I struggled with how to present this topic, because it has enough facets that I considered making it a couple of different threads. I am just exploring here and hoping for thoughts. I do not have a clear position--I stand in the perplexed middle.
My training in this is strictly UTD. After initial training from my instructor, I completed the full class with Andrew Georgitsis. Before taking that class, for more than a year I asked a lot of challenging questions to my instructor, to Andrew, and to Jeff Seckendorf, the Director of Training. I was highly suspicious of it, and I wanted more information that would satisfy me before I entrusted myself to it on aggressive dives. When I finally took the class, some of the presentation was clearly aimed directly at me--Andrew addressed me directly on some of his points. Not wanting to disrupt the class, I pretty much just took notes.
As for my knowledge of GUE, I got this from personal correspondence with JJ. I asked him the same questions I was asking Andrew and Jeff, and he very graciously gave me extended and detailed responses.
It was clear to me that there is a significant and growing difference between the two versions of RD. I will start with one of those differences here--the fundamental purpose and nature of RD.
JJ emphasized that RD is not a deco algorithm. It was created to enable divers to create an approximation of an established decompression algorithm. Because it is a linear mathematical process, it cannot perfectly recreate a nonlinear deco algorithm. It does successfully provide a good approximation within established parameters, and it can be used for that purpose within those parameters. When used, a diver should be able to validate it in comparison to the established algorithm.
Although in my discussions with UTD it was agreed that RD is not an algorithm, in the same email it said, in almost these words, that it is an algorithm. It is the primary planning tool for all dives, not because it accurately approximates an established algorithm, but because it is superior to established algorithms. In my RD class, RD derived ascent profiles were sometimes compared with various software profiles, not to show the similarity, but rather (it seemed to me) to celebrate the difference.
My training in this is strictly UTD. After initial training from my instructor, I completed the full class with Andrew Georgitsis. Before taking that class, for more than a year I asked a lot of challenging questions to my instructor, to Andrew, and to Jeff Seckendorf, the Director of Training. I was highly suspicious of it, and I wanted more information that would satisfy me before I entrusted myself to it on aggressive dives. When I finally took the class, some of the presentation was clearly aimed directly at me--Andrew addressed me directly on some of his points. Not wanting to disrupt the class, I pretty much just took notes.
As for my knowledge of GUE, I got this from personal correspondence with JJ. I asked him the same questions I was asking Andrew and Jeff, and he very graciously gave me extended and detailed responses.
It was clear to me that there is a significant and growing difference between the two versions of RD. I will start with one of those differences here--the fundamental purpose and nature of RD.
JJ emphasized that RD is not a deco algorithm. It was created to enable divers to create an approximation of an established decompression algorithm. Because it is a linear mathematical process, it cannot perfectly recreate a nonlinear deco algorithm. It does successfully provide a good approximation within established parameters, and it can be used for that purpose within those parameters. When used, a diver should be able to validate it in comparison to the established algorithm.
Although in my discussions with UTD it was agreed that RD is not an algorithm, in the same email it said, in almost these words, that it is an algorithm. It is the primary planning tool for all dives, not because it accurately approximates an established algorithm, but because it is superior to established algorithms. In my RD class, RD derived ascent profiles were sometimes compared with various software profiles, not to show the similarity, but rather (it seemed to me) to celebrate the difference.