Buhlmann questions

[scubadada]

DSAT report claimed 1/5000 for rec diving back in 1993 when they were using Navy tables ("3. Decompression testing and statistics"). On face value this would correspond to SAUL's pDCS of .02 and GF in the 75 range -- that I don't think quite matches up to USN tables.

What can I say? Here are the current USN tables and the PADI RDP, very similar to DSAT. It is what it is, these are the results from SAUL

For USN table at 90 feet, 30 min is the longest bottom time in range, with a P(DCS) of 0.84. At 100 feet for 25 min, a P(DCS) of 0.89% translates to risk of 1/112.

 

[dmaziuk]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia

 

[dmaziuk]

Ahh, language barrier, I read it like you had never heared of ZH-L8.

It is the language barrier: I couldn't read Tauchmedizin even if I could get my hands on a copy. There are a few questionable bits of information floating around whose provenance I could not trace. Like He numbers for ZH-L 16C.

But that one I deliberately phrased that way: ZH-L16 is open and we know exactly how it works. With Scubapro's patented secret ingredients, who knows what ZH-L8ADT really does.

 

[scubadada]

The Scubapro proprietary ZH-L8 or 16 ADT MB, at most liberal baseline, appears to be somewhere middle of the road to conservative. Any use of "human factors", breathing rate, heart rate, or skin temperature, would make it more conservative. Any microbubble level also makes it more conservative, though these settings can be ignored, defaulting to the lowest level. Other than folks at Scubapro, I don't think anybody knows exactly how any of these factors work. I'm unaware of testing/validation of any of these parameters. Increasing the conservatism of an already conservative algorithm is certainly, not dangerous.

 

[dmaziuk]

TIncreasing the conservatism of an already conservative algorithm is certainly, not dangerous.

The take home lesson from Spisni study is that it's not necessarily good for you either.

 

[scubadada]

The take home lesson from Spisni study is that it's not necessarily good for you either.

Depends on how you do it, we're talking no stop dives here

 

[dmaziuk]

Depends on how you do it, we're talking no stop dives here

Coming from someone who has a 4-digit dive count on DSAT and repeatedly argued "less conservative" with Yours Truly, that is... rich.

 

[scubadada]

Coming from someone who has a 4-digit dive count on DSAT and repeatedly argued "less conservative" with Yours Truly, that is... rich.

Sorry, tried to be friendly, you are an ass. All commercially available dive algorithms are safe, or they would not be on the market. DSAT has been out there since 1987 and was subjected to more validation than, perhaps any other rec deco algorithm. What's wrong with saying something more conservative than that is also safe? Your Cressi deco algorithm is quite safe, and very conservative, among the most conservative in the industry. Perhaps you will have a 4 digit dive count someday?

 

[dmaziuk]

Sorry, tried to be friendly, you are an ass.

Ass or not, considering the past arguments I still find it hilarious that our positions appear to be completely reversed.

I've no problem with "more conservative is also safe" but I've come to doubt "more conservative is safer". As you repeatedly said in the past, if they're all "safe", why not go for the less conservative one.

 

[tursiops]

Ass or not, considering the past arguments I still find it hilarious that our positions appear to be completely reversed.

I've no problem with "more conservative is also safe" but I've come to doubt "more conservative is safer". As you repeatedly said in the past, if they're all "safe", why not go for the less conservative one.

Wow, for someone who usually argues that the NDL line is very gray and very fuzzy and very dependent on the individual, you certainly have suddenly changed your position so that you are willing to argue the semantics of safe vs safer. At least you can't be accused of consistency.