed out the IANTD tech manual is poorly worded when it comes to this topic.. Thery are right that duration would be 10x greater at depth than at the surface if the percentage remained the same, but since we care about po2, the wording gives the wrong impression.. The manual in question is referring to a CCR, not a SCR, and clearly, they do not intend to say that you would have a 7.0 PO2 at that depth. That would cause instant death - nobody is going to parse it that way. IMHO all who own this book now need to be tracked down and notified, and a "paste over" page, along with a written explanation and apology, need to go out. For those books not yet sold, they should either be fixed with said "paste over" or destroyed and the volume reprinted. IANTD and the instructors today can (successfully) hide behind their waivers if an accident were to be traced to this. Now perhaps it becomes a bit more clear why I believe that the sort of fix that I put forward in the thread at http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebre...ility-law.html needs to be enacted. While that specific version of the model law would not hold IANTD responsible for an error such as this, the framework would provide a way to do so - so clearly, what's there needs some editing done on the model statute.... Quote: I think is less about the "MYTH" than a misunderstanding and confusing of different types of rebreathers and how they work.. The IANTD book is about CCRs, not SCRs, and makes no statement implying that a constant-fIO2 unit is under discussion. Indeed, it is absolutely clear (from their talk about a setpoint of 0.7 and the solenoid cadence!) that they are discussing eCCRs in this section of the text. IMHO you're being far too charitable. Why? __________________ "A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American." http://www.denninger.net http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 06:45	#46 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,100	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Quote: (Originally Posted by Genesis) IMHO you're being far too charitable. Why? Because Joe is not an Idiot, and he writes manuals about CCR's for an Agency, and he is a realist. Not to mention that he has probably forgotten more about diving that you have ever learned. In fact, Im guessing that ANDI wont be writing a manual for the K-1 if it ever gets past the prototype stage, because the designer of said K-1 has called all instructors Wh***s and believes they are incompetent, and agencys are all money grubbing crooks who have no concern or standards of care or safety. The big problem you have Karl, old buddy, is that you have systematically piss-ed off most everyone who can help you market and train divers on your product. You have called us names, run our ideals through the mud, called for our banishment and suggested legal action against us. this is a very small close knit industry and you have completly alienated yourself from it. Good luck selling your rig, cause you will be dealing with every aspect of it alone. Oh, yeah, and try to get product liability insurance while you are at it, or instructor insurance. Your brilliant idea of leaving your front company penniless while you sneak away with the money is going to leave you in the same mess as when your partner sold MCS right out from underneath you. This would be ruled as fraud and your flimsy corporate veil will be pierced like so much tissue paper. grabbing my popcorn now while Karl busts a keyboard... this ought to keep him busy till morning at least __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 06:57	#47 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan) this ought to keep him busy till morning at least A brilliant thought flashed thru my mind... If we could form an International team locating in different time zones, and take turns "discussing" with Karl on various issues, we could burn him out pretty fast. Or at least wears his keyboards out... __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 07:05	#48 (permalink)
RonMicjan Cap Ron scourge of the NW Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Disapointment, The Graveyard of the Pacific Posts: 1,100	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false remember to ask karl about the prestigeous KOTM award he received.... __________________ Marine rescue, towing and salvage. Interfering with natural selection since 1983. www.tmishop.com Diving bits etc. www.seatowpdx.com The Summer Job
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 07:07	#49 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false Quote: (Originally Posted by RonMicjan) remember to ask karl about the prestigeous KOTM award he received.... Do tell... __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

27th December 2006, 07:16	#50 (permalink)
Genesis Bubbless Box of Death Current Rebreather/s: Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Home Build Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 1,397	Re: Rate of PO2 drop changes with depth true/false My "partner" sold MCS out from under me? Where 'ya getting your crack from Ron? Have another hit dude; I was the majority shareholder of the corporation and there were no shenanigans pulled by myself or any of the other shareholders. Don't believe me? Fine. Call Tom Schnur at Vedder Price, Kaufman and Kammholz in Chicago and bring your checkbook - he was our lead outside corporate counsel and for his customary fee I'm sure he'll be happy to go over any aspect of the sale of the company to Winstar that you care to discuss. It was all above-board and everyone involved was happy with the transaction; it closed without a hitch. I'll tell him to give you the "extra special" price for your consult time if you'd like As for liability and such I suggest that anyone who thinks that there is a liability issue they can press, at least in this state (Florida), pull and take a very close read of Borden v. Phillips, 752 So.2d 69 (Fla.App. Dist.1 02/16/2000) Oh hell, I'll do a bit of it for you: Quote: The language of the release is clear and unambiguous, reflecting the decedent's assumption of the risks inherent in scuba diving and his intent to release Appellees from all liability, including any liability resulting from their own negligence. Although viewed with disfavor under Florida law, such exculpatory clauses are valid and enforceable when clear and unequivocal. Theis v. J & J Racing Promotions, 571 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1991). The release expressly states that the decedent "understands and agrees" that none of the "Released Parties" (Appellees) "may be held liable or responsible in any way for any injury, death, or other damages to me [decedent] or my family, heirs, or assigns that may occur as a result of my [decedent's] participation in this diving class or as the result of the negligence of any party, including the Released Parties, whether passive or active." The release goes on to state that the decedent intends to exempt and release Appellees from all liability or responsibility whatsoever . . . "HOWEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASED PARTIES, WHETHER PASSIVE OR ACTIVE." ..... The release *also releases Appellees from any "gross negligence"* as alleged in the Amended Complaint. The term "negligence" as used in the release is not limited, and therefore should be construed as intending to encompass all forms of negligence, simple or gross, with only intentional torts being excluded from the exculpatory clause. Theis, 571 So. 2d at 94. cite: Borden v. Phillips, 752 So.2d 69 (Fla.App. Dist.1 02/16/2000) You will find that the waiver you signed when you take a class, dive somewhere, or do anything else diving-related in this state really does go so far as to release everyone involved even if they pump your tank full of carbon monoxide or is drunk while they're teaching you - despite the fact that there are lots of people out there who will proclaim that "oh you can't release negligence and you SURELY can't release gross negligence." Uh huh. Tell that to Borden's family, who apparently believed the same thing. By the way, Mr. Borden died offshore Destin in 1995, while taking a diving class - quite literally in my back yard. If you and your buddies have such great standards of care and concern for the safety of divers, tell me Ron - how come you and your friends shove releases like that under our noses and demand we sign before you'll do business with us? Do you really wonder why I hold the feelings that I do towards this industry and its so-called "standards of care", when I have right in front of me an appeals court decision from the state I live in that says that if I contract for a diving class, my instructor is stoned on LSD, and I die as a consequence that's just tough crap for me because I signed the release? __________________ "A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American." http://www.denninger.net http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode