Are you sure you want a GF of 95?

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!

Looks like you don't want a GF 70 either... I find it more interesting that the model seems to fail on the "medium" tissue compartments. Assuming the fast ones are saturated and slow ones aren't, it would seem the algorithm becomes wonky near the saturation point. Which isn't exactly unusual, generally speaking.
 
Good thing from my perspective is that the test cases were all European. Whew! Thank goodness I'm an American.

Cheers - M²
 
Good thing from my perspective is that the test cases were all European. Whew! Thank goodness I'm an American.

Cheers - M²
I'm not sure, but it seems you have to member of EU to be jeopardized. So, British should be safe in a year or two, Russians are safe(if hit, they would probably drink it out).
 
Hi @KenGordon

Why do you say that? Only 4.4% of DCS episodes had a GF >0.9. 73.7% had a GF of 0.7-0.9.
By the models the chances of a bend are worse with higher GF. So it is likely that the reason there is a smaller percentage on > 90% bent as there were fewer diving those GFs. But you know that.

My point is that high GF values, of the sort regarded as normal by some posters on SB, lead to bent divers according to this study.
 

Back
Top Bottom