• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. 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. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

difference between 2 deco models

Discussion in 'Decompression Theory' started by miglanc, Mar 30, 2004.

  1. miglanc

    miglanc Guest

    Hi. Do you know the difference between ZHL16B and ZHL16C deco models or maybe tables? I was wondering why the first model shows longer deco when using trimix 21/35 (max depth 45m/147ft, bottom time 20 minutes, deco gases: O2 and EAN50) then air. But when I changed to ZHL16C outcome was different. Trimix needs shorter deco then air. It was counted using GUE Decompression Planner.
  2. gkndivebum

    gkndivebum CCR Instructor

    # of Dives:
    Location: Kona, Hawaii
    As I understand it, ZHL-16B is designed for generating tables, and ZHL-16C is slightly more conservative and is designed for
    implementation in dive computers. The A/B coefficients are slightly different between the two.

    As an aside, the coefficients for He are from ZHL-16A, which I understand was for "theoretical" use only.

    Clarification appreciated if I've gotten this wrong.

    Best -

  3. Dr Deco

    Dr Deco Contributor

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Issaquah [20 miles east of Seattle], Washington.
    Hello Readers:

    I do not know the reason for the difference. :06: We await some reader to jump in on this one.

    Dr Deco :doctor:
  4. Diver0001

    Diver0001 Instructor, Scuba

    This might help:

    Translated in layman's terms he says that the M values are different between the various models. "A" being useless for practical purposes. "B" being some kind of baseline and "C" being more conservative.

    The actual differences in detail can be seen in this table:

    A B C
    106.4 same same
    97.3 same same
    83.2 same same
    73.8 same same
    66.8 same same
    62.3 same 60.8
    58.5 57.4 55.6
    55.2 54.1 52.3
    52.3 51.7 50.1
    49.9 same 48.5
    48.2 same 47.2
    46.8 same 46.1
    45.6 same 45.1
    44.5 44.1 44.1
    43.5 same 43.1
    42.6 same 42.4
    41.8 same same
    source: Understanding M-values; Erik C. Baker, P.E.

  5. pt40fathoms

    pt40fathoms PADI Pro

    # of Dives:
    Location: Manitoba, Canada
    What is the difference between the ZHL-16-C, and the recently introduced RGBM? Both are being used in dive computers today.
  6. pt40fathoms

    pt40fathoms PADI Pro

    # of Dives:
    Location: Manitoba, Canada
    Attached is the PDF file entitled Understanding M-Values by Eric C. Baker, P.E.
  7. Diver0001

    Diver0001 Instructor, Scuba

    The ZHL16 etc are based on a mathematical algorithm. RGBM is based on witchcraft and good ideas....

    ok, just joking.

    It's a different starting point all together Haldanian models (I'm sure Dr. Deco will improve on my explanation) are based on a number of theoretical 1/2-time "compartments" which sort of "hold" a nitrogen load. You fill them and empty them like 16 little cups of water (nitrogen) according to a hard and fast set of rules involving time, depth and nothing else.

    RGBM doesn't have cups. It has bubbles. The calculations in RGBM are intended to keep the bubbles from growing. It's not easy to do that because there are a gazillion things that will influence bubble growth. The most important, however seems to be the presence of some kind of bubble seed called a micro-nucleus and somethink called a "gradient factor" that I can't explain very well but seems to have to do with bubble size and Boyle's law. I think the gradient factor attempts to describe when a bubble will start to grow according to Boyle's law. In any event, RGBM pays attention to a lot more variables (in theory) than a Haldanian algorithm. Things like ascent speed, deep stops (more efficient off gassing occurs before bubbles grow because bubbles are harder to get rid of), even temperature and of course depth and time.

    That's sort of the deco-for-dummy's version and I left out a lot of details but I think it touches on what I see (at least) as the main differences.

  8. SDAnderson

    SDAnderson Dive Charter

    # of Dives:
    Location: On a good day, Lake Michigan
    Pretty close to my understanding, Diver0001. Someone also explained it to me like this:
    • Buhlmann models use "tissue compartments" to manage the growth of bubbles. In essence, the tables assume some bubble formation but strive to keep the size of those bubbles small enough that your body can filter them out or that they harmlessly dissipate.
    • RGBM models us "pressure gradients" to manage the formation of bubbles. In essence, the tables assume that the best way to prevent the formation of large bubbles is to prevent the formation of small bubbles, which should also have the added benefit of reducing the sub-clinical stress imposed by all those little bubbles.
    Then again, we both may be about to get spanked by those wiser than us... :wink:
  9. Jai Bar

    Jai Bar Instructor, Scuba

    # of Dives:
    Location: Under Water
    are the number of tissue compartments, the M-Values assigned for each compartment and also some models have a slightly different way of calculating the M-Values.
    The same applies, of course, for the various Buhlmann models.
  10. jagfish

    jagfish The man behind the fish ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: Kanagawa and Florida
    I thought I read in the Encyclopedia of diving that it was rather accepted that silent bubbles form in almost any dive?

    If so, would the RGBM model be fightig an uphill battle?


Share This Page