Computer vs Algorithm

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!

2. Verification of the NDC and configuration control PART 4

As outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the VVal-18 Thalmann Algorithm was already validated with manned diving trials under operationally relevant conditions that demonstrated acceptable PDCS. Testing of the NDC was therefore simply to verify that it was a faithful implementation of the Thalmann Algorithm. This could be done by functional testing of NDCs comparing their behavior to “gold standard” decompression schedules and these gold standards exist in two forms. The gold standard printed VVal-18 Thalmann Algorithm decompression tables are the constant 0.7 atm pO2-in-nitrogen (MK 16 MOD 0) (Thalmann, 1984) decompression tables and MK 16 Mod 1 N2-O2 decompression tables (Johnson et al.,2000) that have appeared in several revisions of the U.S. Navy Diving Manual. The gold standard software implementations are the Thalmann Algorithm Decompression Table Generation Software and the Navy Dive Planner. The latter software package is designed specifically to complement the NDCs and is convenient for generating multilevel dives and decompression schedules of any complexity against which to test the NDC. A sample of 10 to 30 of each configuration of the NDC has been functionally tested by exposing them to simulated dive profiles in a small, flooded test chamber and comparing NDC prescription to gold standard Navy Dive Planner decompression schedules (Southerland, 2000; Gault and Southerland, 2005; Gault, 2006; Southerland et al., 2010). Schedules differ by no more than can be accounted for by the specified pressure sensor tolerance (maximum ±2 fsw (0.61 msw) deviation at maximum operating depth). This type of functional testing is called “black box” testing because the tester has no access to internal data structures and computer code to guide testing. The agreement between the Cochran Undersea Technologies and the U.S. Navy does not extend to sharing such proprietary
information. The outcome of dive computer testing only remains valid while the system remains unchanged and by agreement with the manufacturer, no hardware or software changes are made to any configuration of the NDC after it has passed validation testing at
NEDU. Every NDC unit undergoes a simple functional test of pressure sensor accuracy at purchase and subsequently every 18 months.

Outline of validation of the U.S. Navy Dive Computer
Screenshot-2018-03-24-at-5.23.38-PM.png
Development, validation, and documentation of the Navy VVal-18 Thalmann Algorithm was a large effort. Consequently, verification of the NDC implementation of the algorithm can be a substantially smaller effort.

The principal requirement of the NDC is implementation of the U.S. Navy-approved VVal18 Thalmann Algorithm. The U.S. Navy maintains gold standard software implementations of the Thalmann Algorithm. VVal-18 Thalmann Algorithm decompression schedules produced by these gold standard implementations have acceptable PDCS as demonstrated in
manned dive trials and estimation of PDCS using probabilistic models. The NDCs are
validated by faithful replication of gold standard decompression schedules when exposed to simulated dives.3

What are the difference between Thalmann and Bühlmann?
Regarding the Cochran VVal-18 computer, one of the things that distinguishes the Thalmann algorithm from the Bühlmann algorithm is that it does not assume that the gas uptake kinetics are the same as the gas elimination kinetics; it is called the EL algorithm. You uptake a gas exponentially and if you are offgasing, you have a sufficient supersaturation that triggers a so-called linear offgasing. You turn from exponential to linear rates and wash out slower.

Does it really matter which computer I use?
Well, yes and no. It’s a matter of preference. There is no right or wrong decompression schedule. What is important is the implementation of the model, the model fundamental in relation of the profile calculations. Because it is possible to fit the wrong model fundamental to a set of data and, so produce the wrong dive schedule , as C. Gutvik describe on the workshop1.
 
The information posted are based on disclosed information, free for all.
Part 3 awaiting moderator approval -(done)
I hope the information posted is useful for all.
Added today (April 8): if you are curious you may read the entire magazine article on the attached file
My best,
c
 

Attachments

  • CochranNAVY.pdf
    3.5 MB · Views: 118
Last edited:
Edit . deleted because I misunderstood the OP question
 
Last edited:
The Thalmann algorithm is well documented and has been researched. IIRC rates of DCS when left to float the dive time were very low but at the cost of a lot of decompression time. I know Dr. Doolette did some work on it in the mid 2000's and from the one report I can remember reading the conclusions were that given sufficiently severe dives the DCS risk became, in the words of the research team, "unacceptable". If I remember correctly it was even higher than BVM(3) which was the model used for the more recent study done by NEDU on deep stops. For technical diving that's a red-flag to me.

I don’t think you remember correctly. It is Thalmann/VVal-18 that was used as the gas content model vs the BVM(3) bubble model in the NEDU deep stops study where the gas content model won 3 to 10 in about 200 dives. That has been widely taken to mean that Buhlmann is golden, although Thalmann uses a different offgassing scheme to Buhlmann.
 
The "computer" is really the interface to the algorithm. The algorithm is the engine behind the computer.

A slight over simplification as there are other features utilized before and after the dive.

Err... the list of those "other" features is somewhat algorithm-dependent but overall it tends to be quite long. @RonR has made several posts on the subject, well worth searching for if you are interested.

To the OP: I bought the cheapest "current model" computers I could get at the time. The cheapest were the last of no-pc-uplink no-nitrox no-user-replaceable battery Aerises on closeuots. My "bang per buck" guesstimate did not include the algorithm at all and hinged rather heavily on price because if and when we outgrow these computers, well, at least we didn't waste a ton of money on 'em.

As it turned out, our vacation dive trips schedules tend to be fairly "vacation" and have not pushed our computers' algorithm so far.
 
I don’t think you remember correctly. It is Thalmann/VVal-18 that was used as the gas content model vs the BVM(3) bubble model in the NEDU deep stops study where the gas content model won 3 to 10 in about 200 dives. That has been widely taken to mean that Buhlmann is golden, although Thalmann uses a different offgassing scheme to Buhlmann.

:rofl3: where's the smiley for kicking myself? -- I actually missed that bit in all the cheering and thumping.
 
My question is what makes your algorithms better?

Define better. As I understand it, the basic assumption behind Vval-18 is there is a cap on your off-gassing rate and when the pressure difference between tissue and ambient goes over some threshold, the off-gassing becomes linear instead of "half-time"-based exponential. To me this means you have to first go deep enough to get enough pressure into your tissue and/or then come up fast enough shallow enough, so you could even go over that threshold. If your diving never takes you there, it should reduce to the straight exponential algorithm -- and so it can't be any better, or worse, or at all different.

(Keeping in mind that the models depend on chosen number of "tissue compartment" and their half-times and other fudge factors: if "exponential" Thalmann has 3 tissue compartment and "exponential" Buhlmann has 16, they'll likely give you different results anyway.)
 
I want it easy to read. I want it easy to set. I want it to maintain my settings from one day of diving to the next. I want it to not be as conservative as my suunto was on dive 2 but I am not looking for super aggressive either. I want it to be nitrox compatible. I want it to be my friend if I get on the wrong side of NDL and clear it before I get on the boat. Wanted to not spend more than necessary. Settled for two Scubapro Aladins. Actually got one to replace my old Aeris that died, then got rid of the Suunto, and got a second one when satisfied with the first one. Works fine for me.
 
I don’t think you remember correctly. It is Thalmann/VVal-18 that was used as the gas content model vs the BVM(3) bubble model in the NEDU deep stops study where the gas content model won 3 to 10 in about 200 dives. That has been widely taken to mean that Buhlmann is golden, although Thalmann uses a different offgassing scheme to Buhlmann.

If I'm not mistaken the navy version of the Cochran computer uses VVAL-18. That is exactly what I was talking about and that's the model tested by Doolette and for which the DCS risk was described as "unacceptable" when far enough over the NDL.

R..
 
If I'm not mistaken the navy version of the Cochran computer uses VVAL-18. That is exactly what I was talking about and that's the model tested by Doolette and for which the DCS risk was described as "unacceptable" when far enough over the NDL.

R..
Can you give a reference to that testing?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom