CAPTAIN SINBAD
Contributor
One more thing Doc. What exactly do we mean by the above?
UTD Decompression profile study results published
- Thread starter Dr Simon Mitchell
- Start date
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
One more thing Doc. What exactly do we mean by the above?
I understand that. What I wanted to know is if the "logic' AG was giving (ie. bubbles lead to an immune response and an immune response leads to DCS) holds water.
To me it seems like BS even if an immune response is part of it.
R..
Uhmm... that they can't clam any correlation between high grade bubble production and inflammatory marker production in the subjects?
CAPTAIN SINBAD
Contributor
So I am understanding this to mean that while Ratio Deco generates more bubbles that are detected by doppler, they are silent bubbles that do not cause observable symptoms. If we were to measure actual symptoms then Ratio Deco and the other model they tested did not have much of a difference. True or no?
huwporter
Contributor
You are right - I missed that. I have fixed up my original post. The UTD profile now ends up over 10 minutes longer than the GF profile.
Turning the GF profile in the study in to a GUE-style RD profile under the same conditions as above, using 50 and 100% and doing an immediate ascent from 6m, I would propose:
Like the others have said, for 25 mins @ 50m I leave the 100% at home and just take the 50% too. (I actually do this dive or something like it probably close to once a month.) I'd include a 1m/min ascent up from 6m, and based on the unfolding evidence on the (lack of) benefits of deep stops, I'm open to the idea of reducing deep stops further than the above.
I did my initial GUE tech training in 2009, and the RD that we were taught then bore no resemblance to the UTD RD in this study. (The starting point was ALWAYS schedules from desktop deco planning software.)
Last edited:
Kevrumbo
Banned
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 1,363
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
The significant differences between GUE & UTD RD are the much deeper deepstops at 75% & 50% max depth and "S-curve" profile shaping at the Eanx50 deco stops of the UTD schedule.
Using UTD's cascading RD method for a setpoint of 60m depth for 25min on 18/45 standard bottom mix using two deco gases, the prescribed Eanx50 deco profile time is 25min from 21m to 9m and the Oxygen profile time is also 25min at 6m.
For an actual shallower bottom profile of 50m depth for 25min, UTD has the Eanx50 time and O2 time at both 17.5 minutes. By comparison, the quoted GUE profile above is 15min for Eanx50 (3min per 5 deco stops from 21m to 9m) and 15min for O2 at 6m. So with respect to linear profile shaping of the Eanx50 deco schedule (i.g. no "S-curve") and no deep stops, the GUE and UTD RD deco time schedules are essentially the same. . .
What would be interesting as previously noted would be comparing (or experimentally testing) a Buhlmann GF 50/80 to a GUE and UTD RD profile for 25min @50m using 50% & 100% O2 deco gases.
huwporter
Contributor
Total nonsense.
The UTD profile is 11 minutes longer than the GF profile (and 9 minutes longer than the GUE profile) yet is more provocative, as shown in the study. You could argue that the GUE profile spends a bit too much time between 21 and 12m, but after a deco gas switch that possibly matters less, and it has the advantage of being REALLY easy to remember - which you certainly can't say for the UTD one.
Last edited:
Kevrumbo
Banned
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 1,363
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
IN FULL CONTEXT, I STATED: "So with respect to linear profile shaping of the Eanx50 deco schedule (i.g. no "S-curve") and no deep stops, the GUE and UTD RD deco time schedules are essentially the same. . ."
@50m for 25min bottom time on 18/45 standard gas and two deco gases Eanx50 and O2, GUE has 15min with 50% and 15min with 100% O2, while UTD has 17.5min on 50% and 17.5min on 100% O2 -or nearly the same Eanx50 and O2 time schedules for both versions of Ratio Deco.
Depth: GUE: UTD:
21m, 3min, 3.5min [Eanx50]
18m, 3min, 3.5min;
15m, 3min, 3.5min;
12m, 3min, 3.5min;
9m, 3min, 3.5min;
6m, 15min, 17.5min [Oxygen]
Or optionally:
6m, 9min, 11.5min [Oxygen]
---->, 6min, 6min [---> a surfacing ascent rate from 6m at 1 meter per minute].
Is the above clear and you savvy mate?
The implication being -comparatively to GUE's implementation of Ratio Deco- what will UTD do to modify or eliminate (or anything at all?) the prescription of deepstops in their next version of Ratio Deco. . .
Last edited:
huwporter
Contributor
Except that the profile you've typed out above also bears no resemblance to the UTD profile in the video... You can't just hand wave away the additional deep stops, the wild s-curving, the entire 9m stop on backgas (!) and claim that they are comparable. That's like saying an elephant is the same as a petunia, if you ignore that one of them is an animal and one a plant, one is huge the other small etc etc...
Similar threads
