Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Yes John , that is a good summary. Comex has done quite a bit of work looking into diferent models for pain only type of problems and CNS hits. IANTD will be publishing a reference book in the near future(with several authors ,it is hard to predicit a exact date) that will have a chapter byJean pierre impbert addressing this approach as a"possible" new bases for a different approach to deco modeling. Many years ago I attended a hyperbaric physcian course sponosored by NOAA in which Capt. George Bond (father of navy (US) saturation diving) defined deco sciences as , you put someone in the chamber and they get a "niggle" you then holler OH JESUS and add another number, and that is the science of decompression theory. I think this is the best description I have heard in all my life as to our in depth understanding of deco models . At the same time we do have a model that works for the majority of us, I personally am quite comfortable with this model and add very little safety factor to it (max of 10%) and quite often no safety factor. But I do incoporate a mid level deep stop to the program. I use safety factors on those days I feel I may be a little off, from a fitness factor. I encourage all to adjust safety factors based on their personal fitness. A fit diver develops more collalateral circulation thus more blood volume, they tend to produce less co 2 and thus they are capable of managing gas in the body more efficiently than divers who do not maintain good fitness. Tom You wrote: > >>I've never implied that current compartment based models are BS. You have >>me confused with someone else. However, I do believe they are not the optimum >>model for decompression calculations. > >There is a lot of heat and smoke, and not a great deal of light in here. > >I get the impression that Tom is trying to get the message across that the >current models are as good as we know how to make them, and the current >theory is KNOWN not to be good enough, which is why some people use "safety >factors" and "deep bubble stops". He goes on to say he has seen a lot of >DCS, and has treated a lot of DCS, and has seen what happens, sooner or >later, to divers who push the edge of the models in the belief that the >models "are not the optimum for decompression calculations". Those divers >get bent. Badly. SOME of them, but NOT all of them, manage to learn to >walk again. > >The main points bear repeating. > >1. The current deco theory models are as good as we know how to make them. >2. The current models are NOT good enough; we don't know enough about DCS yet. >3. We compensate for this by adding "safety factors" and "deep bubble stops". > We do these things because they work and for no other reason. >4. Pushing the limits of the models eventually has harsh consequences. > >Tom, is this a fair summary? > >--John >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. >Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. >
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]