Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Guy - Not only is your thesis completely wrong, you are obviously too close minded to realize it. If you don't read "the barrage of emails" you're receiving, why bother to post anything? And if you're going to post on this list, leave your arrogant attitude at the door because you obviously know nothing. You want an answer "within parameters," here it is: on the bounce dive that Karl Russel started this discussion with -- 200 feet, 30 minutes, 18/35 back gas -- there's no need to take back gas breaks on any deco schedule. 100% O2 is better than 80/20 for the reasons already stated at length by just about everyone who responded. On longer dives where back gas breaks are needed, 02 is a far better deco choice because it gives you the biggest oxygen window. Read the Baker's Dozen post and all the responses. You don't understand what an oxygen window is? Then read my post and Scott Hunsucker's posts to Scott Bonis on the subject. Or go to the archives and read just about anything posted on deco by George Irvine, Bill Mee, Jess Armantrout, Bruce Wienke, Erik Baker -- you know, the guys who actually do the deco that matters, write the software, or research the applied physics of bubble mechanics. Or if that's just too much work for you, or too difficult to understand, then just read Jim Cobb's original posts, because Cobb was right from Day 1 and said it best: It's the nitrogen, stupid! Damn, I hate people who jump on this list with their "I don't understand the concepts but I know I'm right attitude." YOU are what's wrong with technical diving. And you want "rules of engagement?" -- Here they are: STFU and STFD. Make a little effort to read and research before you come here and make demands. On8/31/00 1:24 PM, Guy Morin wrote: >Hi there, > >After receiving a barrage of e-mails in regard to this >discussion, I thought it opportune to put in my two >cent's worth. > >As part of the rules of engagement here, for me to >address any rebuttal of my thesis, I will only entertain >issues provided the relate to the essence of the original >post which is the comparison between EAN 36 and 80 >deco versus EAN 50 and O2. Any digression that does >not involve a comparison of those two profiles will be >ignored. > >The most important point in regard to the resulting >tissue tensions is that the EAN 50 and oxygen profile >as calculated by the deco software does not take into >account the breaks from breathing pure O2. > >This means that if I breath pure O2 for 66 to 75% of >the time spent at the shallow stops, then I did not >off-gas as much as the decompression software assumes >I did, given that it calculates based on the fact that I >should have been breathing pure O2 the whole time. > >Therefore, the argument that the tissue tensions of >the EAN 50 and O2 decompression are better than >EAN 36 and 80 deco are false. We really don't know >what the tissue levels are for the EAN 50 and O2 deco >because we are really diving something else. > >Bottom line is that if one accounts for the breaks from >pure O2 breathing, the in-water time, for a given algorithm >will increase. I hope everyone can agree on this point. While >we are not breathing O2, we are not off-gassing as much >as when breathing O2, and we could be on-gassing in >some compartments. > >Basically, what I am proposing involves work. The algorithms >we use would need to be modified to account for the fact >that we take breaks from pure O2 decompression. > >Please try to stick to the paradigm that involves comparison >of the two profiles. That is to say that if some magical algorithm >were used, it would have to be used the same way for both >profiles, and would have to account for the oxygen breaks, >rather than ignoring them. > >If people on this list are unable to acknowledge the fact >that pure O2 decompression requires breaks that are not >presently accounted for in decompression software, and >that the substantial amount of time spent on these other >gasses translates to a material difference in residual tissue >saturation levels, please do not bother to reply, I don't care >for hand waving explanations. > >In addition, any theories, or practices you might think clever >would also apply for the 80/20. Again, what works for one >profile, must be applied to both. It's easy to say that we're >not going to account for those breaks from O2, and if that's >the case, then we have obviously nothing to discuss. > >In closing, I trust we can keep the discussion a civil one, >free of the competitive ramblings that often plague such >exchanges, specifically: "my deco profile is better than yours." >Those not interested in the analytical exercise proposed herein >may abstain. > >-- >Guy > > > Best regards -- Bill -- 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]