Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Bill Wolk wrote: > On9/1/00 10:43 PM, Guy Morin wrote: > If you're still going to take the position that 80/20 is better even in > the face of the obvious, please list the citations, journal articles, man > hours of testing, theory and mathematical models that support your > position since it goes against what you clearly know to be the case. You couldn't even do what you ask. > There's no added magic in any of these discussions. My intent was to > restate the basics of established deco theory for the benefit of people > who were unclear on a few particulars or who wanted to understand the > pros and cons of 100% O2 vs. 80/20 deco. It was you who claimed without a > basis that established concepts like oxygen windows -- a concentration > gradient -- were mythical. You do remember that post, Guy, now that > you're backpedaling? Not at all, I mistakenly thought you actually had something new to add. Obviously this was a mistake. Thank you for confirming that you weren't adding anything new. > > > > First, the only thing you are correct about, Guy, is that no present > model or algorithm accounts for their effects. Great, thank you Bill, that's all I was after. > However, any of the > current deco software packages could be easily modified to do so, by > adding 5 minutes on back gas for every 25 on 02 or 80/20 after a certain > CNS clock percentage is reached. Simple programming. Great, glad to hear my demands aren't so outrageous now. Why didn't we bother to model it before, or think about it in these debates on the merits of decompression options, and more importantly on the quantitative comparison between decompression approaches. Earlier in your post you asked for evidence on the value of 36/80 deco, here you now state that you can produce it. Thank you for now validating everything I've been pointing out on the subject. > > > I have also noticed that in each of your posts you inflate the percentage > of deco taken up by back gas breaks so you can pretend that it's so > significant that it undermines the other advantages of 100% O2 over > 80/20. But that really isn't the case, is it Guy? My consultations with folks who seem to know more about WKPP techniques pointed out that they use 12/6 spread in the breaks as opposed to the 15/5 taught in most nitrox classes. Are you alluding to any conspiracy. Or, are you pointing that I am trying to make 50/100 deco look worse than it really is? Usually this is a tactic used by "your camp", as evidenced by the title of some e-mails: "80/20 nonsense". Basically, most people here are well aware that WKPP fans are so infatuated with themselves as to lose all reason when negative adjectives, or adverbs are associated with their religion^D^D^D^D^D^D^D^Dtechniques. You can rest assured that the rest of us are adults and can cope. You also seem to display marked tendencies in this department with your liberal use of expletives, and wise cracks. You are only doing yourself a disservice by indulging yourself in this pettiness. > > > The standard break is 5 minutes on back gas for every 20-25 minutes on O2 > (or 80/20) once you get to 80% on the CNS clock, so they're going to > account for at most 16.7% of every *hour* on O2 -- usually far less since > there are very few people regularly doing dives that require an hour on > pure oxygen. Let's now compare residual inert gas numbers, and in-water times, please. Then, we can move on to performing comparable field tests so that neither one of us looks like he is talking through his hat. > > > For purposes of this discussion, we can break technical diving into 3 > types of dives: > > 1. The vast majority of bounce dives (like 200'for 30 minutes) that > don't require back gas breaks on either 100% O2 or 80/20. For those > dives, Guy, you've already agreed above that 100% O2 is the better deco > gas, so enough said. I see no such affirmation, you are presumptuous. > > > 2. Those relatively few long exploration dives that will require back > gas breaks whether the deco mix is 80/20 or 100% O2. Since either deco > gas choice will require back gas breaks, and you've already agreed that > 100% O2 is the better deco gas choice, you should be using 100% O2. Why > aren't you Guy? Oh, I forget, you don't do these dives do you? If you > did, we would have heard about them already, wouldn't we? > > 3. The small number of dives that require back gas breaks on 100% O2 but > not on 80/20. There are so few profiles that fall into this middle ground > that I haven't been able to come up with a single one of them, but I know > they exist theoretically. And since your frighteningly stupid posts might > have people consider 80/20 for these few dives, I have to address it. > > Dives that fall into this category will have at most one back gas break, > because a longer dive would require a back gas break on 80/20 as well. > That's 5 minutes on back gas. So the real question for these does is: Is > 80/20 deco more efficient at removing inert gas than 100% O2 deco with a > 5 minutes back gas break? > > > To answer that question, you wrote this idiocy in another 80/20 deco post: > > GM >On a final note on the 80/20 deco saga, given that the WKPP > GM >spends a third of the time on back gas, and two-thirds on pure > GM >O2, let's work out the weighted O2 concentration, over time: > > > GM >Let's assume that back gas is 14% O2. > > > GM >...66 x 1.0 + .33 x .14 = 0.7062 > > Guy - Tell me you're really not this clueless about decompression? > Arithmetically weighted averages?! I want to make it clear to anyone who > might read this in your post: It is wrong. It is dangerous. Don't use it, > follow it, or even consider it right for a moment. Any one who posts > something this wrong should be removed from this group. Guy -- for your > own sake, find a good technical diving instructor and go back to class. Bill, tell me you are not so inept in your reading skills, here you claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of decompression, yet you can't deal with a simple logical construct. This is pathetic Bill, get yourself into an English course. It is a simple calculation indeed, and does not suggest, propose, or allude to a decompression strategy. Your reading skills realy aren't up to the job here. It point out that "on average" the best you can expect from a decompression schedule promoted by the WKPP, is far inferior to what is claimed by the WKPP. A toddler would not even find that a triumph. Are you such a simpleton, Bill? This is what I mean, Bill, when I say that you need to be able to read English to decipher what is intended here. Remember, Bill, that you are the one who suggests that people get out of the water without considering the breaks at all. You sir, are the one who is promoting dangerous practices, and in putting yourself up as an expert here, it might be wise for you to make sure you are insured against potential litigation. You are a fool Bill. Everyone who reads your nonsense here can make a pretty clear call. Are you, all of a sudden, Bill, suggesting that people should be using programs that take into account breaks? > > GM >And I thought this was going to be interesting. > > And I knew from your first post that it wasn't going to be. I just > didn't appreciate that you'd be so clueless that you're dangerous. It is you and your kind, Bill, that are dangerous, and again that is obvious to the impartial reader. > > > By the way, there was one remark from an earlier post of yours that I > ignored that's worth responding to. You said no one is going to win the > Nobel prize for deco theory and -- this I found really amusing -- "for > most of the decompression models out there, I don't think one can get a > math degree for a single one of them." > > Here's Bruce Wienke's email address: brw@la*.go*. He's a physicist at > the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory working on bubble mechanics -- as I > understand it, one of the most complex and difficult areas of applied > physics. Thank you for playing, applied sciences have very poor chances of getting a Nobel. > He's also the author of the RGBM deco model, which incorporates > his bubble mechanics research. It's the model underlying Abyss, all the > Naui-Tek tables, and the new line of Suunto computers. In my opinion -- > and this is only my opinion -- it may be the most important work in deco > modeling since Buhlmann. > > > I think you should write Dr. Wienke and break the news that his work > isn't that difficult, really doesn't require a math degree, and is not > going to earn him a Nobel prize, because you obviously know more about > decompression than he does. And while you're at, tell us what training > agency you write tables for. For the the commercially available software packages that actually run, my statements are perfectly accurate. You really need to brush up on your English. The RGBM for Abyss isn't even close to commercialization. Again, exponential ralationships used in most computer models are used every day, not rocket science. Sorry about your reading skills, there is hope for you Bill, don't despair. Applied sciences have only once fetched a Nobel, the transistor. I doubt that something else in the applied sciences will have the far reaching impact on human civilization as the transistor, and I'll put money that it isn't going to come from bubble mechanics. Optics, maybe, bubble mechanics, good luck. I'll also bet that Dr. Wienke is pretty realistic in his expectations of a Nobel. Again, your feeble attempts at diminishing another are obvious, and will only be of disservice to you Bill, and to the folks that promote the dangerous practices you defend. > > > Have a nice life, Guy. Again you speak of something you know nothing of. > On a final note Bill, thank you for conceding, in a very well disguised post, that the dangerous WKPP practices of neglecting breaks during O2 decompression, specifically in how decompression schedules are generated, is going to be addressed. This comes as a relief to me, and to a majority of divers out there, I can only assume. This goes a long way to substantiating that incorporating the oxygen breaks in the very gas one is breathing is simplicity itself, and a embraces the very paradigms of the Hogarthian way. BTW, this affirmation of yours goes a long way to refuting your earlier affirmation that I had nothing to contribute to this list. This is your most magnanimous gift to me as an individual, thank you. Also, I trust you will get a tutor to help you to manage the reading of these posts, it would be a pity for you to be a promoter of misunderstanding. Best regards, Guy -- 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]