Diving Triple 72's

[gilldiver]

Well, they are heavy on land, but they are just about the same as my twin 130’s with a stainless back plate. The biggest difference is that they are wide and you have to keep that in mind to keep from bumping just about everything.

I wasn’t able to get them to a dive shop that would fill this type of rig for me, most of the other dive shops would get crossed eyed if I brought them in, so I sacrificed the fills in a set of time 72’s, mu 100’s, and a single 120 and ended up with 1700 psi in the triples. The manifold held this rock steady for 2 days with no drop in pressure, so they seem to be solid.

For today’s trial I took them to a pool and dove with a dive class. I had on the top to my ¼” farmer John and ended up needing 5# of lead to hold steady at 10 feet.

I knew that I had them on most of the time as there just is a lot more mass to control. Some more work in getting the harness adjusted might help, but it will not eliminate the fact that there is just a lot of weight back there. In all positions except vertical, I was able to easily. When in the vertical, head up or down, the tanks want to pull you over onto your back and it takes a good bit of effort to control this. But after some practice I was able to do barrel rolls and loops with ease.

Do to the size and the way the mass is spread out to your sides I wouldn’t want to do a beach dive with these and any boat dive would need to have a boat with a very sturdy ladder and some way to brace yourself at the sides as you came up it. No way would I ever want to dive this rig in a chop.

Here is the proof, the pool was a bit dark and my camera will only go to ASA 400 so they are a bit grainy.

Pete Johnson

[duckbill]

Dec 12, 2010 12:21:38 GMT -8 gilldiver said:

....any boat dive would need to have a boat with a very sturdy ladder and some way to brace yourself at the sides as you came up it.

Or a loading boom.

Sounds like someone is ready for a compressor.

Thanks for sharing your story of the triplets.

[JES]

Nice work Pete!

[swimjim]

The grain of the image kind of adds to it. Maybe you should make these into black and white in photoshop, might look cool. I love the triple set. It give a new meaning to tre cool!

Jim

[gilldiver]

You mean something like this?




Gives the photos an early 1960’s Skin Diver look, doesn’t it.

Here is how USD did triples in the 1967-1969 catalog

[swimjim]

Exactly! They look pretty cool in B+W!

Jim

[SeaRat]

Pete, I was going through my older photos, and came across an research program I participated in by the University of Oregon in 1971. It was then that I remembered that I have dived triple 72s before. Here are my dive log entries, written in June of 1971:

Dives #12 through #27 were at Clear Lake in connection with a diving physiology experiment being conducted by two U of O students, Alex McNeill and Joe Russel. I was a subject for dives 12 through 18. Dives 19 through 24 I acted as assistant diver, safety man and photographer. Dives 25, 26, & 27 were breathhold dives in which my heart rate was monitored. In the other dives O2 consumption, CO2 exhalation, and heart rate or electrocardiogram were monitored at work and at rest

Here are the photos from those dives that I got back.

In this photo, I'm in my descent, probably on one of the deeper dives to 73 feet (other dives were to 3 feet and 37 feet to simulate one atmosphere and two atmospheres pressure).


At the assigned depth, I stopped and adjusted gear. I would descend using the right cylinder, then switch to the middle cylinder for the research. The left cylinder actually had a vacuum, and sampled my exhalations. Also seen here are the instrumentation for heart rate/EKG.

When I or the other subjects had the right regulator in our mouth, then we would swim a horizontal fixed line for a specific number of minutes. This was the exercise part of the dive, and what the researchers would be looking at from a work physiology point of view.


We worked off a barge in the lake, and getting into and out of the water was fairly difficult. I did not remember, nor note in my log, much problem with the rig in the water though. Bottom times were between 5 minutes and 28 minutes (the first deep dive at 73 feet). The second series were 5-7 minutes each at 3 feet, 37 feet and 73 feet.

Note the weights that I am hand-carrying for the descent, and the fact that I'm not wearing any weight belt for the rest of the dive. I hooked the weights on a line which were recovered after the dive. Because I was at 73 feet, the wet suit had no buoyancy at that depth in fresh water.

And yes, that is a USD Blue Champion Deluxe oval mask I'm wearing for those dives, list price in the 1970 US Divers catalog is $5.95.

The champion all-purpose mask used by divers throughout the world. Exceptionally clear view through the shatter proof tempered glass lens; comfortable feather edge and durable rubber skirt. The world's best-selling mask.
USD 1970 Catalog, page 20

By the way, this is a very good reason to keep a good, detailed dive log. You can pick things out and write about them 39 years later.

SeaRat

[scubadiverbob]

What I don't understand is why a weight belt? If I wear a shorty, gloves, and a hood, with one steel 72; I use four to eight pounds of weight. I dove Whiskeytown Lake in a shorty (no hood or gloves, with a single 72 and no bc or weight belt. Triple 72's; I'd have to have a bc with a lot of lift, or I'd be struggling to get to the surface. You wasn't overweighted?

Picture of me with one 72, no gloves or hood (60 degree water), and no weight belt.

[SeaRat]

I was wearing a full 1/4 inch wet suit (Farmer John), jacket with attached hood, and needed about 12 pounds to be neutral at the surface. At 73 feet, I was 12 pounds over-weighted with the weights. It looks like I had about 23 pounds in my hand to get to depth. I think the reasoning was that the researchers wanted me to get to depth without working, so that any physiological response would be from the work of swimming the line.

John