Where does the 60ft/minute ascent rule come from?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

mbacarella

Registered
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
New York City
# of dives
25 - 49
What's the scientific basis for PADI's(?) 60ft/minute ascent rule?

I'm a bit confused about its origins and what concerns are recommending it.

Freedivers certainly bust it and the Bühlmann decompression algorithm doesn't specify any kind of 60ft/min ascent rule. Bühlmann (ZHL-16, for instance) only specifies a maximum "ceiling" as a function of depth * time * tissue loads, and the ceilings are almost always higher than 60ft/minute.
 
What's the scientific basis for the 60ft/minute ascent rule?

I'm a bit confused about its origins and recommendation. Freedivers certainly bust it and the Bühlmann decompression algorithm doesn't specify any kind of 60ft/min ascent rule. Bühlmann only specifies a maximum "ceiling" as a function of depth * time * tissue loads, and the ceilings are almost always higher than 60ft/minute.

1- Freedivers aren't breathing compressed gas, completely different (altho they can get bent).
2- Buhlmann came around after the 60fpm ascent rule.
 
What's the scientific basis for PADI's(?) 60ft/minute ascent rule?

I'm a bit confused about its origins and what concerns are recommending it.

Freedivers certainly bust it and the Bühlmann decompression algorithm doesn't specify any kind of 60ft/min ascent rule. Bühlmann (ZHL-16, for instance) only specifies a maximum "ceiling" as a function of depth * time * tissue loads, and the ceilings are almost always higher than 60ft/minute.

Ancient history. 30 FPM is the new 60 FPM. Slower is always better.
 
had something to do with navy vs commercial divers. the navy had chambers they were going to dump their divers in after a dive. or it was the speed at which a hard hat diver could be hauled up by a winch, or some such BS. I think it was set back wards, like that is the speed they could do it so that is what was written down.

either way slower is better.
 
This is a long story but perspective is needed.

History largely credits Paul Bert with the first scientific investigation of hyperbaric medicine described in his paper published in 1878. The specific information was not widely known outside of a pretty esoteric group of physiologists, but it did provide the basis for the concept of decompression and oxygen toxicity. All this was too late for the caisson workers on the Brooklyn Bridge where the name Bends was coined — a popular dance of the time that involved contorted gestures was called the Grecian Bend.

The phenomenon that was known as Diver's Palsy, Compressed Air Illness, and Caisson's Disease was a mystery to most of the medical community. Actual work to develop useful decompression procedures began with empirical testing in the early 1900s rather than tissue theories. They basically slammed navy divers in the barrel and tried ideas out.

Tables evolved as data was gathered and analyzed, almost exclusively from the world's navies (who could pay for it). Tables got more conservative when hit rates were too high and made more lenient when hits were low to nonexistent. Decompression theories evolved and were tested against this statistical base fueled by research money from world navies, the offshore oil service industry, and the availability of computers starting in the 1960s.

So, where did 60'/minute come from? I doubt anyone is alive who can conclusively say, but I can see a couple of hard hat divers standing in front of a chamber at the old Experimental Diving Unit at the Navy yard in Washington DC saying to the Doc "let's see how 1'/second works because it is easy to control". Think stop watch, big pressure gauge calibrated in Feet of Sea Water, and manipulating a valve trying to maintain an exhaust rate.
 
The 60 ft/min ascent rate was a compromise rate for the navy tables, some wanted faster, some slower

had something to do with navy vs commercial divers. the navy had chambers they were going to dump their divers in after a dive. or it was the speed at which a hard hat diver could be hauled up by a winch, or some such BS. I think it was set back wards, like that is the speed they could do it so that is what was written down

The story goes that it was negotiated down (slower) by the tenders who lifted hard-hat divers; they didn't want to work that hard (to pull them up at the suggested speed) so a compromise between science and effort was reached

In other words, it had nothing to do with science


either way slower is better

Depends on the depth; slower can mean more on-gassing, so no slower isn't always better
 
This is a long story but perspective is needed.

History largely credits Paul Bert with the first scientific investigation of hyperbaric medicine described in his paper published in 1878. The specific information was not widely known outside of a pretty esoteric group of physiologists, but it did provide the basis for the concept of decompression and oxygen toxicity. All this was too late for the caisson workers on the Brooklyn Bridge where the name Bends was coined — a popular dance of the time that involved contorted gestures was called the Grecian Bend.

The phenomenon that was known as Diver's Palsy, Compressed Air Illness, and Caisson's Disease was a mystery to most of the medical community. Actual work to develop useful decompression procedures began with empirical testing in the early 1900s rather than tissue theories. They basically slammed navy divers in the barrel and tried ideas out.

Tables evolved as data was gathered and analyzed, almost exclusively from the world's navies (who could pay for it). Tables got more conservative when hit rates were too high and made more lenient when hits were low to nonexistent. Decompression theories evolved and were tested against this statistical base fueled by research money from world navies, the offshore oil service industry, and the availability of computers starting in the 1960s.

So, where did 60'/minute come from? I doubt anyone is alive who can conclusively say, but I can see a couple of hard hat divers standing in front of a chamber at the old Experimental Diving Unit at the Navy yard in Washington DC saying to the Doc "let's see how 1'/second works because it is easy to control". Think stop watch, big pressure gauge calibrated in Feet of Sea Water, and manipulating a valve trying to maintain an exhaust rate.

Fascinating story, but it sounds like you're saying the 60'/min ascent rule is about as scientifically valid as an old wives' tale? I can imagine the no swimming 30 minutes after eating tale having a similar basis. :wink:

It'd be nice to find some real evidence, since if one relies on the ZHL-16 model alone, you could safely ascend to 5' from 100' after 20 minutes, with no speed restriction. It drives me crazy to yield all of that premium diving time on an unjustified theory.

If your story is the extend of it, you're saying we have no idea why the ascent limit exists and why we follow it, but most people don't have the balls to ignore it. :)
 
No offense but... says who? And how do they know?
For dives where any tissue is close to it's Mvalue, a slow ascent is almost always better. It gives the gas time to expand in the tissue and off gas according to the gas's half life within the tissue and the tissues off gassing rate. In theory it's possible to stay so long that you're slower tissues are still ongassing, but that's rare, and you would have to take it to such an extreme that it's just to prove a point (IE 3 hours at 40ft coming up from a 50ft dive, or a really deep dive).

I won't argue that you can play with decoplanner and find a situation that proves slower isn't always better, but for a recreational diver who's asking this out of curiosity that's nearly always a safe statement to make.
 
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom