cornfed
Mindless lemming
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. Didnt 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." Youre free to misconstrue this as you see fit.