Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> Why do you use the word "chaotic" rather than "statistical" ? > Statistical mechanics would tell you right away that the > more N2 you dissolve into your tissue, the larger the number > of possible semistable solutions (N2 in gas phase) > you would see when you decompress. Statistical analysis of DCS incidence would point you in the right directions for correlated (perhaps even causative) factors. However, a statistical description of how the masses tend to get bent doesn't tell you anything about whether *you* are going to get bent after a given decompression profile. I use the word "chaotic", because I believe that word describes well the nature of physical and biochemical processes taking place within our bodies during compression and decompression. In short, our ability to predice DCS in the masses can be achieved by statistical analysis, but our ability to predict DCS for a given individual on a given dive is severely obscured by the immensely complex nature of the ailment. > It's a thermal process and can only be avoided if you > freeze yourself down to 0'K. I prefer to dive in waters warm enough that I only need a T-shirt and swim suit. > I have yet to see the nitty gritty of the current day > bubble models so I don't know how to cast this in the > language of these models. I imagine trouble can occur > if bubbles of no great significance in themselves > were to say combine or you have no upper bound on the > largest bubble that can exist at any one given time > in your body during the decompression part of the dive. Even the bubble models are just models - they don't take into consideration platelt abundance and other biochemical factors. I preach the bubble models only because the gross nature of the decompression profiles they recommend more closely match my own personal empiracle observations. > In summary, I don't think any model, ever, can bring you closer to > a risk free dive than telling you something about the *probability* > of a hit for a given profile. I think some models will bring us closer than others. But don't make the mistake of assuming probabilities of DCS for masses will apply with any whiff of reality to probabilities of DCS for an individual. I am reminded of a funny story. My wife (5'7", 110 lbs, built like a rock climber - she is a rock climber) was discussing diving with a 5'9", 250-lb, built-like-a-couch-potato dive instructor. The instructor said to my wife, "You are more likely to get bent than I am because you are a woman, and women are statistically more likely to get bent than men." My wife asked why women are more likely to get bent than men, and the instructor replied, "Because statistically, women have more body fat." Am I making my point here? Aloha, Rich
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]