Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3050643132_3737441_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Guy- One thing which seems to have a hard time breaking through to several folks is that these mathematical deco calculations are all THEORY. I don't know about you guys but I would prefer to stake my LIFE and LIMB on REALITY. And the REALITY is that a certain group of organized divers doing extreme dives (the WKPP) have gone through great pains to discover the difference between THEORY and REALITY. They have done this by taking very careful observations of their team using records, doppler scans and blood tests over hundreds of dives. And they have shared this information with us. You guys go ahead and do your THEORETICAL discussions all you want, but if a group of divers gives me REALITY based information, that is what *I* am going to act on. Who gives a SHIT what the THEORETICAL aspects of 36-80 vs. 50-100 are, if a bunch of divers who have been studying the REAL effects of DECO FROM HELIUM by subjecting their ACTUAL, REAL BODIES to the effects of A HUGE RANGE of deco gasses and have decided that 50-100 does the best job, then who am I to argue with them? I'm just an average schmo who wants to dive deep without getting BENT or KILLED. Let's face it, your decision is: do you follow the bent, crippled, dead, deep air diving, personal preference, 36-80 crowd or the fellows who DO AS THEY SAY AND SAY AS THEY DO in ACTUAL, REAL, EXTREME HELIUM DEEP DIVES? Folks, this is a no-brainer. Which should make it quite easy for a select number of you. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:24:30 -0400 To: Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Subject: 80/20 deco 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 --MS_Mac_OE_3050643132_3737441_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: 80/20 deco</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Guy-<BR> <BR> One thing which seems to have a hard time breaking through to several folks= is that these mathematical deco calculations are all THEORY. I don't know a= bout you guys but I would prefer to stake my LIFE and LIMB on REALITY. And t= he REALITY is that a certain group of organized divers doing extreme dives (= the WKPP) have gone through great pains to discover the difference between T= HEORY and REALITY. They have done this by taking very careful observations o= f their team using records, doppler scans and blood tests over hundreds of d= ives. And they have shared this information with us.<BR> <BR> You guys go ahead and do your THEORETICAL discussions all you want, but if = a group of divers gives me REALITY based information, that is what *I* am go= ing to act on. Who gives a SHIT what the THEORETICAL aspects of 36-80 vs. 50= -100 are, if a bunch of divers who have been studying the REAL effects of DE= CO FROM HELIUM by subjecting their ACTUAL, REAL BODIES to the effects of A H= UGE RANGE of deco gasses and have decided that 50-100 does the best job, the= n who am I to argue with them? I'm just an average schmo who wants to = dive deep without getting BENT or KILLED.<BR> <BR> Let's face it, your decision is: do you follow the bent, crippled, dead, de= ep air diving, personal preference, 36-80 crowd or the fellows who DO AS THE= Y SAY AND SAY AS THEY DO in ACTUAL, REAL, EXTREME HELIUM DEEP DIVES?<BR> <BR> Folks, this is a no-brainer. Which should make it quite easy for a select n= umber of you.<BR> <BR> Jim<BR> -------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <B>From: </B>Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*><BR> <B>Date: </B>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:24:30 -0400<BR> <B>To: </B>Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com><BR> <B>Subject: </B>80/20 deco<BR> <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Hi there, <BR> <BR> After receiving a barrage of e-mails in regard to this <BR> discussion, I thought it opportune to put in my two <BR> cent's worth. <BR> <BR> As part of the rules of engagement here, for me to <BR> address any rebuttal of my thesis, I will only entertain <BR> issues provided the relate to the essence of the original <BR> post which is the comparison between EAN 36 and 80 <BR> deco versus EAN 50 and O2. Any digression that does <BR> not involve a comparison of those two profiles will be <BR> ignored. <BR> <BR> The most important point in regard to the resulting <BR> tissue tensions is that the EAN 50 and oxygen profile <BR> as calculated by the deco software does not take into <BR> account the breaks from breathing pure O2. <BR> <BR> This means that if I breath pure O2 for 66 to 75% of <BR> the time spent at the shallow stops, then I did not <BR> off-gas as much as the decompression software assumes <BR> I did, given that it calculates based on the fact that I <BR> should have been breathing pure O2 the whole time. <BR> <BR> Therefore, the argument that the tissue tensions of <BR> the EAN 50 and O2 decompression are better than <BR> EAN 36 and 80 deco are false. We really don't know <BR> what the tissue levels are for the EAN 50 and O2 deco <BR> because we are really diving something else. <BR> <BR> Bottom line is that if one accounts for the breaks from <BR> pure O2 breathing, the in-water time, for a given algorithm <BR> will increase. I hope everyone can agree on this point. While <BR> we are not breathing O2, we are not off-gassing as much <BR> as when breathing O2, and we could be on-gassing in <BR> some compartments. <BR> <BR> Basically, what I am proposing involves work. The algorithms <BR> we use would need to be modified to account for the fact <BR> that we take breaks from pure O2 decompression. <BR> <BR> Please try to stick to the paradigm that involves comparison <BR> of the two profiles. That is to say that if some magical algorithm <BR> were used, it would have to be used the same way for both <BR> profiles, and would have to account for the oxygen breaks, <BR> rather than ignoring them. <BR> <BR> If people on this list are unable to acknowledge the fact <BR> that pure O2 decompression requires breaks that are not <BR> presently accounted for in decompression software, and <BR> that the substantial amount of time spent on these other <BR> gasses translates to a material difference in residual tissue <BR> saturation levels, please do not bother to reply, I don't care <BR> for hand waving explanations. <BR> <BR> In addition, any theories, or practices you might think clever <BR> would also apply for the 80/20. Again, what works for one <BR> profile, must be applied to both. It's easy to say that we're <BR> not going to account for those breaks from O2, and if that's <BR> the case, then we have obviously nothing to discuss. <BR> <BR> In closing, I trust we can keep the discussion a civil one, <BR> free of the competitive ramblings that often plague such <BR> exchanges, specifically: "my deco profile is better than yours." = <BR> Those not interested in the analytical exercise proposed herein <BR> may abstain. -- <BR> Guy <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3050643132_3737441_MIME_Part-- -- 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]