Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
One suspects that Trey and JJ are not about to see this one anywhere = near the end of the line at Wakulla next time they head out. But of course = they may not survive their deco due to the "flawed modelling" of their deco shedules and the "complacent execution" of the deco process. I think I = know who has the runs on the board and the Doppler results to show it. =A0 Cheers Steve Bliim -----Original Message----- From: Guy Morin [mailto:xnet@vi*.ca*] Sent: Saturday, 2 September 2000 2:13 To: Bill Wolk Cc: Techdiver Subject: Re: 80/20 deco Hi Bill,=20 As far as your characterizations on the fabled "oxygen=20 window", please point us to the relevant publications,=20 as there are none. The only material anyone has seen=20 on your unicorn are the allusions to physiological benefits=20 of saturating tissues with O2. This only happens in a state=20 of rest which probably only applies to someone in a warm,=20 dry decompression chamber. In addition, the material you=20 allude to only speaks to the physiological benefits of=20 saturating tissue with oxygen, and not to the effect on=20 concentration gradients, or anything remotely connected=20 with decompression. In fact, the only conclusion one can=20 draw from the posts you mention is that if one gets bent=20 as a result of your flawed modeling, there should be lots=20 of oxygen around to assist in the tissue repair while the body=20 is healing.=20 In addition, there is no theory, or material that is available=20 on the net, on this forum, or from you, for other people=20 to review and scrutinize, which is typically how things are=20 done.=20 There are no demands on my part, it is very easy though=20 to find holes in the obvious oversights from the complacent=20 execution you folks seem to exhibit on this forum. What=20 seems even more dangerous is that you people want others=20 to do what you do blindly? Is that right? You are obviously=20 endowed with a powerful sense of humor.=20 Jim seemed to find that my analysis was quite accurate.=20 By the way, the competitive, and complacent attitude that=20 no one else but you folks are doing serious dives is rather=20 comical. Do you not think that one can get seriously hurt=20 on a dive other than WKPP? Certainly, I think most people=20 out here have more reverence for the dives they do, and=20 that probably goes a long way to ensuring they come back=20 home. Are you suggesting that everyone else in the world=20 need not do any deco, because it's not serious diving anyway?=20 Please Bill, entertain us some more.=20 Guy=20 =A0=20 Bill Wolk wrote:=20 Guy -=20 Not only is your thesis completely wrong, you are obviously too close=20 minded to realize it. If you don't read "the barrage of emails" you're=20 receiving, why bother to post anything? And if you're going to post on=20 this list, leave your arrogant attitude at the door because you = obviously=20 know nothing.=20 You want an answer "within parameters," here it is: on the bounce dive=20 that Karl Russel started this discussion with -- 200 feet, 30 minutes,=20 18/35 back gas -- there's no need to take back gas breaks on any deco=20 schedule. 100% O2 is better than 80/20 for the reasons already stated = at=20 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=20 you the biggest oxygen window. Read the Baker's Dozen post and all the=20 responses. You don't understand what an oxygen window is? Then read my=20 post and Scott Hunsucker's posts to Scott Bonis on the subject.=A0 Or = go to=20 the archives and read just about anything posted on deco by George=20 Irvine, Bill Mee, Jess Armantrout, Bruce Wienke, Erik Baker -- you = know,=20 the guys who actually do the deco that matters, write the software, or=20 research the applied physics of bubble mechanics.=20 Or if that's just too much work for you, or too difficult to = understand,=20 then just read Jim Cobb's original posts, because Cobb was right from = Day=20 1 and said it best: It's the nitrogen, stupid!=20 Damn, I hate people who jump on this list with their "I don't = understand=20 the concepts but I know I'm right attitude." YOU are what's wrong with=20 technical diving. And you want "rules of engagement?" -- Here they are: = STFU and STFD.=A0 Make a little effort to read and research before you = come=20 here and make demands.=20 On8/31/00 1:24 PM, Guy Morin wrote:=20 >Hi there,=20 >=20 >After receiving a barrage of e-mails in regard to this=20 >discussion, I thought it opportune to put in my two=20 >cent's worth.=20 >=20 >As part of the rules of engagement here, for me to=20 >address any rebuttal of my thesis, I will only entertain=20 >issues provided the relate to the essence of the original=20 >post which is the comparison between EAN 36 and 80=20 >deco versus EAN 50 and O2. Any digression that does=20 >not involve a comparison of those two profiles will be=20 >ignored.=20 >=20 >The most important point=A0 in regard to the resulting=20 >tissue tensions is that the EAN 50 and oxygen profile=20 >as calculated by the deco software does not take into=20 >account the breaks from breathing pure O2.=20 >=20 >This means that if I breath pure O2 for 66 to 75% of=20 >the time spent at the shallow stops, then I did not=20 >off-gas as much as the decompression software assumes=20 >I did, given that it calculates based on the fact that I=20 >should have been breathing pure O2 the whole time.=20 >=20 >Therefore, the argument that the tissue tensions of=20 >the EAN 50 and O2 decompression are better than=20 >EAN 36 and 80 deco are false. We really don't know=20 >what the tissue levels are for the EAN 50 and O2 deco=20 >because we are really diving something else.=20 >=20 >Bottom line is that if one accounts for the breaks from=20 >pure O2 breathing, the in-water time, for a given algorithm=20 >will increase. I hope everyone can agree on this point. While=20 >we are not breathing O2, we are not off-gassing as much=20 >as when breathing O2, and we could be on-gassing in=20 >some compartments.=20 >=20 >Basically, what I am proposing involves work. The algorithms=20 >we use would need to be modified to account for the fact=20 >that we take breaks from pure O2 decompression.=20 >=20 >Please try to stick to the paradigm that involves comparison=20 >of the two profiles. That is to say that if some magical algorithm=20 >were used, it would have to be used the same way for both=20 >profiles, and would have to account for the oxygen breaks,=20 >rather than ignoring them.=20 >=20 >If people on this list are unable to acknowledge the fact=20 >that pure O2 decompression requires breaks that are not=20 >presently accounted for in decompression software, and=20 >that the substantial amount of time spent on these other=20 >gasses translates to a material difference in residual tissue=20 >saturation levels, please do not bother to reply, I don't care=20 >for hand waving explanations.=20 >=20 >In addition, any theories, or practices you might think clever=20 >would also apply for the 80/20. Again, what works for one=20 >profile, must be applied to both. It's easy to say that we're=20 >not going to account for those breaks from O2, and if that's=20 >the case, then we have obviously nothing to discuss.=20 >=20 >In closing, I trust we can keep the discussion a civil one,=20 >free of the competitive ramblings that often plague such=20 >exchanges, specifically: "my deco profile is better than yours."=20 >Those not interested in the analytical exercise proposed herein=20 >may abstain.=20 >=20 >--=20 >Guy=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Best regards --=20 =A0=20 -- 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]