Deco with too less air, options from the book

[Anti-Hero]

lackadaisical -

 

[Bismark]

lackadaisical -

"Prefect!" Thanks. All that time and money on a graduate education........and I can't even spell..........

 

[gcbryan]

Gray ... since you quoted me in your previous reply and are now making statements referring to that quote, I'm going to ask you to consider what I said ...


Nowhere in there did I say anything about "so that people like KR wouldn't exist" ... nor was it implied. You are employing the very tactic you accused Bismark of using ... and to the same result.



So let me try again ... because there was nothing nefarious or judgmental in what I posted.

One should not attempt to learn decompression on the Internet ... regardless of method used. It's entirely too subjective and situational. Sure, you can learn the theory and history by reading a book ... or (if you trust the information) by what someone posts in a forum ... but all you're getting is the tools. It is the APPLICATION of those tools that matters. And in that respect, ALL decompression theories are more an art than a science ... and no matter which one you choose, what you're really doing is making a choice of which method you think is less likely to hurt you.

I used Kevrumbo as an example of someone who applied RD to a dive it was never intended for ... and as a result he got bent. That is NOT a judgment on KR as a diver. I don't know the guy, have never dived with him, and although I was involved in a discussion on another board where people were very hard on him, I was NOT one of those people. In fact, on more than one occasion he admitted I had made good points and asked reasonable questions about the reasons why he decided to do the dive as he did.

So no ... I don't wish that people like KR didn't exist ... I wish he would apply the tools he's attempting to use in his diving in the way they were intended, so that he doesn't hurt himself again.

Furthermore, on this and other boards I've seen people make broad comments about how using RD will cause you to get bent. I've dived with a couple divers who made the same comment ... when in fact it turns out they knew nothing about RD except what they'd been told by someone else who didn't understand it.

Misinformation CAN be dangerous ... and no matter HOW you attempt to explain RD on the Internet, the risk of misinformation is very high. That's why I think people shouldn't try learning it here. But that's also why I think it's important to correct someone who says something that you clearly know is mistaken or misleading ... because someone else reading the thread may decide to take it as factual. And that path leads to injury ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Oh brother! First of all I didn't quote you or use your name. If I had quoted you, by definition, it would have been accurate. Since my point had nothing to do with KR (you injected that as you answered a question that was directed toward Bismark not you). I did not literally mean to suggest that KR should not exit. I can't believe I have to explain this. I meant that the situation should not exit where someone learns of RD and incorrectly applies it. This is exactly what Bismark and you are saying and yet somehow it's being suggested that my opinion is somehow different. Of course it's not.

My post was only asking why RD is being pushed so hard. As an example John Chatterton was practically baited into responding back and forth. He doesn't use RD, doesn't care to and if he doesn't know every detail who cares. Most people who doesn't use something don't know every detail.

Why is it so important that RD be pushed is all I asked. Now everyone wants to make it look like I blame the internet for a situation where someone may be using RD incorrectly that's just ridiculous. I posted that Bismarks comments to this effect were ridiculous and now I'm having to make it clear that I'm not "employing tactics" by misquoting you. You brought yourself into this by answering a question that was directed to someone else and by bringing up the KR example.

How about a little give and take with differing viewpoints being allowed to come out on a scuba "discussion" board without one side trying to dominate every debate? I've seen this happen before.

 

[TSandM]

You know, I really enjoyed Mark Powell's book on decompression. He presents the various theoretical approaches to modeling gas dynamics in the body without judgment. Every strategy in his book is being used by divers on a regular basis, and the vast majority of those divers are diving safely. My Cavern instructor dives a pure Buhlmann approach, with a single deco gas (O2) used in the shallows, and he has done many, many dives without any problems. Lots of people are using V-planner for decompression diving, and that's a bubble model, and those people are mostly getting out of the water okay, too. Quite a few divers are using Ratio Deco, and doing their dives safely, too.

What we say in surgery is that, when there are a bunch of different operations for a given problem, the probability is that none of them works particularly well. (In other words, if one strategy is clearly superior, over time, the others will be abandoned.) The fact that so many different approaches to planning decompression exist, and that divers using them are all occasionally bent, argues that none of these strategies is perfect, and there is probably no validity to arguing fiercely that any one is wildly superior to the others.

I do think it annoys RD users when people who know very little about the approach dismiss it with very pejorative language. My LDS owner, who was quite anti-RD, listened to me explain what it WAS and then said, "Wow, I wish somebody had explained this to me before. This isn't so bad." Now, he's not using RD to plan to execute his dives, but he no longer has the same negative opinion of it that he had before.

So I think it has been well worth educating myself about ALL the different ways that people approach planning and executing staged decompression diving. After gathering a lot of information, I can choose the instructor and agency for training that will teach me the approach or approaches I want to learn. And then it clearly works best to dive with other people who use the same approach.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Oh brother! First of all I didn't quote you or use your name. If I had quoted you, by definition, it would have been accurate. Since my point had nothing to do with KR (you injected that as you answered a question that was directed toward Bismark not you). I did not literally mean to suggest that KR should not exit. I can't believe I have to explain this. I meant that the situation should not exit where someone learns of RD and incorrectly applies it. This is exactly what Bismark and you are saying and yet somehow it's being suggested that my opinion is somehow different. Of course it's not.

My post was only asking why RD is being pushed so hard. As an example John Chatterton was practically baited into responding back and forth. He doesn't use RD, doesn't care to and if he doesn't know every detail who cares. Most people who doesn't use something don't know every detail.

Why is it so important that RD be pushed is all I asked. Now everyone wants to make it look like I blame the internet for a situation where someone may be using RD incorrectly that's just ridiculous. I posted that Bismarks comments to this effect were ridiculous and now I'm having to make it clear that I'm not "employing tactics" by misquoting you. You brought yourself into this by answering a question that was directed to someone else and by bringing up the KR example.

How about a little give and take with differing viewpoints being allowed to come out on a scuba "discussion" board without one side trying to dominate every debate? I've seen this happen before.

OK, I see your point ... but I don't think that's what happened at all.

It was Mr. Chatterton who brought up ratio deco in the first place, with this comment ...

Pete,

Get a second computer, forget Ratio Deco, and use desktop software to make modern tables as a backup.

Do not get on the bus to hell. It is an express, and you will know a lot of people already there.

The ensuing discussion was because someone asked him to explain what he meant by "the bus to hell". I think that's a legitimate question to ask ... and it is also legitimate to ask someone who would make such a comment whether or not they understand what RD truly is (and it doesn't seem like it to me).

I don't see anyone in the conversation advocating its widespread usage, or disputing that there are valid alternatives.

I do think it annoys RD users when people who know very little about the approach dismiss it with very pejorative language.

I think, as usual, Lynne has clearly identified the issue.

If someone is going to offer a criticism of RD ... or if they're going to attempt using it ... I think it's important to establish that they understand what it is.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[SparticleBrane]

If someone is going to offer a criticism of RD ... or if they're going to attempt using it ... I think it's important to establish that they understand what it is.

Come now, Bob -- knowing something vs. pontificating about it are two separate things. :cool2:

 

[gcbryan]

OK, I see your point ... but I don't think that's what happened at all.

It was Mr. Chatterton who brought up ratio deco in the first place, with this comment ...


The ensuing discussion was because someone asked him to explain what he meant by "the bus to hell". I think that's a legitimate question to ask ... and it is also legitimate to ask someone who would make such a comment whether or not they understand what RD truly is (and it doesn't seem like it to me).

I don't see anyone in the conversation advocating its widespread usage, or disputing that there are valid alternatives.


I think, as usual, Lynne has clearly identified the issue.

If someone is going to offer a criticism of RD ... or if they're going to attempt using it ... I think it's important to establish that they understand what it is.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying except that you are mis-characterizing what happened.

You quoted JC and the "highway to hell" comment but neglect to point out that JC was simply quoting Pete (Gilldiver) who was talking about carrying the Navy dive tables with him to use only if "I get handed a ticket to hell and need to get off that bus."

JC in effect said forget the Navy tables, ratio deco, and whatever else is out there and use modern tables as a backup.

When other's asked if he really understood RD he said maybe, maybe not. explain it to me (yes I'm paraphrasing and not quoting here).

It was Rainier, Bismark, and now you who appeared to be looking for conflict where none existed.

That's my main issue as well. If I and a few other's didn't post here there would be no discussion because everyone would be in complete agreement with everything discussed. What is the point of a discussion board where there's a problem when someone posts who isn't in complete agreement? After while everyone leaves or quits posting and all you have left are posters preaching to the choir.

I don't have a problem with RD or with not using pony bottles or with anything else. But if someone has the slightest differing viewpoint their comments are grossly mis-characterized. The most vocal posters and many of the moderators are already friends and have mostly identical viewpoints. This doesn't promote real discussion.

I was on another board a while back and it appeared that everyone disagreed with one of my posts. Someone even pointed this out to me. However, I got many emails thanking me for that post. Some told me that they used to post more but didn't anymore because the board had become too one-sided, dominated by too few people and they knew they would be attacked. They could "take it" of course but after while people don't want to feel like they have to "take it" every time they post and so they just quit posting.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Gray, I'm not at all looking for conflict ... you quoted me in post #250, and lumped me in with someone else who (also to me) appeared to be. I truly don't get where you're coming from with that.

Just like you don't appreciate it when people knock how you choose to do things ... most other folks don't either. I personally don't care how other folks dive ... but if they're gonna say disparaging things about what I'm doing, I'd truly like to know on what knowledge they're basing their comments.

That's a reasonable expectation, I think ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Bismark]

Gray, I'm not at all looking for conflict ... you quoted me in post #250, and lumped me in with someone else who (also to me) appeared to be. I truly don't get where you're coming from with that.

Just like you don't appreciate it when people knock how you choose to do things ... most other folks don't either. I personally don't care how other folks dive ... but if they're gonna say disparaging things about what I'm doing, I'd truly like to know on what knowledge they're basing their comments.

That's a reasonable expectation, I think ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Hope it is okay if I agree with you................

 

[grazie42]

If someone is going to offer a criticism of RD ... or if they're going to attempt using it ... I think it's important to establish that they understand what it is.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

But thats a two-way street.

How many of those who are critical of using computers as the only tool for decompression diving (f.e) have ever done a significant dive with f.e a VR3? People get bent on VR3s you say? They just dont "understand it" or it was "diver error"...using those arguments I can shut down any argument that VR3s arent the optimal aid for decompression diving...sometimes I think this is the tone of people advocating RD(and a lot of other stuff TBH)...

If you dont like people to criticize RD without "understanding it"(whatever that means) then you should demand the same of yourself before you criticize another method...if you havent taken a course with a VR3, and not any old course but the "right one", then you dont "understand it" and shouldnt criticize it...its certainly one way to go about promoting discussion...

I sometimes get the feel that the bar for "understanding it", for a lot of people, is that you agree with whatever it is that you are supposed to understand.