Deep Stops Increases DCS

[PfcAJ]

Ross, just like 2 days ago I showed you a VPM3 profile and a 40/70 profile with the same deco time yet the VPM profile had a deeper stop distribution. Just like the NEDU study. Did you miss that post or are you ignoring it because it doesn't fit your make pretend narrative?

 

[rossh]

Ross, just like 2 days ago I showed you a VPM3 profile and a 40/70 profile with the same deco time yet the VPM profile had a deeper stop distribution. Just like the NEDU study. Did you miss that post or are you ignoring it because it doesn't fit your make pretend narrative?

GF ... what is GF again... oh yes.. a giant fudge, that is patched onto the end of some plan, at the last second to transform ZHL into what ever you want this second. But GF is not consistent across the dive spectrum - its has an exponential growth problem. So what you are really telling me, is GF is a faulty and inconsistent patch mechanism, that is trying to emulate actual deco models.

Here is your 40/70, in action...

Or here.... where it doubles the dive time:

See. What's the point of GF, if it can't do the same thing properly, twice in a row?


Mr pfajc: You have found your "favorite" GF setting - good for you. But please realize the limitations of this GF fudge tool, and kindly refrain from thinking or pretending its a model or has any consistency.

.

 

[PfcAJ]

GF ... what is GF again... oh yes.. a giant fudge, that is patched onto the end of some plan, at the last second to transform ZHL into what ever you want this second. But GF is not consistent across the dive spectrum - its has an exponential growth problem. So what you are really telling me, is GF is a faulty and inconsistent patch mechanism, that is trying to emulate actual deco models.

VPM has even bigger problems, Ross. We've been over this I think three times now? Maybe four?

I still get a chuckle over your B/E comment regarding changing it due to Shaw's dives.

 

[Shotmaster]

I'm going out on a limb here ;-) but correct me if I am wrong. If the deep stops in the NEDU study produced a higher DCS rate, and Ross is saying the stops weren't deep enough, then had the stops been made deeper, the saturation would have increased at the even deeper stops (higher pressures) and increased the DCS rate. Ross appears to be convinced that stopping deeper than the NEDU test stops must have some magical importance to reducing saturation.

 

[rossh]

I'm going out on a limb here ;-) but correct me if I am wrong. If the deep stops in the NEDU study produced a higher DCS rate, and Ross is saying the stops weren't deep enough, then had the stops been made deeper, the saturation would have increased at the even deeper stops (higher pressures) and increased the DCS rate. Ross appears to be convinced that stopping deeper than the NEDU test stops must have some magical importance to reducing saturation.

"I'm going out on a limb here ;-) but correct me if I am wrong. If the deep stops in the NEDU study...."

Stop. .. there where NO deep stops in the nedu test. No amount of imagination can change that FACT or invent them.


The nedu added shallow stops - took an overly long shallow profile - 100 minutes too long - and shifted the stops in the 60 to 30 ft range, about 10 ft deeper. Those are extended shallow stops.

Now, did you ever do a PADI multi-level diver, with the Wheel planner? Its almost 20 years ago now. If you did, you would have seen that making a shallow multilevel type plan - like the nedu test, needs a different (shorter) plan.


But look the whole stupid argument is mute. ALL existing model have gas tracking inbuilt, and already add more time for real deep stops.

You can see that now. - compare a 30/100 and a 100/100 plan. Its worth about 10% extra deco time at this level. That's all deep stops really add. They don''t need double the deco time, like 40/70 adds.

 

[UWSojourner]

VPM has even bigger problems, Ross. We've been over this I think three times now? Maybe four?

I still get a chuckle over your B/E comment regarding changing it due to Shaw's dives.

The only reason Ross deems VPM-B+7 "fake" is because that is the VPM-B conservatism setting in the comparisons with the NEDU A2 profile which clearly showed how close they were.

But if VPM-B+7 is "fake", what about his own VPM-BE? See profiles below.

 

[dmaziuk]

I'm going out on a limb here ;-) but correct me if I am wrong. If the deep stops in the NEDU study produced a higher DCS rate, and Ross is saying the stops weren't deep enough, then had the stops been made deeper, the saturation would have increased at the even deeper stops (higher pressures) and increased the DCS rate. Ross appears to be convinced that stopping deeper than the NEDU test stops must have some magical importance to reducing saturation.

But... but.. isn't that the whole point? I mean, any laydiver with 2 neurons to rub together would intuitively think that if one spends more time at depth, one has to then spend more time off-gassing in the shallows. It seems to me the sole reason for this and other similar flamefests is that the Deep Stops are Magick that lets you spend more time at depth while simultaneously reducing your time in the shallows. But surely correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rossh]

So VPM-B+3 is fake as well, I assume, since it's a fudge adding conservatism?

Edit: If VPM-B +3 is "real and existing and proven", where is the limit in conservatism in terms of parameters of the model, and why are those limits what they are? (since VPM is "internally consistent" or something like that by your words, you should be able to tell us why, physiologically, those limits are set)

Going too far, looses context with the problem its trying to solve.. Simple.

I stopped at +5, because that was already too far.

40/70 is the same problem - gone too far - lost context with what its supposed to represent.

If one thinks they "need" that much deco, then what one really needs is to examine ones procedures or methods and fix that problem instead.


Kevin and Simon cooked up FAKE +7 so they could invent a phony VPM profile to match up the equally useless nedu test times... That's where the whole anti-VPM attack effort begins.


.

 

[UWSojourner]

Going to far, looses context with the problem its trying to solve.. Simple.

I stopped at +5, because that was already too far.

Wow. That's an admission. You have software with settings that have "already gone too far"? Then you go even further with BE????

See YOUR VPM-BE+5 and VPM-B+7 below. I don't think many people will see that your BE+5 is a great addition to decompression knowledge and VPM-B+7 is somehow "fake".

 

[Storker]

@rossh , what's "fake" with VPM-B +7? How is conservatism added in VPM-B? How can VPM-B+2 be "real", VPM-B+5 "real", but VPM-B+7 "false"? Is VPM-B+7 achieved by introducing some new parameters that don't exist in the original VPM-B algorithm? If so, I might agree with you. However, if VPM-B+7 is achieved by just adjusting the same parameters which are adjusted to get from +0 to +2 to +5, albeit a little more, your claims of fakery are obviously without any merit whatsoever.