Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
At 09:16 PM 5/4/99 -0400, Mike Rodriguez wrote: >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. Your knowledge base, as displayed in your posts, is founded on a very narrow and limited part of the "known and accepted body of information that has been published". You said you got your knowledge from Decom. And the only information you provided was that according to Decom, deep stops lengthen your Deco. You even claimed Decom "implemented a Deep Stop Algorithm". Bullshit! >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. It is precisely those widely accepted theories (which I didn't get from the WKPP) which prompted me to re-arrange my deco. The WKPP's on-going success with modified decompression helps me feel more comfortable about doing it. But I got the information and the supporting theory from Richard Pyle, NOT the WKPP. And I got it by searching out the information on the internet, comparing it with the texts and then asking Richard for clarification. > >>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. Mike, this is a PORKIE of truly GIGANTOMOUS proportions! Astounding for someone who claims to be touched with the fervour of scientific empiricism. The software packages are not "based on the best currently-accepted theories about decompression". They are based on ninety-year-old Haldanean concepts. Which are then fudged to varying degrees in an attempt to make them 'safer' and thereby cover the publisher's arse. Some of them may pay lip service to modern concepts like deep stops, but they certainly don't use the implementation of deep stops that the people who are doing it use. They even fudge that. And another thing. To say "this is the only information available to the vast majority of us." Is absolute CRAP. Can't "the vast majority of us" read? Are we, for some reason, able to get out to the dive site but unable make it to the library? Can we somehow afford the gas but not the magazines, books and internet access that delivers this information? > 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. Mike, what a lot of BOLLOCKS! The answers are public. Do the research. Develop the understanding. Don't expect the WKPP to take responsibility for your decompression by simply handing it to you on a plate. > >When I deco with deep-stops, they ALWAYS lengthen my >total deco time. Why? Because you ignore any benefit the deep stops bring to your decompression. >Because I don't have the >benefit of the secret WKPP information that can >safely shorten it. There is no such thing as 'safe' here. If you want to 'safely shorten' your decompression, stay out of the water. Mike. You appear to want Decom to tell you what decompression to do. You want the WKPP to tell you how to safely shorten your stops. You want it all to be nice and safe, 'because THEY said so.' But if you want to shorten your decompression stops, you must first take responsibility for your decompression. Here's a question for you. You use Decom, don't you? Decom uses "a modified ZH-L16 algorithm". If you were taking responsiblity for your decompression, wouldn't it make sense to ask Bernie or Abdur how Decom's ZH-L16 algorithm has been modified? So you know whether you're actually doing a straight Buhlmann, or a fudged one? And if fudged, how and by how much? Before you start modifying something, wouldn't it make sense to know WHAT you're modifying in the first place? > 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. The first part of that answer is good. The second part needs some work. >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. Come on Mike. There's a world of knowledge beyond the available deco programs. You have to go out and get it though. >>>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, do you think for as minute that ANY responsible person is going to advise you exactly how to shorten your deco ON A PUBLIC MAILING LIST???? >>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? You could have told him you didn't know the answer. rgrds billyw -- 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]