Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--Boundary_(ID_tDGnaNq2BeHx3w8ZatOW2w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Bill, As far as your characterizations on the fabled "oxygen window", please point us to the relevant publications, as there are none. The only material anyone has seen on your unicorn are the allusions to physiological benefits of saturating tissues with O2. This only happens in a state of rest which probably only applies to someone in a warm, dry decompression chamber. In addition, the material you allude to only speaks to the physiological benefits of saturating tissue with oxygen, and not to the effect on concentration gradients, or anything remotely connected with decompression. In fact, the only conclusion one can draw from the posts you mention is that if one gets bent as a result of your flawed modeling, there should be lots of oxygen around to assist in the tissue repair while the body is healing. In addition, there is no theory, or material that is available on the net, on this forum, or from you, for other people to review and scrutinize, which is typically how things are done. There are no demands on my part, it is very easy though to find holes in the obvious oversights from the complacent execution you folks seem to exhibit on this forum. What seems even more dangerous is that you people want others to do what you do blindly? Is that right? You are obviously endowed with a powerful sense of humor. Jim seemed to find that my analysis was quite accurate. By the way, the competitive, and complacent attitude that no one else but you folks are doing serious dives is rather comical. Do you not think that one can get seriously hurt on a dive other than WKPP? Certainly, I think most people out here have more reverence for the dives they do, and that probably goes a long way to ensuring they come back home. Are you suggesting that everyone else in the world need not do any deco, because it's not serious diving anyway? Please Bill, entertain us some more. Guy Bill Wolk wrote: > 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 -- > --Boundary_(ID_tDGnaNq2BeHx3w8ZatOW2w) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi Bill, <p>As far as your characterizations on the fabled "oxygen <br>window", please point us to the relevant publications, <br>as there are none. The only material anyone has seen <br>on your unicorn are the allusions to physiological benefits <br>of saturating tissues with O2. This only happens in a state <br>of rest which probably only applies to someone in a warm, <br>dry decompression chamber. In addition, the material you <br>allude to only speaks to the physiological benefits of <br>saturating tissue with oxygen, and not to the effect on <br>concentration gradients, or anything remotely connected <br>with decompression. In fact, the only conclusion one can <br>draw from the posts you mention is that if one gets bent <br>as a result of your flawed modeling, there should be lots <br>of oxygen around to assist in the tissue repair while the body <br>is healing. <p>In addition, there is no theory, or material that is available <br>on the net, on this forum, or from you, for other people <br>to review and scrutinize, which is typically how things are <br>done. <p>There are no demands on my part, it is very easy though <br>to find holes in the obvious oversights from the complacent <br>execution you folks seem to exhibit on this forum. What <br>seems even more dangerous is that you people want others <br>to do what you do blindly? Is that right? You are obviously <br>endowed with a powerful sense of humor. <p>Jim seemed to find that my analysis was quite accurate. <p>By the way, the competitive, and complacent attitude that <br>no one else but you folks are doing serious dives is rather <br>comical. Do you not think that one can get seriously hurt <br>on a dive other than WKPP? Certainly, I think most people <br>out here have more reverence for the dives they do, and <br>that probably goes a long way to ensuring they come back <br>home. Are you suggesting that everyone else in the world <br>need not do any deco, because it's not serious diving anyway? <p>Please Bill, entertain us some more. <p>Guy <br> <p>Bill Wolk wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Guy - <p>Not only is your thesis completely wrong, you are obviously too close <br>minded to realize it. If you don't read "the barrage of emails" you're <br>receiving, why bother to post anything? And if you're going to post on <br>this list, leave your arrogant attitude at the door because you obviously <br>know nothing. <p>You want an answer "within parameters," here it is: on the bounce dive <br>that Karl Russel started this discussion with -- 200 feet, 30 minutes, <br>18/35 back gas -- there's no need to take back gas breaks on any deco <br>schedule. 100% O2 is better than 80/20 for the reasons already stated at <br>length by just about everyone who responded. On longer dives where back <br>gas breaks are needed, 02 is a far better deco choice because it gives <br>you the biggest oxygen window. Read the Baker's Dozen post and all the <br>responses. You don't understand what an oxygen window is? Then read my <br>post and Scott Hunsucker's posts to Scott Bonis on the subject. Or go to <br>the archives and read just about anything posted on deco by George <br>Irvine, Bill Mee, Jess Armantrout, Bruce Wienke, Erik Baker -- you know, <br>the guys who actually do the deco that matters, write the software, or <br>research the applied physics of bubble mechanics. <p>Or if that's just too much work for you, or too difficult to understand, <br>then just read Jim Cobb's original posts, because Cobb was right from Day <br>1 and said it best: It's the nitrogen, stupid! <p>Damn, I hate people who jump on this list with their "I don't understand <br>the concepts but I know I'm right attitude." YOU are what's wrong with <br>technical diving. And you want "rules of engagement?" -- Here they are: <br>STFU and STFD. Make a little effort to read and research before you come <br>here and make demands. <p>On8/31/00 1:24 PM, Guy Morin wrote: <p>>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>> <br>>-- <br>>Guy <br>> <br>> <br>> <p>Best regards -- <br> </blockquote> <pre></pre> </html> --Boundary_(ID_tDGnaNq2BeHx3w8ZatOW2w)-- -- 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]