jakubson
Contributor
pete340:Which is why I didn't give a specific amount. The point, again, is that applying a known correction makes much better sense than providing an unknown one.
But my point is that using time is an unknown correction.
For example, let's say I am diving EAN 32 but using air tables. Then my tables (or computer) assumes a partial pressure of N2 of .79 at the surface. With EAN32, the actual partial pressure of N2 is .68, so my tables are assuming a 16% higher partial pressure of N2 regardless of depth. From my point of view, this is a "known" correction (or margin factor) of 16% rather than an unknown correction.
It may just be what we are considering known versus unknown. I feel that since NDLs are relative, and are a function of PPN2, I would rather know the percentage of conservativeness (is that a word?) than using time that varies with depth. You may feel otherwise, which is OK. I just take issue with your characterization of someone who uses air tables with nitrox as someone who doesn't "trust your own judgment, and are afraid that you'll push the limits if you know exactly what they are."
There is not necessarily one right answer - my method is based on the physics of partial pressures, which makes sense to me. The bottom line is anything that makes sense to you as far as added margin is good.