On a similar - or even slightly more agressive - profile, EANx could keep a PFO-mediated issue subclinical.
Bent. I guess it really can happen to me.
- Thread starter TechDeep
- 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
On a similar - or even slightly more agressive - profile, EANx could keep a PFO-mediated issue subclinical.
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
As Quero says above...please stay on topic and keep posts germane to the incident as described by the OP. Thank you. Marg, SB Senior Moderator
Last edited:
I hope they cant take the OW course with ANY means of planning decompression
Technically possible. Student elects to take the course with computers. Mainland shop provides use of computer with the course. Student doesn't buy computer. New OW Diver heads to the Caribbean to dive, and the shop doesn't have computers. Uh oh...
In an earlier post, I used the term phrase planing decompression in the broadest sense of the term, meaning the whole process of planning bottom time, ascent speeds, and stops. Unless Tigerman is under the impression that when you ascend on a no stop dive, no decompression takes place, he was ragging on me for my use of the word.
Tigerman
Contributor
I did. Of course theres decompression going on, but given the fact that "recreational divers" are treained for "no decompression diving" and the tables show No Decompression Limits, I just preferr to keep the terms consistent. It WAS a bit tounge in cheek (or out of the mouth) though
birdwrasse
Contributor
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 18
dehydration
obesity (fatty tissue)
fast ascents
ascents that are too slow
multiple ascents/descent on same dive
diving too deep for too long
failure to do a deep stop
failure to do a safety stop
age
arteriosclerosis
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
old dive computers (ok ascent rates of 40fpm@40ft... 50fpm@50ft... etc...)
low FO2
bell curve victim
bad luck
karma
???
obesity (fatty tissue)
fast ascents
ascents that are too slow
multiple ascents/descent on same dive
diving too deep for too long
failure to do a deep stop
failure to do a safety stop
age
arteriosclerosis
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
old dive computers (ok ascent rates of 40fpm@40ft... 50fpm@50ft... etc...)
low FO2
bell curve victim
bad luck
karma
???
jbomb001
Contributor
Hmmm are tables designed to take any of this in to account?? No they are not. They are designed around TESTS and THEORY of NAVY DIVERS. But my COMPUTER can be adjusted to be more or less conservative. Just some food for thought;-)
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
drrich2
Contributor
Jbomb001:
I think the idea is that most people don't dive square profiles most of the time, and tables are square profile-based, so most people on most dives get overly conservative bottom times on tables.
Kind of like when we argue about Suunto computers being more conservative than some competitors, and whether that's a good thing or bad.
It's like a progression of risk -
1.) Don't dive.
2.) Dive tables (except on square profile dives, where similar to computer).
3.) Dive a Suunto.
4.) Dive an Oceanic or similar with the more liberal algorithm enabled.
And when something thought to be DCS-related happens, people can argue that if you'd stuck to one level up the risk chain, you'd probably be okay (even though lots of people do 4.) without evident consequence).
Richard.
I think the idea is that most people don't dive square profiles most of the time, and tables are square profile-based, so most people on most dives get overly conservative bottom times on tables.
Kind of like when we argue about Suunto computers being more conservative than some competitors, and whether that's a good thing or bad.
It's like a progression of risk -
1.) Don't dive.
2.) Dive tables (except on square profile dives, where similar to computer).
3.) Dive a Suunto.
4.) Dive an Oceanic or similar with the more liberal algorithm enabled.
And when something thought to be DCS-related happens, people can argue that if you'd stuck to one level up the risk chain, you'd probably be okay (even though lots of people do 4.) without evident consequence).
Richard.
Similar threads
