Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I sure hope all you Canadians aren't this stupid. I'm getting reports that this Guy Moron jerk is a single tank rec diver who's hobby is sitting on his ass pontificating to newbies about what a Dive God he is. Can you imagine getting stuck on a dive boat with him? What a fucking nightmare. I guess we can call him Black II. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ > From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> > Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:35:45 -0400 > To: Bill Wolk <BillWolk@ea*.ne*> > Cc: Techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > Subject: Re: Oxygen window & 80/20 Deco > > 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'. > -- 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]