Is there a Nitrogen Loading Equilibrium Point?

[AzAtty]

Being an exponential function, the saturation curve only approaches, but does not reach, the asymptote (complete saturation). Therefore, I suppose if you want to get really technical, the correct answer would be that saturation only occurs at the limit as exposure time approaches infinity. Therefore, we are never truly saturated or truly at equilibrium. That's one correct answer, although it's entirely useless for planning dives.

Again being hypertechnical, gas molecules continously transit between cellular boundaries (e.g. blood and muscle tissues) due to random molecular motion, and "saturation" or "equilibrium" is the theoretical point at which approximately the same "quantity" of gas molecules diffuse into and out of cells and with approximately the same degree of frequency. So one can also accurately say that ongassing and offgassing occur constantly due to random molecular motion. This is also a technically correct, but practically useless, answer.

Bob provided the practical and useful answer.

 

[Blackwood]

Being an exponential function, the saturation curve only approaches, but does not reach, the asymptote (complete saturation). Therefore, I suppose if you want to get really technical, the correct answer would be that saturation only occurs at the limit as exposure time approaches infinity. Therefore, we are never truly saturated or truly at equilibrium. That's one correct answer, although it's entirely useless for planning dives.

That's just modeling. It's like saying I can never touch a table because as I move my finger towards it I merely halve the distance an infinite number of times. The math works, but it's obviously not true.

 

[AzAtty]

That's just modeling. It's like saying I can never touch a table because as I move my finger towards it I merely halve the distance an infinite number of times. The math works, but it's obviously not true.

Mathematically, it is true. It's the concept embodied in the limit. Also, again to be hypertechnical, in your analogy with touching the table, the molecules of your fingers never actually make contact with the molecules of the table. What you perceive as "touching" the table is really the electron charges in your body and the table repelling each other. Your finger is actually hovering above the table at a distance of one angstrom; you're not touching it.

 

[Blackwood]

Mathematically, it is true.

Theoretically it's true.

Your finger is actually hovering above the table at a distance of one angstrom; you're not touching it.

Fine, modify my analogy as follows:

I can never get within one angstrom of the table because I merely halve [the distance minus one angstrom] an infinite number of times.

 

[AzAtty]

Theoretically it's true.

No, mathematically it's true. A function bounded by an asymptote doesn't cross the asymptote, but only approaches the asymptote.

Fine, modify my analogy as follows:

I can never get within one angstrom of the table because I merely halve [the distance minus one angstrom] an infinite number of times.

It's actually a question of energy. You cannot exert enough force to overcome the repulsion of the two surfaces, so the molecules can't touch. Even then, there's a lot of space in the atomic world.

Like I said in the original post, the answers I provided are correct, but useless in a practical sense--just like our discussion: fun, but meaningless. One poster suggested that only two of the answers provided by other posters were correct, and my post was more directed at showing that one can pose a technically correct, but practically useless, answer.

 

[Gombessa]

So far, I've taken away from this thread that in order to come of AGE, you have to do math at 20ft while flying for less than 8 hours but simultaneously more than 60 days, but only if you you keep the electrons in your finger more than one angstrom away from the PADI tables, because they don't like to be touched.

Is that about right?

 

[Cave Diver]

Mathematically, it is true. It's the concept embodied in the limit. Also, again to be hypertechnical, in your analogy with touching the table, the molecules of your fingers never actually make contact with the molecules of the table. What you perceive as "touching" the table is really the electron charges in your body and the table repelling each other. Your finger is actually hovering above the table at a distance of one angstrom; you're not touching it.

So if I cut my buddy and swim off when I see a shark, how did he get blood poisoning from the rusty old kitchen knife I carry when diving?

 

[Gombessa]

So if I cut my buddy and swim off when I see a shark, how did he get blood poisoning from the rusty old kitchen knife I carry when diving?

Quit encouraging him

 

[Cave Diver]

Quit encouraging him

The shark, or my buddy?

 

[Blackwood]

No, mathematically it's true. A function bounded by an asymptote doesn't cross the asymptote, but only approaches the asymptote.



It's actually a question of energy. You cannot exert enough force to overcome the repulsion of the two surfaces, so the molecules can't touch. Even then, there's a lot of space in the atomic world.

Like I said in the original post, the answers I provided are correct, but useless in a practical sense--just like our discussion: fun, but meaningless. One poster suggested that only two of the answers provided by other posters were correct, and my post was more directed at showing that one can pose a technically correct, but practically useless, answer.

I'm not questioning the math. I'm just saying that we don't know that tissues load and unload exponentially.