Deep Stops Increases DCS

[fsardone]

Excellent summary!
Thanks for distilling a few hundred posts in such a concise one.

 

[igor p]

Nobody understood? You sound like the girlfriend who was just told her boyfriend no longer wanted to see her. She exclaims, "You don't understand me!" And the boyfriend says, "Actually I do understand. I understand that you're frickin' nuts!"

Here's what I read:

Leadduck Post - the conclusion of the Wienke's paper should have been that all the models were useless in explaining the data, including his.

Doolette Post

• most of what is written in the Wienke paper(s) is unclear
• none of the models fit the data better than simply assigning identical risk to all dives within certain depth ranges
• the paper contributes nothing to the debate about whether deep stops or shallow stops are more efficient
• For more information (detailed) about Doolette's understanding see posts 800, 801, 809, and 816.

Mitchell Post

• claims of nothing but nominal DCS in deep stop models are simply wrong.
• unethical to make misleading claims while marketing a product
• only 1 of the papers posted was peer reviewed
• reminds readers that Wienke does have a financial interest in the topic and that it was undisclosed as a conflict in the paper

I think it's safe to say someone understood.

Hahaha....
Kevin, from what you put together as answer to my question is seen noone understood the method of corelation. The only one that admited it was David that wrote for him much is unclear.

Seccondly I did post versions of papers that were peer reviewed (as Bruce promised he wil post them) so you wrote another untruth. Mitchell realy didnt see more than one as I posted them later.

For other Mitchells points read BRW answer some posts ago...

So it is safe to say noone understood...

I will try to pas information to Bruce. Hopefuly he will answer some of the questions as soon as he has some spare time.

 

[David Doolette]

So it is safe to say noone understood...

I will try to pas information to Bruce. Hopefuly he will answer some of the questions as soon as he has some spare time.

I do understand the extent of what is written in the paper “Wienke BR. Deep stops model correlations. J Bioengineering Biomedical Sci 2015”. The topic is exactly my area of expertise. I posted a review of the paper earlier in this thread. However the paper is extremely poorly written and much relevant information is mission. If Wienke actually did something other than what is written in the paper, that is a failing on his part - the purpose of written scientific communication is clear, precise, and full exposition. What is written in the paper has no relevance to the present discussion.

David Doolette

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Hello,

I would like to draw attention to an issue that is in danger of being left behind and forgotten because there has been no response to it from either Ross or Igor (who backed him on it). The reason for raising and closing it off in this post is that it clearly illustrates of the sort of challenges I and others face in debating Ross (in particular) on these matters.

On page 83 (post 823) Ross asked "What is supersaturation" and then announced that a series of illustrations would be posted taking the form of the ones I used in a recent presentation to DAN Southern Africa which appeared on line and which Ross did not like. The clear implication was that he would reveal what he believed to be flaws in my portrayal of decompression processes relevant to the debate about deep stops. In post 823 he provided the first of these illustrations (in a png file ironically titled "deco101"). Luckily I saved a copy which appears below:

This illustration contains multiple errors which (almost incredibly) indicate a significant lack of understanding of some very basic issues, not least of which was the very question Ross claimed to be answering in this post (a definition of supersaturation). In response to this I replied (post 824):

Since your post begins with the question "What is supersaturation?", you might want to correct the error in defining supersaturation pressure. Supersaturation pressure should be a vertical line. It is the difference between tissue gas pressure and ambient pressure at a given ambient pressure.

Then, with absolutely no acknowledgement of the error or my identification of it, he changed his diagram to this:

...and having done so, even tried to dismiss my identification of the error by claiming that my colleague David Doolette agreed with the diagram (which he doesn't because it is still not correct - see his post 832), and by implying that I had not used the definition of supersaturation I was advocating to him in my own on line presentation - when it is plainly obvious to anyone who watches it that I did (anyone can watch it on line).

There are several points that arise from this episode.

First, this level of obfuscation and outright 'dis-ingenuity' is something we frequently encounter in these debates.

Second, Ross's level of confidence in his pronouncements and ability to produce authoritative-looking diagrams are no doubt seductive to some readers. But all is not as it seems. Remember that this particular example was allegedly a prelude to an exposition of perceived flawed reasoning on my part! Similar issues have also been seen in his ill-founded criticism of uwsojourner's heat map evaluations (Igor's post 847 reveals that as a result of this debate Ross has had to alter the program he has been selling on line for some time now). It becomes clear in periodic examples like these that either his knowledge of the field is not as good as he thinks, or alternatively, that he is very clumsy in his application of it.

These are points to bear in mind as this debate inevitably recurs here and on other sites.

Simon M

 

[igor p]

Hello,

I would like to draw attention to an issue that is in danger of being left behind and forgotten because there has been no response to it from either Ross or Igor (who backed him on it). The reason for raising and closing it off in this post is that it clearly illustrates of the sort of challenges I and others face in debating Ross (in particular) on these matters.

On page 83 (post 823) Ross asked "What is supersaturation" and then announced that a series of illustrations would be posted taking the form of the ones I used in a recent presentation to DAN Southern Africa which appeared on line and which Ross did not like. The clear implication was that he would reveal what he believed to be flaws in my portrayal of decompression processes relevant to the debate about deep stops. In post 823 he provided the first of these illustrations (in a png file ironically titled "deco101"). Luckily I saved a copy which appears below:

This illustration contains multiple errors which (almost incredibly) indicate a significant lack of understanding of some very basic issues, not least of which was the very question Ross claimed to be answering in this post (a definition of supersaturation). In response to this I replied (post 824):

Since your post begins with the question "What is supersaturation?", you might want to correct the error in defining supersaturation pressure. Supersaturation pressure should be a vertical line. It is the difference between tissue gas pressure and ambient pressure at a given ambient pressure.

Then, with absolutely no acknowledgement of the error or my identification of it, he changed his diagram to this:

...and having done so, even tried to dismiss my identification of the error by claiming that my colleague David Doolette agreed with the diagram (which he doesn't because it is still not correct - see his post 832), and by implying that I had not used the definition of supersaturation I was advocating to him in my own on line presentation - when it is plainly obvious to anyone who watches it that I did (anyone can watch it on line).

There are several points that arise from this episode.

First, this level of obfuscation and outright 'dis-ingenuity' is something we frequently encounter in these debates.

Second, Ross's level of confidence in his pronouncements and ability to produce authoritative-looking diagrams are no doubt seductive to some readers. But all is not as it seems. Remember that this particular example was allegedly a prelude to an exposition of perceived flawed reasoning on my part! Similar issues have also been seen in his ill-founded criticism of uwsojourner's heat map evaluations (Igor's post 847 reveals that as a result of this debate Ross has had to alter the program he has been selling on line for some time now). It becomes clear in periodic examples like these that either his knowledge of the field is not as good as he thinks, or alternatively, that he is very clumsy in his application of it.

These are points to bear in mind as this debate inevitably recurs here and on other sites.

Simon M

Hi Simon,

It looks like its been updated again, and recognizes your input.

 

[igor p]

I do understand the extent of what is written in the paper “Wienke BR. Deep stops model correlations. J Bioengineering Biomedical Sci 2015”. The topic is exactly my area of expertise. I posted a review of the paper earlier in this thread. However the paper is extremely poorly written and much relevant information is mission. If Wienke actually did something other than what is written in the paper, that is a failing on his part - the purpose of written scientific communication is clear, precise, and full exposition. What is written in the paper has no relevance to the present discussion.

David Doolette

David,

I did read your review and understood there were things unclear to you, so I made a conclusion you did not understand the paper and its results regardless of reasons for it. Sure did not want to say it is not the topic of your expertise. For rest of your comment about BRW work hopefully he will answer you. I did pass information to him as I promised.

 

[UWSojourner]

I did read your review and understood there were things unclear to you, so I made a conclusion you did not understand the paper and its results regardless of reasons for it.

Clearly you're not up to date on "academic speak".

First, what would be the point of an academic reviewing an article they couldn't understand because of a lack of expertise? Can you imagine: "And, in conclusion, all those little squiggly greek symbols look pretty darn technical, so I have to believe they're correct and really wish I understood them." I don't think so.

So if they say the article is "unclear", then that is part of their critique. In an academic review to say "most of what is written is unclear" likely means the reviewer believes the article is, or is pretty close to being, completely incoherent. All said, of course, within the standard rules of academic niceties.

More importantly for this thread, Dr. Doolette also said the article has no relevance to the deep stop efficiency debate that occurred on RBW and continues here. That's more a critique of those who would try to use the article to support positions that the article does not, and cannot, support.

 

[RyanT]

So if they say the article is "unclear", then that is part of their critique. In an academic review to say "most of what is written is unclear" likely means the reviewer believes the article is, or is pretty close to being, completely incoherent. All said, of course, within the standard rules of academic niceties.

+1. Indeed, I make this comment often when I review manuscripts in my field and the authors have failed to make their point clear.

 

[Storker]

In an academic review to say "most of what is written is unclear" likely means the reviewer believes the article is, or is pretty close to being, completely incoherent.

In normal English, it means "that article is total gibberish and isn't close to being coherent even on a good day".

 

[DavidFL]

I'm confused by the conflation of the use of the name "Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)" with "proprietary RGBM". If the model was developed by the proprietor completely using his own resources and within whatever the IP agreement is at LANL, that's one thing, but if there is continuous involvement of the lab, including collecting and curating data that is used to validate the model, that appears to be in conflict with my understanding of the U.S. Government's IP rights (and the U.S. taxpayer's IP rights) for work undertaken at the national labs, whether in the Department of Energy or elsewhere.