Algorithms

[Richeod]

I agree with what you're saying. However, there's more to it. GUE still uses and teaches DecoPlanner. There is more class time dedicated to its use than to Ratio Deco. Ratio Deco works beautifully for what it was designed to do. It is not designed for the diver who decides to do an air dive to 220' and deco on just O2. Nor does it work for the diver wishing to use 17/30 (or whatever) and deco on 80%. It simply wasn't designed to work in every situation. If not used along the lines it was intended it could result in a very bad day. That is why neither GUE nor I will post it on the internet. You need to take the class to see the whole picture.
That being said, GUE teaches a very slick way to use one set of ranged tables (generated using DecoPlanner) to plan all your dives. They can be easily modified on the fly for different depths, bottom times, bottom mixes, and/or deco mixes.
GUE still uses, teaches, and stands behind DecoPlanner. It is a much more versitile tool. More importantly a diver with very little deco knowledge can punch in a profile and get a table that will (most likely) get him back to the boat in decent shape. Kind of important for a program anyone can download from the internet.

 

[O-ring]

Richeod once bubbled...
I agree with what you're saying. However, there's more to it. GUE still uses and teaches DecoPlanner. There is more class time dedicated to its use than to Ratio Deco. Ratio Deco works beautifully for what it was designed to do. It is not designed for the diver who decides to do an air dive to 220' and deco on just O2. Nor does it work for the diver wishing to use 17/30 (or whatever) and deco on 80%. It simply wasn't designed to work in every situation. If not used along the lines it was intended it could result in a very bad day. That is why neither GUE nor I will post it on the internet. You need to take the class to see the whole picture.
That being said, GUE teaches a very slick way to use one set of ranged tables (generated using DecoPlanner) to plan all your dives. They can be easily modified on the fly for different depths, bottom times, bottom mixes, and/or deco mixes.
GUE still uses, teaches, and stands behind DecoPlanner. It is a much more versitile tool. More importantly a diver with very little deco knowledge can punch in a profile and get a table that will (most likely) get him back to the boat in decent shape. Kind of important for a program anyone can download from the internet.

That makes sense...kinda like the depth averaging thing they do for recreational diving.

Thanks for the info..

 

[Doppler]

Richeod once bubbled...
Mike,

The reason you and the others can't duplicate the profile that GI gave is because you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It is not a modified dissolved gas or bubble model profile. It is designed from scratch.

>>>>>>>>SNIP

Using 21/35 and 50% (close enough to the example) at 170' for 20 minutes I get this profile.

130' 1 minute
120' 1 minute
110' 1 minute
100' 1 minute
90' 1 minute
80' 1 minute
70' 3 minutes
60' 3 minutes
50' 3 minutes
40' 3 minutes
30' 3 minutes
20' 10 minutes
10' 5 minutes

As you can see it is very close to what GI wrote. It took me about 30 seconds to come up with it. Even better is that it works very well.

Hope this sheds a little light on things.

SNIP

What Richeod is showing us is an excellent example of what used to be called: "reading the face of the algorithm..." Those of you who studied simple functions or high school calculus might remember all those xy plots to translate basic math functions into a graphical entity.

Anyhow, look at it and try to see what it represents (Rich you're braver than I am to post it!). The 'secret' to begin with is using the right gases but that aside it is being able to look at the pattern that your algorithm kicks out -- any algorithm -- and being able to translate that to the circumstances of the dive... An analogy I use is using standard chord shapes to play barre chords up and down the neck of a guitar... although that might not make sense with out the benefit of a guitar to illustrate my point... OH AUDIO VISUAL AIDS ARE GREAT!!!!

OK... bottom line: What Richeod has given you should answer your questions... However, don't try this at home boys and girls unless you have some mentorship first!

DD

Oh, by the way this technique... was being used long before GUE branded it.

 

[WreckWriter]

Doppler once bubbled...
(Rich you're braver than I am to post it!).

You guys don't get yourselves in trouble.

You're hinting at the Great and much sought-after Tech 1 secrets here, they might revoke your card for giving this information to mere mortals!

You're right, much of this, and other tricks, are not GUE inventions.

WW

 

[wb416]

WreckWriter once bubbled...


You guys don't get yourselves in trouble.

You're hinting at the Great and much sought-after Tech 1 secrets here, they might revoke your card for giving this information to mere mortals!

You're right, much of this, and other tricks, are not GUE inventions.

WW

I don't think Doppler is too concerned about revocation of his Tech 1 card

Seriously, on the example given, I would have expected a shape that showed (for example, if using 50/50) a bit more time pulled away from the 60, 50, 40, 30, but the 70 being a bit longer to take advantage of the "O2 Window"...

However, if your example was just to show the ratios, then I digress...

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not sure anyone is really getting my question. In various articles GI gives specific a method for determining the schedule ie...first stop at 80% of max presure with a max time of 5 min scaled based on a bottom time from 0-150 min. From 65% to 45% same scaling with a max time of 10 min. And it goes like that until he gets to 20 ft where he says the 20 ft stop plus the final ascent should at least equal bottom time. And I know he recommends other things like shotening stops before a gas switch ect... However, when I look at the examples he gives it doesn't seem to match up. I am just wondering why.

Other things mentioned like using what we know about the shape to modify or extend a schedule are things we all do there isn't any secret there and for that matter we all develope our own little tricks to streamline the planning process. Again all I'm trying to do is go from GI's directions to the output and connect the two. Also before someone suggests I call or email GI for an explanation, I don't think I'll do that because this is just a point of curiousity for me so I don't care to wast his time over it. I did think, though that someone might know what I was missing off the top of their head.

 

[O-ring]

From George's post:
Wienke says that at Los Alamos, they can make it come out identical to mine, but I do not know what settings they are using, since obviously I know mine work and don't care what they or anyone else thinks or does, but I doubt that his publicly available program can reproduce what I do.

The trick to doing that is not well understood , but Eric Baker picked right up on it immediately. Ask him. It has to do with how I split the dive into three separate dives and actually am doing three separate decompressions. I don't talk about it much because I only mentioned it in the context of figuring out a ridiculous bottom time extension on the fly, which does not apply to most people because they would have already run out of gas (we are on rebreather for these), and because at the time I did not want anyone to really get it. Now I don't care, since nobody will dare try it anyway.

Andrew has a method for working up an in vitro deco, and that will work just fine. However, if you can follow the logic of mine as well as the logic of all the other tricks, you can throw away your deco program and tables as I did some years ago. The explanation is in one of my articles about a dive that JJ and I did where it ran way over to absurdity, but I can't remember which one it is on the WKPP.org site. Baker will know, he reminded me of it the other day in a conversation we were having.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems like we could figure it out....anybody know Baker pretty well?

 

[wb416]

Doppler once bubbled...


Hey there CWB (i know who you are!!!)
snip

Egads!! ...and you're willing to admit that!?!

bob