Perdix Ndls

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The original rationale behind Deep Stops, was to mitigate the chance of a Fast Tissue type II Neuro DCS hit especially with high Helium bottom mixes. Although recent studies are now challenging this idea (i.e. the high diffusivity of Helium coming out of solution early in the ascent, forming free phase bubbles in the Fast Tissues), you should take this into account when deciding to omit Deep Stops: are you willing to risk a rare but possible type II DCS hit for the sake of not late supersaturating/loading your Slow Tissues (per the Conclusion of the NEDU Study)???

The best most prudent compromise to practically apply from the NEDU Study & discussion for those using Deep Stops is to extend out the O2 profile at 6m such that you have a surfacing Gradient Factor of 60% or less (per the readout of a Petrel Computer upon surfacing from your O2 deco stop, or alternatively setting the GF99 function to 60 during the O2 deco stop) --to ensure inert gas elimination from those Slow Tissues. This is especially warranted if you're doing multiple deco dives per day for a week or more -and I would also recommend taking a day-off/break after three consecutive days of multiple deco dives per day to further off gas residual N2 from Slow Tissues, as well as reset CNS/O2 exposure.

I absolutely reject this NEDU study for any indicator of deep stops or the effect in decompression.

Why? The emphasis in the title is mine:

Redistribution of decompression stop time from shallow to deep stops increases incidence of decompression sickness in air decompression dives

The divers went to 170 FSW on AIR. They had continuing increase of N2 Loading because they were on EAN21.

Given that technical divers choose gasses for the best mix for the dive they are doing and their decompression plans, the NEDU study does not apply.
 
Sorry if this reveals the depth of my ignorance, but I thought GF numbers are the % of the "M-value", a theoretical supersaturation value that shouldn't be exceeded. By using less than 100 (100%) of M you are adding a safety margin. So I thought a GF of 30 (30% of M at the first deco stop) has a higher safety margin than a GF of 40.
Note: I have not taken deco training (yet), and have only done rec diving within NDL, so I'm bracing for my comeuppance... But if I don't ask I'll never learn.
I cannot recommend "Deco for Divers" strongly enough. It is a very easy-reading book, and will take you as far technically as you want to go.
 
I absolutely reject this NEDU study for any indicator of deep stops or the effect in decompression.

Why? The emphasis in the title is mine:

Redistribution of decompression stop time from shallow to deep stops increases incidence of decompression sickness in air decompression dives

The divers went to 170 FSW on AIR. They had continuing increase of N2 Loading because they were on EAN21.

Given that technical divers choose gasses for the best mix for the dive they are doing and their decompression plans, the NEDU study does not apply.
I agree; using a high FN2 bottom mix like Eanx21 will definitely supersaturate those slow tissue and load them with enough residual N2 that can produce DCS symptoms with air decompression. It's been my anecdotal experience though that if you do four consecutive days of two dives per day Air bottom mix at a an operating depth range of 45m to 60m, even with 50% & 100% O2 deco gases, you will have the the same residual N2 loading of the slow tissues generating the niggles or overt type I symptoms. To compensate on subsequent dives I changed the GF99 on the Petrel from 85 to 60 during my O2 stop at 6m to extend the profile time out on the third and fourth consecutive day (and took a day off after that). . .

Dr. David Doolette gave a good overview of the implications of the NEDU Study to Deep Stops & Bubble Counter Models in this presentation (fast forward to time index 25:10 thru to 39:00 in the link below).

 
Last edited:
I absolutely reject this NEDU study for any indicator of deep stops or the effect in decompression.


Redistribution of decompression stop time from shallow to deep stops increases incidence of decompression sickness in air decompression dives


As I recall, their "deep stops" were ridiculously long and they shortened the shallow stops to compensate, so the profiles were nothing like those generated by VPM or standard Buhlmann GF combinations. This, in addition to the crazy choice of gases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jax
As I recall, their "deep stops" were ridiculously long and they shortened the shallow stops to compensate, so the profiles were nothing like those generated by VPM or standard Buhlmann GF combinations. This, in addition to the crazy choice of gases.
Of course no recreational sport technical diver does a profile like that in the NEDU Study for a single dive.

But once again, it is this similar pattern of supersaturation of the slow tissues seen in the NEDU Study applied to Dual Phase Bubble Models (RGBM, VPM) or Buhlmann GF's with an emphasized deep stop component (30/85 for example): even with deco gases Eanx 50 and O2 following a prescribed Deep Deep stop algorithm, there is potential of residual inert N2 loading of those slow tissues still causing DCS symptoms --especially over several consecutive days or weeks of diving these decompression profiles.

See links from Deep Stops increases DCS thread:
Surface/Post-Dive Decompression on Air
The Typical Profiles for Sport Expedition Diving
Opinion that Deep Stops still produce Venous Gas Bubbles
Extending O2 Stops vs de-emphasizing Deep Stops
 
Last edited:
... there is potential of residual inert N2 loading of those slow tissues still causing DCS symptoms --especially over several consecutive days or weeks of diving these decompression profiles.

There is a potential for more N2 loading in the slow tissues, but good algorithms work for that.

upload_2016-4-30_14-7-3.png

Source, Deco for Divers, 2nd ed., Mark Powell
 
There is a potential for more N2 loading in the slow tissues, but good algorithms work for that. . .

Simon Mitchell's recommendation (as he first told me in 2013 as my attending & treating Physician on the Bikini Atoll Expedition), in light of the NEDU Study is a Buhlmann ZHL-16 GF Lo/Hi of 40/70 as a starting reference base -although he primarily dives CCR for his Expedition Dives.

Kevrumbo said:
The best most prudent compromise to practically apply from the NEDU Study & discussion, is to do the Deep Stops, and extend out the O2 profile at 6m such that you have a surfacing Gradient Factor of 60% or less (per the readout of a Petrel Computer upon surfacing from your O2 deco stop) --to ensure inert gas elimination from those Slow Tissues. This is especially warranted if you're doing multiple deco dives per day for a week or more -and I would also recommend taking a day-off/break after three consecutive days of multiple deep deco dives per day. . .

Simon replies:
I would agree that this is a workable compromise. Deep stops can be safely incorporated into a dive profile if you want to use them. However, there is no evidence that you gain anything by doing so, and the available evidence suggests that their use is not the most efficient use of deco time. Thus, if you have a fixed amount of decompression time, the decompression will become less safe if you over-emphasize deep stops.
 
Last edited:
Ditto on comparing tables to computers. On suggestion w/r/t to understand your specific dive profiles/patterns: I used the petrel in parallel with my previous oceanic plus for about 30 dives. I wanted the actual data regarding ocean vice cavern or training profiles. The data and actual tissue loading made a big difference and bow I might GFs during future dives where I conscientiously made a decision to extend my bottom time into Deco and/or during CCR. Second, you might as well read and educate yourself prior to future technical classes/training--less making actual deco dives. Iow; make everything third nature through preparation, education, and using data to help you make informed decisions. Just one view of the world. btw: there is a lot of good medical and applied research coming out of the Rebreather Forum annual meetings--good stuff!
 
Can you provide some evidence to support those assertions?

I think we can only guess about the implementations of either computer's NDL calculations.

I'd try to compare my NDL calcs to those of my petrel but I am normally overcome with an urge to slit my wrists when I try planning on it - I have to change to OC mode, gas, disable a bunch of gases etc etc, all with risk of passing the menu item and having to go round again.

If you want to provide a set of NDL times for a few depths (metric please) I'll see how they line up. A mix of low and high gf would be interesting too. Which do you believe they use to limit surfacing?

Hi included are the NDL limits from the perdix compared to the Suunto and padi tables.
 

Attachments

  • Dive tables.pdf
    47.2 KB · Views: 173
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom