Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
George, if deco generated using Buhlman is such crap, why even use it as a starting place. wouldn't it be much easier to forget it all together and find the *right* method of doing it. I guess what I'm saying is to teach the list how to do your deco, you take a dive, and show us the Z-plan profile, then say "but I wouldn't do it that way, I'd make up some deep stops, which shorten the deco in the shallow area by an undetermined amount, but I extend the stops wherever the oxygen window is fully open." Granted, this is a great starting point, but I still have no idea how to calculate my deco for a completely different dive. What if I keep the same depth but lengthen or shorten the deco time? - this for starters. thanks a lot for this George steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 kirvine@sa*.ne* wrote: > Yes, Scott, the numbers are outrageously excessive, but the real reason > for making the little deep stops is to be sure to move out the gas > without seeing bubbles deep that will be impossible to remove later as > they grow due to pressure drop. Once up higher ( way up ) bubbling is > not so bad a way to get rid of gas, assuming no preconditions, shunts or > large vessels in the capillary beds, but combine what I am saying to get > your answer. On the other hand if you have made a high ppo2 gas switch > deeper, then you can see how greatly this does in fact reduce the need > for long shallow stops over an above the benefits discussed above. > > Scott - relearn all of ths stuff for your own account and throw the old > thinking away. It is dead ass wrong, and we have proven it. Everything > we do is now being explained by some other methods, meaning that the old > stuff is garbage, and the fact is there are things we have yet to openly > discuss that will also make these supposed explanations baloney as well. > Let's keep the dialogue giong on this stuff and step through it > cafefully. > > I do not want you guys discarding what I am saying and just thinking I > am some freak. My whole team does this , and they can not all be freaks. > Besides, I am the oldest guy , so there goes that theory. > > Also, my natural paranoia and years of taking badmouthing from the Brett > Gilliams and Tom Mount's and having everyone else in the dive industry > try to say I am an idiot tends to make me suspicious that you think that > way as well, and are merely hoping to expose me as a moron in this > duscussion in a polite manner. Let me tell you this - if I am an idiot, > the Naval Warfare is a bigger one, because they believe me, and as > everyone knows, I lead from the front and do not opon my mouth about > everything that I have not already successfuly done. > > > ScottBonis@ao*.co* wrote: > > > > George, thanks for answering so quickly. > > > > Unfortunately I am still a bit confused. Of course I understand how to work > > with an exponential decay, or any similiar curve for that matter. But from > > what I have studied in the past (which admittedly I may need to relearn,) I > > do not see why spending a relatively short time at deeper stops should reduce > > significantly the amount of time I need to spend at shallower stops. A > > moderate reduction perhaps, but nowhere near the magnitude of the time > > reductions that you have reported using sucessfully. > > > > Or is it that you've found that the numbers used presently to define the more > > or less "standard" deco schemes are actually longer than are truly necessary? > > After all, Buhlmann's model is simply the juxtaposition of 8 or 12 or 16 or > > 32 (or whatever number) of exponential curves. (Personally, I believe that > > there are actually an infinate number of mathematical compartments needed to > > actually describe what is occurring in nature.) But the predicted difference > > between say 32 compartments and an infinate number of compartments, may well > > not be worth worrying about. > > > > I guess my question still revolves around how to truncate these curves to > > reduce significantly the total deco time needed. I'd really appreciate any > > light you could shed on this. And thanks a bunch, really, for your help. > > > > kirvine@sa*.ne* wrote: > > > > > >Scott, anyone who knows what the word "paradigm" means can surely > > >understand what I am saying. The model is a standard decay curve found > > >everywhere in nature from a plot of nuclear half lifes to the number of > > >balls left on a pool table to the ratio of principle and interest in > > >your mortgage payment over time to the shape of a conch shell spiral, > > >etc. It is coincidence in this case , but serves quite well as a > > >skeletal shape from which we can work to improve the decompression via > > >some of the tricks we are disucsing here. > > > > > > Let's work that way, and forget trying to pidgeonhole decompression > > >into a neat litle package. I can do it, but it is not going to teach you > > >a damm thing. Let's keep is flowing here and work on it some more. > > > > > > > ScottBonis@ao*.co* wrote: > > > > > > Hi George, > > > > > > I have with great interest, been following and trying to understand your > > > decompression techniques. Your experience clearly demonstrates that you're > > > on to something which may be the equivilent of a new paradigm in > > > decompression analysis. But in all truth, it is not clear to me what it is. > > > > > > You say <<It is nothing more than happenstance that Bulhmanns model > > > even gets close ot working, and I can explain that to you in any > > > mathetmatical event in nature that you want to take as a model - any of > > > them will be quite good for decompression look-alikes>> > > > > > > I guess what I'm asking is "if Bulhmann's model is not applicable, is there > > a > > > model that you've been able to define, that is applicable?" I'd love to be > > > able to look at alternative ways to accomplish deco, but as of now I'm > > > frustrated in that I have no way to define them. I see the deco schedule > > > you've posted which, based on your track record, I imagine will clearly > > work. > > > But there is no way that I could ever have either arrived at this schedule > > > or approved the schedule for any of my students based on the only tools > > (deco > > > schedules and programs) that I have available to me at this time. > > > > > > I teach trimix and cave diving in the Yucatan and am really interested in > > > your work. I would like to evaluate it for my own edification and possibly > > > incorporate it into my teaching. I have a strong technical background so > > any > > > information you could supply will be greatly appreciated. > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help. Scott Bonis > > > > -- > > 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'. > -- 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]