Mike

I think one of the many reasons some people get pissed off at some posts is
that the authors ask questions yet demand answers.  A lot of people of this
list respond well to questions and offer a lot of advice, some good some
bad.  The trick is to lurk long enough to work out who actually does this
stuff and to whom it is worth listening.

Some people dive, some are cyber divers.  The WKPP dive but are under no
obligation to share this information.  From the tone of some of your posts,
I think you may not understand this.  Please no not take offence at these
comments.  Just re-read your email below and determine whether you think it
applies to some extent in your case.

If you are still with me.  Moving on to your questions, here are my personal
views and philosophy (not answers).

A deco program produces numbers from an algorithm which is based upon a
theory which is only partially proven and less so in the case of Helium
gasses.  It never ceased to amaze me the credence people give and the need
to follow precisely the schedules produced.  Yet they are quite happy to
introduce so-called safety factors, use a different Buhlmann algorithm, etc.
"Whatever the software produces MUST be correct" and they follow it
precisely, yet another individual adds "safety" to the algorithm which they
equally follow precisely.  These two chaps are both being conscientious and
seeking to be safe divers.  Yet one would not dive the other's schedule.
All this shows is that schedules (numbers) can be different.

I produce a set of numbers from a piece of software which I am happy with
and dive them.  I have tried deep stops and felt good after them.  I do not
tell my deco software about the deep stops.  I do not extend my deco, nor do
I shorten it, as a consequence of executing these deep stops.  I have zero
safety in my dive planning software.  I do back gas breaks without extending
my deco i.e. I count this as part of my deco.

Why do I do this?  Because, I trust the information provided by some people
on this list in the same way that I trust the numbers given to me by my deco
software.  I.e. I am cautiously experimenting.  It is my decision to try it
and my responsibility.  However, I try it first on "smaller" dives and
progressively on "bigger" dives.  Trout has provided some valuable
information in response to questions on deco concerning the way *he* does
it.  In assessing this information, I'll first think about whether it makes
logical sense to me.  Whether I chose to use it and experiment is all about
whether the risk is worth the return.  For most divers, shaving a few
minutes off the deco is not a very significant gain, so why take the risk?
It also seems to me that the smaller the dive, the greater is the potential
difference in tissue saturation between "actual" and theoretical - therefore
the higher the potential risk compared to a "big" dive.  I thought it was
interesting that the follow up post that Trout sent for a less extreme
exposure produced the same deco time.  Why does he do it in this case?
Clearly he is not doing longer stops to save deco.  The only reason I can
think of is that he believes this provides a cleaner deco.  At this stage of
the game, I fear this is what it is about: no hard and fast answers, just a
feeling and belief.  For most of us this is an not experiment worth
conducting.

David Shimell
Project Manager, Sequent Computer Systems Ltd., Sandton, South Africa.
Email: shimell@se*.co* <mailto:shimell@se*.co*> 

-----Original Message-----
From:	Mike Rodriguez [SMTP:mikey@ma*.co*]
Sent:	Tuesday, April 06, 1999 3:17 AM
To:	bdi
Cc:	Ken Sallot; Jeff Bentley; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject:	Re: Who is "mike rodriquez"?

At 04:06 PM 4/5/99 +1000, bdi wrote:

>When it was reasonably suggested that your knowledge base
>might be less than useful, you defended your limited
>knowledge from the point of view that "I read it on the
>Decom box so it MUST be true."

My knowledge base is founded in the commonly known and
accepted body of information that has been published.
When/if the WKPP publishes their information, the answers
may well change, but until they do, the widely accepted
theories are all non-WKPP divers have to go on.

>These people are telling you don't know anything about
>decompression, not because you don't do their 12 hour
>dives but because you hold and broadcast the dangerous
>assumption that your pre-packaged, store-bought, software-
>generated solution MUST be the RIGHT solution.

Again, these software packages are based on the best
currently-accepted theories about decompression and
this is the only information available to the vast
majority of us.  The WKPP has better information,
but until it's made public, my answer based on
commonly known and accepted theories is correct in
that context.

When I deco with deep-stops, they ALWAYS lengthen my
total deco time.  Why?  Because I don't have the
benefit of the secret WKPP information that can
safely shorten it.  What good does it do the person
who posted the original question about deep-stops if I
answer that deep-stop, as implemented by the WKPP,
shorten total deco, but nobody outside the WKPP knows
how to implement them this way so don't bother.

Since the available deco programs are all most of us
have to work with, and since they extend total deco
time when deep-stops are implemented, my answer
reflected this.

Also, when Trout said that deep-stops have been
shown to reduce the incidence of DCS, I asked for
the numbers supporting this assertion.  Trout
eventually indicated that the numbers are not
available.  This makes the assertion anecdotal
and unproven.  For the record, I DO NOT dispute
Trout's assertion that deep-stops reduce DCS, I
dispute that they have BEEN SHOWN to do so.  In
science, nothing is shown to be true unless there
is documented evidence of it and it can be
independently reproduced.  WKPP deep-stops
can't be reproduced because they aren't
published.

I'll say this again for effect: I believe Trout's
assertions, but I don't believe they have been
scientifically shown to be true.

>>Just yesterday I was doing
>>two technical dives where I had the opportunity to speak
>>with some of the member of this list.  Everyone one of
>>them told me they read the list but are afraid to post
>>so much as a question for fear of being ridiculed.
>
>Then ask the fucking questions PRIVATELY!!!

This is a public forum.  If we all start speaking
privately, we'll be defeating it and might as well
close the mailing list and post a static contact list
with everyone's email address.

>Mike, this doesn't apply to you. You weren't asking any
>questions.

Yes I was.  I asked how it is that deep-stops shorten
deco.  I asked the question because conventional deco
theory and the available programs that implement it
say that deep-stops lengthen deco.  A valid question,
I think.  The question was finally partially answered
in Trout's very interesting post about one specific
dive.  That post is one of the rare gems that have
come out of this forum precisely because this
discussion has been public.

>When that dude asked about deep stops, you were
>pretending you knew the answers.

I gave the best answer available outside the WKPP and the
only answer the person asking the original question could
use since he has access only to the available deco programs
and conventional, generally accepted deco theory; he has
no way to use deep-stops to shorten deco because that
information is known only to the WKPP.

Application of the best *publicly available* information
will lengthen deep-stops.  What other answer could I give?

-Mike Rodriguez
<mikey@ma*.co*>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe 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]