NEDU Study

[Patoux01]

What these people seek today, is more than double what we did in 2001. Where is the justification?

Wait what? You did the big the dives?
I'd trust pcfaj, kensurf and others quite a bit more than you when it comes to saying that things go wrong on bigger dives. The dives you presented from DCIEM and your "validation of VPM" are baby dives for many tec divers nowadays...

If you start seeing that the model fails when doing larger dives, I'd tend to become suspicious of it even on smaller dives.

 

[rossh]

Ross,

once again anecdotal evidence good for conversation at the pub while drinking beer, not in a scientific discussion against experiment in a controlled environment.

Basis of scientific method is independent repeatability to verify outcome.


Cheers

I'm glad you bring that up.... because the anecdotal reason is all that drives their current argument.

**********

These basic facts still remain:

* The nedu did not test proper deep stops or our tech models,

* The nedu test did not "protect its fast tissue" as claimed,

* The nedu test does not have "similar supersaturation patterns" to a tech or deeper stop models, as claimed.


Those most basic components of the anti-VPM/anti-deep stop argument, do not exist. The central premise of their connection to tech argument, is simply not there. The rest of the supporting arguments, is irrelevant or invalid. Their argument is a circumstantial one, not factual.


What was the consequential finding of the nedu test?


* That existing on / off gas kinetic formula work.


As it turns out, all existing models already follow these formula anyway. Therefore nothing is broken, nothing needs fixing.


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


It's amazing just how far this argument has gone, based on invalid comparisons, Kevin's home made graphs and home made stress measures, and endless excuses to prop it all up. As well it all hinges on exaggerated use of GF which has been promoted to some pseudo standard, despite it being mathematically unsound for this purpose.


These self made / self serving justifications we see here to make some association to tech, are mostly excuses to allow them to keep going and hide that they have no science to back it up.


You say anecdotal:

an·ec·do·tal
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.


The arguments they make for conviction has no real science or valid measure to connect nedu to VPM-B or tech practices... The evidence they claim to hold up their arguments is based on false measures or is unrelated. They use a lot of non-science and clearly distorted reasons to make a change...

Therefore, their current arguments against VPM-B are... ????

Further more, the real problem area all along, has been the ad-hoc RD style deco methods, that do break the gas kinetic rules, but no one wants to mention that...


On my side, I have shown conclusively with real science measures, that the nedu test connection does not exist. I have shown and invalidated the explanation opinion based positions offered, also using real science measures.


That's where its stands.... The high standards of science have been ignored in this push to convert divers back to the shallow end. There are lots of excuse made, and bad interpretations to push their argument, but not science.


******

Now lets sit back and watch as the excuses flood in, as they stomp this post into oblivion.

.

 

[Diver0001]

I'm glad you bring that up.... because the anecdotal reason is all that drives their current argument.

**********

These basic facts still remain:

* The nedu did not test proper deep stops or our tech models,

* The nedu test did not "protect its fast tissue" as claimed,

* The nedu test does not have "similar supersaturation patterns" to a tech or deeper stop models, as claimed.

.

Ross, I've asked this question multiple times and you have failed to answer it. I think people finding this thread are still curious about your answer.

Why are you utterly alone in these criticisms of NEDU? If what you say were really "facts" then there would be articles from decompression experts that are asking the same questions.

Can you cite even ONE article from an actual decompression scientist that levels the same criticism?

How can your opinion be a "fact" if you are the only person in the world who believes it?

R..

 

[fsardone]

Ross thank you for you reply.

I also stated:

Basis of scientific method is independent repeatability to verify outcome.

And you say:

.

On my side, I have shown conclusively with real science measures, that the nedu test connection does not exist. I have shown and invalidated the explanation opinion based positions offered, also using real science measures.


That's where its stands.... The high standards of science have been ignored in this push to convert divers back to the shallow end. There are lots of excuse made, and bad interpretations to push their argument, but not science.

.

Unfortunately very few share this opinion. You used your program to produce fancy graphics that have little or no connection with experimental reality. A computer model can give you numbers and picture but is not necessarily connected to reality.
Where is your experimental data? Who are the people you bent or did not and in what comditions so we can repeat the experiment?

Ross we need to repeat your experiments to prove them or disprove them.
Did you perform them? If not you have no place discounting real world experimental findings. You might discuss the implications and you did that several times and the fallacy of you logic has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as much that unteasonably holding these positions is hurting you commercially.

Cheers

 

[rossh]

Ross thank you for you reply.

Unfortunately very few share this opinion.

Cheers

These people claim to have new evidence, requiring changes. I say they are mistaken, and their reported evidence does not support their claim. Of course they don't agree.

They claim facts to back up this need, which upon examination, turn out not to be facts but invalid measures, poor justification, and weak associations. What they really have are merely opinions.

I then use facts to show their opinions are not valid.

So your argument is... they don't like that facts overrule their original opinion position. Tough luck for them.


.

 

[fsardone]

These people claim to have new evidence, requiring changes. I say they are mistaken, and their reported evidence does not support their claim. Of course they don't agree.

They claim facts to back up this need, which upon examination, turn out not to be facts but invalid measures, poor justification, and weak associations. What they really have are merely opinions.

I then use facts to show their opinions are not valid.

So your argument is... they don't like that facts overrule their original opinion position. Tough luck for them.


.

Actually this argument also apply to you.
With 2 differences:
they actually have xperimental facts and you don't;
they have peer reviewed and higly scrutinized positions backed by facts and you only your opinion backed by calculation (and very personal interpretation) of your software.

Cheers

 

[Diver0001]

These people claim to have new evidence, requiring changes. I say they are mistaken, and their reported evidence does not support their claim.

.

Ross, you are a computer programmer. Can you cite an article from an actual decompression scientist that says this?

R..

 

[rossh]

Actually this argument also apply to you.
With 2 differences:
they actually have xperimental facts and you don't;
they have peer reviewed and higly scrutinized positions backed by facts and you only your opinion backed by calculation (and very personal interpretation) of your software.

Cheers

Their experimental data applied to tests that is provably not related to tech. No one has made a valid science connection to tech - only opinion based ones.

The peer review stuff, does not venture into tech. its all about USN and nedu dive practices and testing.... nothing in our world.

The current info and reasons, have never gone through peer review for tech purposes.. What we get now is weak interpretations, that bypass the peer processes and are sent direct to the public.

So Fabio..... the reverse argument against me has no basis here.

There is no room to say its personal against me or my software..... we supply industry standard products, published, reviewed and easily checked.


My beef with all this, is like I expressed to Bruce - when is this creeping of unnecessary extra deco time going to stop? There is no valid reason for it, and this search for made up justifications is not good enough.

.

 

[Diver0001]

What we have at the moment, is one overly interested Dr. who bypasses the proper review process, and takes the message direct to the public... So now its about trust in one person only to represent all of science.

Are you accusing @Dr Simon Mitchell of unethical conduct?

R..

 

[rossh]

Are you accusing @Dr Simon Mitchell of unethical conduct?

R..

No.