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_3050657662_4611372_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit So, this model you love so much, what makes you think it is accurate? Certainly the track record of this model sucks, or we would not have well-used chambers wherever there's water. And do you really think that the WKPP fellows would operate on a flawed model, doing hundreds of dives a year? You are insane if you believe that. And "You are basically saying that it is ok to blow between 25% and 33% of your deco, according to what the algorithm specifies" what are you talking about here? I have no idea. The gradient model requires that you start your deco earlier, it does not get you out of the water earlier on typical wreck bounce dives. As I said before, I nor anybody else cares how you care to torment your body, so don't get your panties in a wad. All I know is that I get out of the water feeling better and ready for the next dive using gradient deco and 50-100 with air breaks. Since I have limited my bottom PP02 to 1.1 to 1.2 my lungs don't feel burnt during and after the dive. I admit to being 43 years old and not very kind to my lungs over the years, perhaps you young studs can rack up the damage and not feel it. You assholes need to try this shit out before you poo-poo it. I have tried both and made my decision. You need to take the buckets off of your heads, you bunch of hypocrites. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 12:37:41 -0400 To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> Cc: Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco Hi Jim, > So what you are telling me that you will use whatever it gets you out of the > water quicker, damage to your body be damned, and whatever I say or anybody > else says will not make you change your mind. The flawed modeling is actually what would make me hesitate at using such a risky profile. You are basically saying that it is ok to blow between 25% and 33% of your deco, according to what the algorithm specifies, that we should trust your unpublished findings. I don't know about you, but I would definitely hesitate at getting out of the water before my schedule said it was ok. I know you'll be wanting to avoid the fact that the decompression modeling using pure O2 is flawed, that's a major oversight for a group that has such pride for it's attention to detail. > I don't know what it takes to get you guys to realize that the idea with > deco is to remove nitrogen from you body and you don't do this by breathing > more nitrogen. Nitrogen is what causes the damage. You've seen these nitrogen atoms doing damage, have you? This is very interesting Jim, very far out. Everyone here who isn't so obviously biased has already accepted that pure O2 deco isn't accurately accounted for in the modeling. Aren't there enough unknowns in diving for your taste Jim? You are now affirming that people should engage in practices on faith? Wow, this is getting funny, more, more. > I also, IMHO, your thinking is flawed when you presume that using 80/20 > obviates the need for air breaks. Seems to me if you are doing *any* mix > where you are spending extensive time at 1.5 PP02 or above you would want to > do air breaks to avoid long term damage to your lungs. Another mythical story, then it's sounds like all the modeling is flawed now, and only what you preach is the word. Give me a break. > Oh, yeah, the only thing that matters is getting out of the water fast, I > forgot. Actually, that wasn't a statement of mine. The only thing that does matter actually is building a model that most accurately reflects what is being practiced, and that yields statistically acceptable DCS incidence. Ultimately, you have no choice but to agree with me Jim, not modeling what happens in the water is a major oversight. Yes it's theory, and all that stuff, but at the end of the day, all we are left with is a tool that is based on some model. Taking into account the events that take place in the water, and that are material to the fundamental aspects of what is being accomplished are the keys to attaining a better way of diving, independent of the gasses used. There is no better gas, just safer, or riskier ways to manage decompression. -- Guy --MS_Mac_OE_3050657662_4611372_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: 80/20 deco</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> So, this model you love so much, what makes you think it is accurate? Certa= inly the track record of this model sucks, or we would not have well-used ch= ambers wherever there's water.<BR> <BR> And do you really think that the WKPP fellows would operate on a flawed mod= el, doing hundreds of dives a year? You are insane if you believe that.<BR> <BR> And "You are basically saying that it is ok to blow between 25% and 33= % of your deco, according to what the algorithm specifies" what are you= talking about here? I have no idea.<BR> <BR> The gradient model requires that you start your deco earlier, it does not g= et you out of the water earlier on typical wreck bounce dives.<BR> <BR> As I said before, I nor anybody else cares how you care to torment your bod= y, so don't get your panties in a wad.<BR> <BR> All I know is that I get out of the water feeling better and ready for the = next dive using gradient deco and 50-100 with air breaks. Since I have limit= ed my bottom PP02 to 1.1 to 1.2 my lungs don't feel burnt during and after t= he dive. I admit to being 43 years old and not very kind to my lungs over th= e years, perhaps you young studs can rack up the damage and not feel it.<BR> <BR> You assholes need to try this shit out before you poo-poo it. I have tried = both and made my decision. You need to take the buckets off of your heads, y= ou bunch of hypocrites.<BR> <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>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 12:37:41 -0400<BR> <B>To: </B>Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*><BR> <B>Cc: </B>Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com><BR> <B>Subject: </B>Re: 80/20 deco<BR> <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Jim, > So what you are telling me that you will use whate= ver it gets you out of the<BR> > water quicker, damage to your body be damned, and whatever I say or an= ybody<BR> > else says will not make you change your mind. The flawed modeling is a= ctually what would make me hesitate at using such a risky profile. You are b= asically saying that it is ok to blow between 25% and 33% of your deco, acco= rding to what the algorithm specifies, that we should trust your unpublished= findings. I don't know about you, but I would definitely hesitate at = getting out of the water before my schedule said it was ok. I know you'll be= wanting to avoid the fact that the decompression modeling using pure O2 is = flawed, that's a major oversight for a group that has such pride for it's at= tention to detail. <BR> <BR> > I don't know what it takes to get you guys to realize that the idea wi= th<BR> > deco is to remove nitrogen from you body and you don't do this by brea= thing<BR> > more nitrogen. Nitrogen is what causes the damage. You've seen these n= itrogen atoms doing damage, have you? This is very interesting Jim, very far= out. Everyone here who isn't so obviously biased has already accepted that = pure O2 deco isn't accurately accounted for in the modeling. Aren't there en= ough unknowns in diving for your taste Jim? You are now affirming that peopl= e should engage in practices on faith? Wow, this is getting funny, more, mor= e. <BR> <BR> > I also, IMHO, your thinking is flawed when you presume that using 80/2= 0<BR> > obviates the need for air breaks. Seems to me if you are doing *any* m= ix<BR> > where you are spending extensive time at 1.5 PP02 or above you would w= ant to<BR> > do air breaks to avoid long term damage to your lungs. Another mythica= l story, then it's sounds like all the modeling is flawed now, and only what= you preach is the word. Give me a break. <BR> <BR> > Oh, yeah, the only thing that matters is getting out of the water fast= , I<BR> > forgot. Actually, that wasn't a statement of mine. The only thing that= does matter actually is building a model that most accurately reflects what= is being practiced, and that yields statistically acceptable DCS incidence.= Ultimately, you have no choice but to agree with me Jim, not modeling what = happens in the water is a major oversight. Yes it's theory, and all that stu= ff, but at the end of the day, all we are left with is a tool that is based = on some model. Taking into account the events that take place in the water, = and that are material to the fundamental aspects of what is being accomplish= ed are the keys to attaining a better way of diving, independent of the gass= es used. There is no better gas, just safer, or riskier ways to manage decom= pression. -- <BR> Guy <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3050657662_4611372_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]