Deep Stops Increases DCS

[UWSojourner]

But these heat graphs of Kevin, only show / on / off gassing. That's interesting, its tissue gradients, or tissue saturation, but NOT supersaturation not decompression limits, not how deco is calculated.

Tissue gradients are 90% noise, they go up they go down, but that is not decompression or supersaturation information.

You're wrong. The heat map maps SUPERSATURATION.

 

[rossh]

You're wrong. The heat map maps SUPERSATURATION.

In the post above this one, I just showed you two errors, and there are many more. You seem to have your terminology mixed up, or errors in your underlying formula.

In either case, these errors in your heat graphs, have permeated to many other places. I think you need to address these mistakes, and start repairing the damage please.

.

 

[UWSojourner]

In the post above this one, I just showed you two errors, and there are many more. You seem to have your terminology mixed up, or errors in your underlying formula.

In either case, these errors in your heat graphs, have permeated to many other places. I think you need to address these mistakes, and start repairing the damage please.
.

The heat map is accurate and does exactly what it was designed to do -- comparing the "underlying on gassing and supersaturation" of profiles in a visual way. You don't understand the map, nor its calculations.

 

[PfcAJ]

VPM-B is still popular and works perfectly well. No faults at all with it.

VPM might not be your favorite model, but its still the most current and correct model we have in use today. No added fudges, makes perfectly good deco plans straight out of the box, that anyone can use.

Are you serious right now? Did you REALLY just write that? No faults? Perfectly good deco plans? Come on Ross, get it together.

 

[rossh]

The heat map is accurate and does exactly what it was designed to do -- comparing the "underlying on gassing and supersaturation" of profiles in a visual way. You don't understand the map, nor its calculations.

Oh I won't dispute that "...does exactly what it was designed to do...". Yes....it does exactly what it was designed to do, which is, convince the unwary into a false and invalid believe.


Sadly you keep making these same errors in terminology and the information show. There is no supersaturation in your diagrams. There is no decompression limit information either.

I pointed out two errors and I could have pointed to 34 more right now. I understand its going to take a while for you to accept the blame for such a dreadful set of mistakes. There are so many others riding on this too.


In either case, these errors in your heat graphs, have permeated to many other places. I think you need to address these mistakes, and start repairing the damage please.


*************



PS. I got reamed out by David once, for making the same kinds of mistakes you have made now...... I fixed mine, but yours have been allowed to stand.... the politics of one person seems to have overruled the truth.



.

 

[UWSojourner]

This reminds me of all the other "errors" you've pointed out in the deep stops thread. None were actual (as in this case too). One of my favorites was here. With complete confidence (as here) you state something that is so obviously wrong that it should be embarrassing to you.

The "errors" you point out are errors in your understanding of the heat map and how it's derived. Math, or anything conceptual, has never been your strong suit. It's not in this case either.

The map is accurate and accurately compares the relative supersaturations of the profiles it shows.

 

[rossh]

This reminds me of all the other "errors" you've pointed out in the deep stops thread. None were actual (as in this case too). One of my favorites ...With complete confidence (as here) you state something that is so obviously wrong that it should be embarrassing to you.

The "errors" you point out are errors in your understanding of the heat map and how it's derived. Math, or anything conceptual, has never been your strong suit. It's not in this case either.

The map is accurate and accurately compares the relative supersaturations of the profiles it shows.

You can defer and ignore and hide all you want. But the truth is your diagrams are wrong. They do not show what you claim. You have some seriously bad mistakes in the graphs.


Denial will not solve this. You need to own up to your errors, and fix them.

These graphs have been held up as some fancy technical authority on the subject. But turns out, they are invalid and wrong. I'm sorry Kevin - tough luck. You should have done more homework and less grandstanding back then..


.

 

[UWSojourner]

Believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[rjack321]

Sooooo....

A year and a half after this thread started, almost 38,000 views, 557 posts... Has anyone decided to switch from buhlmann profiles with higher GF lows to VPM profiles? Based on Ross' positions here or any other reason? e.g. you tried GF 40/80 after years of using VPM+2 and got bent so you're switching back or whatever?

 

[Freewillow]

Interesting to discuss all these graphs back and forward. But isn't the proof in the pudding? After all, what is the most important is not to get bends, and certainly not the neurological type. So the incidence of bends in the two methods should tell us what the best method is. And we all know which one it is