Square Profile Dives

[cornfed]

chrpai once bubbled...
I take it you don't know how to use the search button or read any diving publications do you? Are you really that ignorant or you just trying to be a pain in my tush?

Chris, when you make a claim you assume the burden of proving it's validity. When you say there are studies showing reverse profiles are "OK" it's not my job to find said studies. After you lay out your argument in support of your claim it becomes my job, should I disagree, to prove it wrong. Didn’t I explain this to you recently?

"Reverse Dive Profiles Workshop" conducted at the Smithsonian Institution sponsored by American Academy of Underwater Sciences, DAN and DEMA among many others

I'm well aware of the study. I'm also aware of the limitations of it.

Their findings:

<snip>

The attendees found no reason for diving communities to prohibit reverse dive profiles for no-decompression dives less than 40 meters (130 feet) and depth differentials less than 12 meters (40 feet).

As Mike Ferrara pointed out, this is an important consideration. Simply stating (as you did) that certain results exist but not explaining any caveats is not only misleading but pretty much worthless.

Wienke (Tech. Diving in Depth, pp310-311) mentions that the limits (specifically NAUI's basic OW limits) imposed on diving favorably impact the safety of reverse profiles. However, he clearly states that "as [reverse profile] depths and increments increase, the situation becomes ... riskier." You’re free to misconstrue this as you see fit.

 

[chrpai]

cornfed once bubbled...


Chris, when you make a claim you assume the burden of proving it's validity.
I'm well aware of the study.

First thing, I don't go around citing common knowledge. You are aware of the study, so stop being a smart a.. with your rheoteric.

Second thing, I mentioned the study because the following was said:

"REPETITIVE DIVES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FSW SHALLOWER THAN THE PREVIOUS DIVE."

""NEVER use your COMPUTER or any other dive computer for repetitive "square profile" dives (dives to the same or nearly the same depth) deeper than 60 feet (18m). This is an unsafe diving practice which will greatly increase your risk of DCS, regardless of what your COMPUTER reads.""

I never said that you can do a dive to 20' and then do a dive to 100'. I said that the above quoted statements was contradictive to recently published studies that said state repetitive dives to the same or ( reasonibly ) deeper depths are safe.

 

[chrpai]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


The attendees found no reason for diving communities to prohibit reverse dive profiles for no-decompression dives less than 40 meters (130 feet) and depth differentials less than 12 meters (40 feet).

Precisely. But as I said, that contradicts others statements here that you should never dive a square profile to the same depth.

 

[cornfed]

chrpai once bubbled...
First thing, I don't go around citing common knowledge. You are aware of the study, so stop being a smart a.. with your rheoteric.

Whether the study is common knowledge and whether I know about it are totally disjoint.

Second thing, I mentioned the study because the following was said:

"REPETITIVE DIVES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FSW SHALLOWER THAN THE PREVIOUS DIVE."

All you said was that the above statement doesn’t jive with current studies. Given that the Smithsonian reverse profile workshop is about four years old now and that Wienke has published several books since then (let alone two this year) I think asking what “recent studies” you’re referring to is completely valid. In fact, IndigoBlue claimined to “know of no studies that are more recent than BRW's are.” So I don’t think I was being a smart ass when I asked you to cite the studies.

I never said that you can do a dive to 20' and then do a dive to 100'.

True, all you said was that IndigoBlue was wrong and offered no evidence as to why.

I said that the above quoted statements was contradictive to recently published studies that said state repetitive dives to the same or ( reasonibly ) deeper depths are safe.

Wrong, you said the “latest studies [say the] deepest dive first isn't nessecary[sic].” That’s it. Nothing more. IndigoBlue said your claims didn’t agree with what he knew of Wienke’s work and you still didn’t offer any support. It wasn’t until I specifically asked you what you were referring to that you told us which studies you were talking about.

If you say something I don’t agree with and offer no supporting evidence, I will speak up. Sorry if that bothers you.

 

[chrpai]

cornfed once bubbled...


If you say something I don’t agree with and offer no supporting evidence, I will speak up. Sorry if that bothers you.

No, the only thing that bothers me is that you are a hopeless moron who specializes in the behavior mentioned by your tag line.

I guess if a paper gets published tomorrow you'll believe it instead since its the most recent.

 

[cornfed]

chrpai once bubbled...
No, the only thing that bothers me is that you are a hopeless moron

Let me get this straight. I pointed out that you needed to provide support for your claims and then disagreed with the prove you offered. Something which was essentially done by two other people in this thread. So why exactly am I a hopeless moron?

who specializes in the behavior mentioned by your tag line.

That's pretty ironic.

I guess if a paper gets published tomorrow you'll believe it instead since its the most recent.

Chris, if a paper is published tommorrow it will be the most recent paper in it's field. But that's all the publication date says about that paper. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. It doesn't mean it's the most accurate. It just means it's the most recent.

If there was something more recent which contradicted Wienke's work we could discuss the differences but that isn't the case here. You presented information which was inaccurated (due to it being incomplete) and got pissed-off when someone corrected you. Is there anything else that I'm missing?

 

[IndigoBlue]

chrpai once bubbled...

______________________________________________________________
quoting cornfed

If you say something I don’t agree with and offer no supporting evidence, I will speak up. Sorry if that bothers you.
______________________________________________________________


No, the only thing that bothers me is that you are a hopeless moron who specializes in the behavior mentioned by your tag line.

I guess if a paper gets published tomorrow you'll believe it instead since its the most recent.

Drew/Cornfed is only trying to reason with you, and he does not deserve to be addressed in the fashion that you have used, Chrpai.

Let me help you try to hear what Drew is saying.

1) If you want to rely on a statement by an authority in the field of scuba, you will gain more credibility by telling us who you are referring to, what he/she said, and when she/he said it. You did not do that in your original post.

2) The most current studies that we have are Bruce W's studies. Your older studies, if they are studies, in which you quote George Irvine, who not many of use view as an authority of anything, are weak in contramanding Weinke's work.

3) Rhetoric is when you use language to twist the truth. Drew is not using rhetoric, Drew is using logic. You are the one who is currently using rhetoric.

Drew is big enough to defend himself, and he does quite well. I do not need to defend him. I have chosen to post because Drew deserves more courtesy than to be called names.

 

[IndigoBlue]

Jerryg once bubbled...
I've just been reading my Mares M1 dive computer owners manual and there is a warning message that I don't understand. Can anybody explain this. It reads:

"NEVER use your COMPUTER or any other dive computer for repetitive "square profile" dives (dives to the same or nearly the same depth) deeper than 60 feet (18m). This is an unsafe diving practice which will greatly increase your risk of DCS, regardless of what your COMPUTER reads."

Before we got off track, we were trying to help Jerry understand why his RGBM-based Mares dive computer contains a classic Bruce Weinke-esque warning not to repreat square profile repetitive dives to the same depth.

Maybe it is in the fine print because the legal dept at Mares wants to make sure they have covered all their bases.

It seems to me that diving your deepest dive first, and not diving reverse profile dives or even dives of the same profile, are basic to the findings of RGBM doppler studies.

Weinke is a scientist, and he would not have posited a rule if it were not based on findings. I do not know the man. I have only read about him in technical diving publications. What I have read makes sense to me. The legal dept at Mares may possibly feel the same way, or else they may feel a responsibility to make the buyer beware.

 

[Scuba_Vixen]

but I realized there was no Karl in Ca lately .... what gives on that score?

Darlene

 

[cornfed]

Scuba_Vixen once bubbled...
but I realized there was no Karl in Ca lately .... what gives on that score?

He was banned nearly a month ago.