George

Your email brought a few questions into my mind which I would be grateful   
if you would clarify...

You plan a dive for a certain bottom time (I understand from earlier   
mails that this is actual bottom time, not including descent).  The deco   
software suggests certain stop times at whatever depths.  You then insert   
some deep stops.

Question 1: are the deep stops according to Richard Pyle's rule of thumb   
(travel 1/2 the distance from depth to first mandatory stop).

Question 2: I understand from your fibbonacci email of a while ago that   
there are some deeper than mandatory stops but not as deep as "Pyle" deep   
stops (e.g. insert a few 1 minute stops just deeper than the first   
mandatory stop).  Is this correct?

Question 3: you imply in your email below that you then execute the deco   
software recommended stops without any modification to stop times or   
depth.  Is this correct?

Question 4: which Bulhman algorithm are you using?

Question 5: what changes, if any, would you incorporate for multi-day   
diving?

Question 6: my UK ocean diving is in the 70-80 m (230'-260') range,   
possibly soon 90 m (300') with bottom times (including descent) of around   
20-25 minutes.  In your experience, would you vary the deco for these   
"bounce" dives (compared with your more serious bottom times).

Dave
shimell@se*.co*



   


 ----------
From:  owner-techdiver[SMTP:owner-techdiver@aquanaut.com]
Sent:  31 August 1997 19:08
To:  Sigmund Lundgren
Cc:  techdiver
Subject:  Re: Origin of Deep Air Thinking (Was: Learn from the mistakes)

I did not misunderstand Ingemar - what I do not understand is why there
are idiots out there teaching this kind of thing. I have seen no
software that accounts for the real shape of decompression, but then
ther is no one model that does it. You have to combine moddels, and some
of them do not lend themselves to computer interpretation. For
simplicity , I would run a Bulhman with zero "safety" factors and
combine that result with deeper stops without telling the model you are
doing that. Check the deep stops separately using the model to see how
much they are moving your ceiling, and reset for different guesses until
you see the pattern working properly - at least that is close to
reality. We have always had to "trick" the deco programs to get anything
that approaches what we already know works.

  This will not hurt you , and it will work a lot better than the model
itself. You will basicly end up with a relatively short, but multi-stop
deco.

Sigmund Lundgren wrote:
>
> George,
>
>         It's obvious that you missunderstood Ingemar, he just wanted   
you to
> confirm what you said before. This is a really interesting issue. I   
guess
> he wanted something more concrete. His question was: are there any deco
> software that takes your findings in consideration? What software if   
any do
> you use? I guess we are among the few that are openminded and are   
willing
> to listen actually - we are not blinded by the strokes out there.
>
> /Sigmund
>
> >
 --
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send list subscription requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send list subscription requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

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]