Does not compute but should I ?

[MikeFerrara]

SeaJay once bubbled...



There is no such thing as a no-deco dive. It's a misnomer. Every dive is a decompression dive.

hmmm...There are certainly dives when you can ascend directly to the surface without suffering symptoms of DCS. Of course ther is always some inert gas load but there is a point where it become much more of a concern.

There is no such thing as a "technical" dive, UP's just givin' ya a hard time. There is no "higher order" of diving... It's all the same.

I don't tkink so. Much more goes into a dive when you calculate (no matter how you do it) that an hour or two of decompression is required before you can surface. A miscalculation or miss-execution here can make you dead. I call that a technical dive don't you? Is this the same as what you did for two days in your DIRF? It's all the same right?

The tables which have been so drilled into all of us are simply standard models by which we can dive. You ARE decompressing during these dives; PADI, for example, says that decompressing at a constant rate of 60 ft/min will suffice for all of the numbers that they give you.

Of course you are decompressing during these dives. Correction...The PADI tables are designed for a maximum ascent rate of 60 ft/min. A slower ascent is recommended. I have other decompression tables that are designed for an ascent rate of 33 ft/min.

Obviously, if you ascend at 30 ft/min instead, then your decompression obligation is reduced.

Be carefull here...When you use software or tables that use a specific ascent rate to calculate decompression they mean for you to use THAT ascent rate. Especially at deeper depths slower is not always better because you need to ascent to a certain depth before decompression begins. Below that point you are not decompressing but rather you are just increasing your inert gas load.

However, it's not linear... You may be able to rise at 60 ft/minute from 130' to 70', but need to go 30 ft/min from 70 on up... And even slower from 20' to 0'. Make sense?

No. Tell us more. For instance how would you account for that in your decompression schedule. I know this isn't the tech forum but this thread has determined that there is no such thing as a technical dive so it looks like it needs to be addressed.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Uncle Pug once bubbled...
I am not an expert on this and wouldn't attempt to explain it here anyway... consider my above comments a teaser to get you to take a GUE class and get the inside scoop from them.

I'm not sure how to take that. I have discussed decompression procedures with technical divers from all over the world. I'm sure you are aware that most end up with their own take on it and use the methods they develop confidence in. I don't know that one needs to be an expert to discuss it.

 

[ScubaDan]

quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Uncle Pug once bubbled...
I am not an expert on this and wouldn't attempt to explain it here anyway... consider my above comments a teaser to get you to take a GUE class and get the inside scoop from them.
-------------------------------------------------

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


I'm not sure how to take that. I have discussed decompression procedures with technical divers from all over the world. I'm sure you are aware that most end up with their own take on it and use the methods they develop confidence in. I don't know that one needs to be an expert to discuss it.

I agree mike, I don't think we need to be experts to discuss it. We have all learned or should have learned our tables. They tell us computer will rot your brain but they don't tell us how not to use the computer, besides using our tables we used in OW class. GUE seems to have a way to use tables that we are not aware of and no one is willing to talk about it. If it is as easy as Seajay and others say it is, then why not share.

 

[SeaJay]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


hmmm...There are certainly dives when you can ascend directly to the surface without suffering symptoms of DCS. Of course ther is always some inert gas load but there is a point where it become much more of a concern.

Okay, at which exact point do you define it as "a concern?" If what you say is true, then a ten minute dive to 60 fsw is "a concern." According to the PADI dive tables, you need to ascend in one minute, not directly. Many other tables say, "take two minutes, not one." That's not a direct ascent, Mike. That's an ascent in one or two minutes.

A dive to 120 feet should take at least two minutes, but you're better off with four. Take a ten ten minute dive to 120 feet, and they don't recommend four... They recommend seven or eight, with the slowest point near the surface (through "deco" or "safety" stops). What difference does it make whether you call it "technical" or not?

Exactly at what point is it a concern? The answer that I was taught... And the one that I believe... Is that it's always a concern. There is no "higher order" of diving.

I don't tkink so. Much more goes into a dive when you calculate (no matter how you do it) that an hour or two of decompression is required before you can surface. A miscalculation or miss-execution here can make you dead.

Agreed... The necessity for precision (and the need for a slower acent rate) increases as the dive gets more extreme in terms of time and/or depth. All dives are still decompression dives, though.

I call that a technical dive don't you? Is this the same as what you did for two days in your DIRF? It's all the same right?

My DIR-F course was spent between 20 and 40 feet the entire time. We were very aware of our limitations there, too, and were required to rise at 30 ft/min even from those shallow depths.

Sure, the limitations were much higher than if the dive had been to 200fsw... But limitations were still there, and we needed to be aware of them.

Of course you are decompressing during these dives. Correction...The PADI tables are designed for a maximum ascent rate of 60 ft/min. A slower ascent is recommended. I have other decompression tables that are designed for an ascent rate of 33 ft/min.

I'm not really sure how that's a correction... I think we agree on that.

Tell us more. For instance how would you account for that in your decompression schedule. I know this isn't the tech forum but this thread has determined that there is no such thing as a technical dive so it looks like it needs to be addressed.

The ascent rate, as you rise to the surface, decreases exponentially.

For example, a diver dives to 120 feet and spends five minutes at that depth and then ascends to 60 feet in one minute... Then ascends to 30 feet in another minute... Then goes to 20 feet in another minute... Then spends three minutes at this "safety stop" before surfacing (in ten seconds). Here's the way things look mathematically:

Dive Time Depth Average Ascent Rate
0 min 0ft (Less than zero)
2 min 60ft (Less than zero)
4 min 120ft (Less than zero)
9 min 120ft (Less than zero)
(Begin ascent... Here's my point)
10 min 60ft 60fpm
11 min 30ft 45fpm
12 min 20ft 33fpm
13 min 15ft 26fpm
14 min 15ft 21fpm
15 min 0ft 20fpm

My point is the way that the dive ends... Progressively "slowing down" or decreasing your fpm ascent. That's the only point of a "deco stop" or "safety stop."

Thus, the dive tables recommend a "safety stop" or even "deco stop" in order to reduce your average ascent rate.

If looked at this way, there is no difference between "technical" and "nontechnical" dives. There is no "higher order" of diving. It's only about getting that acent rate correct, which is a number that depends on your tissue saturation... Obviously, the more time you spend on the dive and the deeper you go, the lower that number needs to be.

But all dives are decompression dives. All dives are "technical."

And yes, this is what was taught in DIR-F... Except that they went much further into this topic, at my request. The above is a brief overview. I don't think that "deco" is a normal part of the DIR-F curriculum.

 

[SeaJay]

ScubaDan once bubbled...

If it is as easy as Seajay and others say it is, then why not share.

Great question!

It's because the method can be more conservative than many computers on the market, but can also be less conservative than many computers on the market. They can differ just a bit.

But GUE teaches other things as well... A horizontal ascent, for example. Healthy living, for another example. Low fat intake, non-smoking, and being correctly hydrated. They preach physical fitness and all sorts of other things that may or may not, (but probably) have an effect on your body's ability to offgas. They teach correct trim and buoyancy, which leads to lower air consumption rates and a more relaxed diver, too. All these things come into play when using the easy method of "on-the-fly" deco calculation.

Thus, it would be very irresponsible for someone who understands the GUE method to release it onto the Internet for the consumption of the smoking, donut-eating, coffee-drinking, burger-eating newbie.

We're not trying to keep it a secret. If you want to know the full story, then we invite you to learn it correctly. It would no doubt end up hurting someone if it was simply released for all to consume.

And that's the "big mystery" of DIR. It's not a "one method" kind of thing... It's something that you have to commit to as a whole person in order to use safely.

Of course, this is where DIR gets it's "religious" overtones... But it's totally unfounded. It's not about religion... It's about an "all encompassing" method of diving... It's about a "holistic" attitude (meaning "surrounding," not "holy" or "sacred"). It starts with pushing the donut away and saying no to the coffee and burying the smokes for good.

I can understand if people think that it's got something to do with some sort of religious movement, but that's not the real picture at all.

It's about diving, man. It's about having FUN. It's about "deco on-the-fly," too.

It's about a true, honest-to-God understanding of diving and your body and your gear and all of it.

If you want to give it a religious overtone and call that an "enlightenment," then so be it. We don't. We don't think it has anything to do with religion.

...And that's the bottom line. If you want to know about DIR, then check it out. Step away from the screen and go check it out for yourself.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Some might enjoy this thread. UP talks about profiling.

HERE

 

[MikeFerrara]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Okay, at which exact point do you define it as "a concern?" If what you say is true, then a ten minute dive to 60 fsw is "a concern." According to the PADI dive tables, you need to ascend in one minute, not directly. Many other tables say, "take two minutes, not one." That's not a direct ascent, Mike. That's an ascent in one or two minutes.

We don't refer to an ascent time of ZERO as a direct ascent. A direct ascent is an ascent at an acceptable rate with no stops. After 10 min at 30 ft you would be likely to survive a direct ascent.

There are no exact points in diving. However inert gas loading is more of a concern when the incorrect ascent schedule is likely to result in sypmtoms of DCS.

A dive to 120 feet should take at least two minutes, but you're better off with four. Take a ten ten minute dive to 120 feet, and they don't recommend four... They recommend seven or eight, with the slowest point near the surface (through "deco" or "safety" stops). What difference does it make whether you call it "technical" or not?

IMO, you can call this dive anything you want. However we tend to call it technical when an incorrect ascent significantly reduces our chances of survival

Exactly at what point is it a concern? The answer that I was taught... And the one that I believe... Is that it's always a concern. There is no "higher order" of diving.

Do 60 min at 150+ and then tell me it's all the same and there isn't any "higher order" diving.

 

[MikeFerrara]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Great question!

It's because the method can be more conservative than many computers on the market, but can also be less conservative than many computers on the market. They can differ just a bit.

But GUE teaches other things as well... A horizontal ascent, for example. Healthy living, for another example. Low fat intake, non-smoking, and being correctly hydrated. They preach physical fitness and all sorts of other things that may or may not, (but probably) have an effect on your body's ability to offgas. They teach correct trim and buoyancy, which leads to lower air consumption rates and a more relaxed diver, too. All these things come into play when using the easy method of "on-the-fly" deco calculation.

Now there's a revelation. And nobody else teaches this stuff right?

Thus, it would be very irresponsible for someone who understands the GUE method to release it onto the Internet for the consumption of the smoking, donut-eating, coffee-drinking, burger-eating newbie.

We're not trying to keep it a secret. If you want to know the full story, then we invite you to learn it correctly. It would no doubt end up hurting someone if it was simply released for all to consume.

Congrats. 'This has to be the biggest load of crap that I've ever read on this board or anywhere else for that matter. I especially liked the use of the word newbie. I don't think you need to worry about withholding info in the interest of the safety of others.

 

[SeaJay]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


Now there's a revelation. And nobody else teaches this stuff right?

I didn't say that. I haven't taken every course taught by every agency, so I'm not qualified to talk about that.

But I can tell you that the stuff I learned in DIR-F was very different from the stuff that I learned in my various PADI classes.

Congrats. 'This has to be the biggest load of crap that I've ever read on this board or anywhere else for that matter.

Pardon? That seems like a completely unfounded attack with no basis...

Personally, I don't believe that this stuff should be taught to people unless the "whole story" is taught. I'm not against sharing the information... I'm against sharing the information partially... And that can certainly be more dangerous than not sharing the information at all! Look at all of Uncle Pug's disclaimers in his post that you pointed out. (Frankly, I'm surprsed that UP shared all of that information on the 'net like he did, but if he wants to share, that's his right... I don't care to do that unless we practice together.)

I especially liked the use of the word newbie. I don't think you need to worry about withholding info in the interest of the safety of others.

Oh no?

Mike, I'm not saying that I'm the most experienced diver here... But yes, I have this information, and I'm not going to handle it lightly and just "hand it out freely" to anyone. I consider that dangerous. If the person wants to know, then they need to take the class.

Likewise, I don't go into a chat room and tell people how to scuba dive. If they want to know, then they need to take the class and learn for themselves. There aren't any special secrets.

Call it what you will... I thought we were both on the same page until this attack.

 

[MikeS]

SeaJay once bubbled...


Thus, it would be very irresponsible for someone who understands the GUE method to release it onto the Internet for the consumption of the smoking, donut-eating, coffee-drinking, burger-eating newbie.

We're not trying to keep it a secret. If you want to know the full story, then we invite you to learn it correctly. It would no doubt end up hurting someone if it was simply released for all to consume.

Sounds like; "don't look at the man behind the curtain" to me!

Mike