18 hours between last dive and flight

[detroit diver]

Please continue to do what you feel is best.

The rest of your reply is not worth responding to. It's there strictly for inflammatory reasons.

I follow DAN's previous recommendation of a 24 hour desat before flying (which I follow anyway - I don't take any notice of my computers no fly time).

okay the exhaustion comment was for dramatic effect and redunant. The point is that you bang on about not trusting a computer (which are used to peform hundreds of millions of safe dives per year) yet you are willing to trust the word of a couple of guys that display excellent buoyancy control and can fin backwards - great credentials for formulating deco theory.

I will keep diving my computer for shallow, easy dives and tables + v-planner for anything more difficult.

But hey, thinking rationally is not for everyone...

 

[redacted]

awap - I hope you are just being disingenious because - come on - that is not how you use a computer to define no-fly time.

Not really. The basic problem is that our dive computers do not allow you to predict desaturation (and no-fly) times based on planned dives. I'm diving an Oceanic which just gives me 24 hrs - not a lot of help there. Yours does much better than that but still does not tell you the answer until you finish the last dive. My Oceanic also tracks current desaturation status, graphically, but no future status for planning purposes.

I see dive computers like ours as a secondary aid to planning no-fly times as we build expwerience with them but of limited use for the definative answer without leaving a comfortable buffer.

 

[TX101]

d

I can tell you did a great deal of research on decompression theory here... :icorolleye:

I guess all the uneventful 12-18 hour deco dives were just dumb luck. I guess all the doppler tests and medical research etc. was just for show...sigh...

Get back to me when GUE have conducted over 10 million of these dives using their deco system and the incidents that have happened along with it (which you will never get because they are covered up) - then you may start to have some decent data. Because over 10 times this amount are conducted per year using the USN tables or some derivative thereof.

 

[detroit diver]

Oh no. Another conspiracy theory!

Did you hear the one about the grassy knoll?

Please. Don't use the system that we do. Use your computer. It's okay. Nobody is trying to convert you.

PS. The drug Vioxx was just pulled from the market because it may cause fatal heart conditions. 3 million people in the USA alone were on that drug, 7 million worldwide. It was sold by one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, and approved by the FDA.

 

[tdinindy]

Nitrox Nitrox

 

[bwerb]

Get back to me when GUE have conducted over 10 million of these dives using their deco system and the incidents that have happened along with it (which you will never get because they are covered up) - then you may start to have some decent data. Because over 10 times this amount are conducted per year using the USN tables or some derivative thereof.

We all know that no one EVER get's "undeserved" hits simply by following their computers right.

So now we've moved from computers to deco on the fly back to the USN tables. I'm assuming that you realize that these are all "models" of what may or may not be occuring...everytime you get in the water YOU are part of the expiriment.

The model in your computer is no more an indication of "reality" than deco on the fly. However, if you rely on your computer to do your thinking for you...when it craps out...you are suddenly at a disadvantage. If someone instead uses a very simple system to calculate their dives and carries some back-up tables for contingencies...who is in a better position when things go sideways?

Besides...I can't imagine a computer company ever thinking about padding the numbers or anything to protect their legal heinies...

 

[TX101]

We all know that no one EVER get's "undeserved" hits simply by following their computers right.

Just the same as noone gets undeserved hits following deco on the fly - oh wait. We don't know because GUE don't release any data.

So now we've moved from computers to deco on the fly back to the USN tables. I'm assuming that you realize that these are all "models" of what may or may not be occuring...everytime you get in the water YOU are part of the expiriment.

Actually, I was going to write something similar to that before... It's all theory and based on a computer model. If you go back to absolute basics, they are both the same. I'm not saying GUE is wrong I'm just saying that my theory (a computer based on USN tables and backed up by tables) has been tested over 10 billion times. GUE's theory has been tested for maybe tens of thousands.

The model in your computer is no more an indication of "reality" than deco on the fly. However, if you rely on your computer to do your thinking for you...when it craps out...you are suddenly at a disadvantage. If someone instead uses a very simple system to calculate their dives and carries some back-up tables for contingencies...who is in a better position when things go sideways?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only dives I rely 100% on my computer for are no-stop non-overhead dives. Otherwise it's tables first, then verified by a computer. If the computer craps out in the first instance, I ascend. In the second instance it's a minor annoyance since I carry more than one bottom timer/depth gauge. Personally, I think I'm in the better position when things go sideways.

Besides...I can't imagine a computer company ever thinking about padding the numbers or anything to protect their legal heinies...

I agree. But surely this can only be good?

 

[detroit diver]

First of all, I think you're referring to the WKPP, not GUE. Secondly, where do you get your info that they don't release any data? Ever call them and ask them? Or is it just what you read on the internet?

Secondly, if you're not saying GUE is wrong, what's with all the snide comments about:
"I guess if you read it in a book, it must be right.", "
I guess if JJ says it to be true, it must be right."
"But hey, thinking rationally is not for everyone..."

What exactly ARE you saying?

Just the same as noone gets undeserved hits following deco on the fly - oh wait. We don't know because GUE don't release any data.



Actually, I was going to write something similar to that before... It's all theory and based on a computer model. If you go back to absolute basics, they are both the same. I'm not saying GUE is wrong I'm just saying that my theory (a computer based on USN tables and backed up by tables) has been tested over 10 billion times. GUE's theory has been tested for maybe tens of thousands.



I can't speak for anyone else, but the only dives I rely 100% on my computer for are no-stop non-overhead dives. Otherwise it's tables first, then verified by a computer. If the computer craps out in the first instance, I ascend. In the second instance it's a minor annoyance since I carry more than one bottom timer/depth gauge. Personally, I think I'm in the better position when things go sideways.



I agree. But surely this can only be good?

 

[TX101]

What exactly ARE you saying?

I think that used properly, tables backed up by a dive computer are a valuable if not essential addition to a dive.

but hey, they are not for everyone.

 

[rjchandler]

Dude...when you are lost in space...lot's of things appear to be off-topic which aren't. When threads degenerate, oftentimes we decide to simply make lemonade...

Yup...your entertainment dollars go further here...

aw shucks - i wanted kool aid