Richard, thanks for summarizing your personal experience, practice - and gut-feeling. It is appreciated. >> I'm not entirely clear about how you are defining "accelerated decompression".<< With "accelerated" decompression I meant to describe the practice, that you can SHORTEN the overall decompression significantly if you built a 100% gradient for Helium by switching to a non-helium mix. Yes, you'd be ongassing Nitrogen, but you'd be rapidly offgassing Helium. Overall you'd end up with a lesser nitrogen and helium tension as if you stayed on ONE inert gas. >> it is in my opinion that several additional deep decompression stops on bottom mix, not accounted for by the deco algorithm (i.e., calculate deco as if you did not make these stops at all), would DECREASE the probability of DCI << I agree with your sentiments with respect to the phase-dynamics model and that the Haldanean model accounts for only one portion of the overall decompression process. I'm sure there are many successful techniques that fall outside the Haldanean model but appear to work in the field. But I don't think that the phase-dynamics model has INVALIDATED the concept of "accelerated" decompression (pardon me for re-using that term) by switching inert gases. >> This means a greater emphasis on deep stops, and a relatively lesser emphasis on what diluent gas is breathed at what depth. << It seems to me, as if you're proposing even more "conservative" decompression - while George considers the tables by John Crea for deco-weenies. So I'm not quite sure which view you're supporting or if you're kind of between the chairs and doing your own thing altogether. Who does your tables or which software do you use? How does your total decompression time compare to someone using a modified Buehlmann algorithm? Andy
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]