NEDU Study
- Thread starter klausi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- decompression deep stops nedu
Please register or login
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
Ooh sweet. I started incorporating that material in AN/DP last fall.
Let me put this to you again..
There is no such thing as +7. You can't buy it, you can't make it. No one has it. No one has ever dived it - it simply does not exist. Someone has cooked this up at home, for their own use. Its made up nonsense...
Now you Mr. HuwPorter, are demanding I answer to some imaginary plans...? Really.... is this how things are now? Some one makes up gossip and junk, and then everyone else has to answer to it?
Where is your sense of right and wrong? I'm not obliged to explain other peoples made up nonsense plans.
.
Last edited:
are you being willfully blind? The "big" dives from 17 years ago are common dives today, the big dives of today are..bigger.
You may not be seeing them because anybody doing the BIG dives of today saw(felt) the limitations of VPM (whatever flavor) when they started to push it out. They stopped using it.
Other than the fact Bruce should tell you to screw off but is too much a gentleman, I suspect that he is seeing MUCH more relevant real world profiles of people doing todays's BIG dives than you are
Your friends might well be exploring new ground to them, but the people before were also doing the same.... There is certainly more CCR's in use today, making it easier to go big. But big was done before, all the same.
We also have a data base, showing exactly where people have been.... so no need to guess or embellish thanks.
.
that shows me at least that you are out of touch.
My friends are the ones doing them then..and also the ones doing it now.
I've been playing in the tech pool for a couple decades now.
The truth is that the BIG dives 20 years ago by the bleeding edge test pilot divers are being done on a regular basis today. The BIG dives done 20 years ago also had a much more robust support system in place than those doing similar dives today.
Again, I'll make the point, maybe a bit more clear. So many tech divers that are doing the more common deeper and longer dives with 3-7 hour exposures have moved away from VPM, you don't have that data and you don't know or won't accept that what you "knew" as "true" 20 years ago, is no longer true.
IMHO, for the tech diver doing "bimble tech dives" of less than 90-120 mins and depths less than 200 or so, they will generally have good outcomes on your stuff, start pushing it out (esp in run times) and from what I can see, the bubble models start to fall apart and for me (and many of my friends, many of who also used VPM/RGBM in the past where it belongs in my view) the higher risk in bubble models isn't worth it.
Last edited:
fsardone
Solo Diver
The whole story is in my post.
I did not quote my answer I quoted a question to you that you failed to answer (willingly or just because you did not realise it was a question).
Your dilemma is when a very basic question is asked, if you answer you will contradict something you have posted or, in order to avoid that, you will have to make some additional illogical and un-defendable statement which will worsen your position further.
Your dilemma is then answer reasonably and disqualify the previous statements or keep posting unrecognised by current scientific literature statement which will further disqualify you, keep hurting you commercially and make people turn away.
So the easy questions:
In this latter case obviously you decided to opt for the second possibility: further make un-defendable statement.
Ross is time to come to term to reality as scientifically demonstrated, you cannot alter reality on a wish, you have to accept it. If VPM +7 is not implemented, it does not mean it inexistent or exaggerated. Simply means that the person who made the implementation restricted the allowable parameters. Those numbers can be plugged in the original implementation of VPM (I used to program in Fortran IV) and obtain the VPM +7. You have been told that those were within the limits of the model. Worst VPM +7 coincide with VPM +5 with runtime +20%, it has been shown above so +5 is ok and +7 is exaggerated when they produce same profile for different bottom times.
Your attitude is alienating the few sympathies you had. People are not running VPM on their wrist computers. You will have seen the decline of the VPM microcomputer implementations. People based on the evidence, are moving to ZHL-16-GF. They are still looking at VPM to have an idea where VPM would put the first (deep) stop but they will be padding shallow time with whatever ZHL says.
Hi Fabio,
As the deco progresses, it has Increasing thermal stress, and reducing profile stress. One stress is going down and the other up.
The little bit of cold we all get, is usually small and not enough to make trouble.
But get a flood and make some body part very cold, and its a big thermal stress. Or sit naked loosing core temp for 4 hours (nedu test). Under those conditions, its a race, between getting enough of the gas out of tissue, before the cold slows down the circulation preventing the tissue off gassing sufficiently. Adding more deco time (and thermal stress) will not solve this condition, but instead make it worse. A bucket curve.
The nedu test had this problem too. But with an extra twist. One diver was average 15 ft difference at any given point in the middle 2 hours (1/2 an ATA imbalance for the same core temp).
Why the different outcome? Different gas loads.... as predicted by existing basic gas kinetic formula. (The same basic formula as used in existing models).
Hope that answers it.
.
Last edited:
Similar threads
