Aow=bs

[String]

That there isn't evidence proving this relationship doesn't make it false.

In scientific method everything is false until you can prove the claim. Its been tried and never has been proven.

I suspect that the models most people dive are so conservative that instances of DCS are sufficiently rare to mask the relationship.

So there is no statistically significant evidence then. Same thing. So if it makes any difference at all its too small to be picked up in any studies. Going from that i'd say you cant claim it improves the safety margin.
To make such a claim you need to supply proof.

 

[Saltwater Junky]

Semantics, perhaps ... but tables and computers aren't safe, they're conservative. In order to be safe you have to use them properly. And even then, I've known people to bend themselves staying well within the limits of their conservative dive computers. Unfortunately, the computer doesn't know anything about your physiology, how much sleep you had last night ... or how many drinks, how well hydrated you were prior to the dive, or a host of other things that factor into your susceptibility for DCI. All it knows is your dive profile and an idealized mathematical model that says you are within "acceptable risk limits". All those limits do is reduce your potential for getting bent ... they do not eliminate the possibility.

And FWIW - coming up too fast from safety stop is probably the number one reason why people get bent. It's supposed to take a full half-minute ... not the five to ten seconds that most recreational divers tend to take ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

What about personal responsiblity? Everyone has to know their own body and limits. Computers are designed to help keep us safe just as the dive tables. We all have to use our equipment within our personal limits to remain safe. :icon_idea If my pc allows 10min bottom time at 130', but at 100' I feel that I'm getting Narc'd should continue any deeper?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

What about personal responsiblity? Everyone has to know their own body and limits. Computers are designed to help keep us safe just as the dive tables. We all have to use our equipment within our personal limits to remain safe. :icon_idea If my pc allows 10min bottom time at 130', but at 100' I feel that I'm getting Narc'd should continue any deeper?

I don't understand what that has to do with the point I was trying to make.

Diving's all about personal responsibility ... every aspect of it.

However, dive training teaches you nothing about your own body and personal limits. So how are you supposed to know? Where did you learn it? Me ... I got that knowledge through bottom time, not in a class somewhere ... mostly by gauging how I felt during or after a dive, and altering my behavior accordingly.

Many classes don't even teach tables anymore ... or they go through the motions and then sell you a dive computer, telling you it's "safer" than diving tables. OK ... so when does a person learn what that means ... or if it means anything at all in the real world?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Blackwood]

So there is no statistically significant evidence then. Same thing. So if it makes any difference at all its too small to be picked up in any studies. Going from that i'd say you cant claim it improves the safety margin.
To make such a claim you need to supply proof.

Sure. That's why I asked about diving well within table limits as opposed to diving at or past the edge.

If there is a scientifically observed risk benefit to diving within limits, I claim that the same can be said about diving nitrox on an air table without independent verification, as doing so amounts to the same thing.

Alternately, if diving nitrox on air tables doesn't provide a margin over air, then dive tables should be breathing-gas independent.

In scientific method everything is false until you can prove the claim.

Nonsense.

 

[BarryNL]

Unfortunately the Sol is just a gimmick. There isnt any real known correlation between pulse and DCS so all it does is add a fudge factor to an already guesstimated model. Its a gimmick but probably entirely worthless as far as DCS reduction goes.

Well, DAN lists exertion during diving as a risk factor for DCS. A computer which detects a high pulse rate over an extended period and reduces the NDL accordingly could certainly be safer.

 

[seaducer]

In scientific method everything is false until you can prove the claim. Its been tried and never has been proven...

as I understand the scientific method, that aim is to disprove a claim, and failing to do so strengthens the hypothosis...

 

[String]

Nope. You have a hypothesis and evidence supporting it. The status quo remains accepted until it can be proven otherwise.

Otherwise i could just claim there are invisibile undetectable aliens at the bottom of my garden and it would be accepted as true.

 

[Blackwood]

Nope. You have a hypothesis and evidence supporting it. The status quo remains accepted until it can be proven otherwise.

Otherwise i could just claim there are invisibile undetectable aliens at the bottom of my garden and it would be accepted as true.

Being an unproven hypothesis and being false are very different.

 

[bfw]

In scientific method everything is false until you can prove the claim.

No, it's unknown.

 

[bfw]

I believe you are right but that in fact the computer manufacturers are working on it by for example monitoring your pulse rate. I have it on reasonably good faith that in about six to seven years we could be looking at a scenario where many of today's computers will be "old hat".....

Conceivably, you could have a computer with a needle in your vein that would test your nitrogen level directly.