difference between 2 deco models

[pt40fathoms]

Thanks for the reply Diver0001, I do appreciate the response. Unfortunately, I believe I worded the question poorly and without being specific enough. What was contained in your response was correct, but sadly to say, it is information I already know. I'll try and be more specific, but short.

What scientific evidence is out in the world today, that would lead us divers who do decompression dives on a rather regular basis, to seek out tables and computers that use RGBM over ZHL-16C? Is RGBM safer, or is simply a different method that achieves the same results as ZHL-16C?

Never having been bent, I would like to keep it that way!

 

[MonkSeal]

What scientific evidence is out in the world today, that would lead us divers who do decompression dives on a rather regular basis, to seek out tables and computers that use RGBM over ZHL-16C? Is RGBM safer, or is simply a different method that achieves the same results as ZHL-16C?

The only real evidence that you can get is diving practice. RGBM database shows hughe numbers of dives based on RGBM with no DCS case. That's seems as pretty good evidence. For one dive you can get similar results with ZHL and RGBM but for repetitive and multy day diving it seems that RGMB is superior.

 

[SDAnderson]

I thought I read in the Encyclopedia of diving that it was rather accepted that silent bubbles form in almost any dive?

If so, would the RGBM model be fightig an uphill battle?

JAG

That some micro-bubbles form may be inevitable. Accepting them is another thing, altogether. In a nutshell, you have identified a critical distinction between Haldanian tables (including Buhlmann extensions) and RGBM tables.

I'm not qualified to defend or refute the underlying assumptions or the detailed difference between the various decompression theories, thus my participation in any conversation about them should be pretty limited. I will tell you that, from what I have read and from personal experience, I became interested in RGBM because I was/am a huge fan of Pyle stops. I think Weinke has objected to them on the grounds that they potentially complicate Haldanian tables and because they're essentially built in to RGBM tables, but the fact that they're built in to RGBM models is significant.

I don't know of any studies that pit, in a head to head battle, Buhlmann 16X tables against RGBM, and don't know that such a study would necessarily be relevant. It's been my experience that fiddling with gradient factors has a far greater influence on the success of a table than the underlying model. I use DecoPlanner to run tables for much of my day to day diving (since that's what most of my dive partners use) but when it's serious and I want to work with the numbers I switch to GAP to see what's "really" going on.

I've never been dopplered but RGBM typically gets me out of the water a little bit faster and typically feeling a little bit better, and that's about the limit of my interest in the subject.