Difference between MB levels and Gradient Factors

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!

In Richard Devanneys' part 4 on decompression he referes to dive computers that use the ZHL tpes of algorythms as Gas models, not bubble Models. Could you explain why then "using a different computer" is your opinion, important?
Bubble models have largely fallen out of use in recent years in favour of the Bulhmann + Gradient Factors model. There’s a lot of history behind this for which you should read "Deco for Divers" by Mark Powell.

One of the main reasons is the availability of planning tools and that if you’re diving with other people and with multiple dive computers (e.g. backups) then you need them all to be in agreement. There’s a load of threads on here bemoaning differences between computers and lack of planning tools for the proprietary models (e.g. Suunto tax).

The more decompression you do the more the decompression models disagree. This is especially the case for multiple dives per day, as in recreational live aboard diving, where some models penalise gas loadings.

Technical diving has consolidated around the Bulhmann+GF model using Gradient Factors around 50:80.


N.B. Bulhmann+GF is known by some as the Zurich model (ZHL being the airport code for Zurich), abbreviated to ZHL+GF
 
No problem with gas models. You were going on and on about microbubbles, which are not part of gas models. Apparently SP uses some kind of proprietary bubble model on top of a gas model. Wrong tool for multiple CESAs, as you have discovered.
This could be a Uwatec legacy from the days of the Aladin Sport / Aladin Pro? Developed by Ernst Völlm, Markus Mock and Albert A. Bühlmann.

From the Aladin Sport manual...

"Aladin® Sport considers your individual reactions
during the dive, the cooling of your skin and includes
your workload as a constant value in the calculations. The test results of medical and physiological research were taken into consideration. The new calculation model also predicts and considers the effects of the formation of micro-bubbles in both the venous and arterial circulation depending on workload and skin temperature. This has led to the development of a unique, adaptive calculation model."

A link to an interesting timeline about Bühlmann (and Uwatec...)

 
...N.B. Bulhmann+GF is known by some as the Zurich model (ZHL being the airport code for Zurich), abbreviated to ZHL+GF
Buhlmann ZH-L16C
ZH=Zurich
L=levels
16=number of tissue compartments
C=version of the model, C has additional adjustments of middle compartments over version B to make it more
conservative. C is used in most dive computers

Mark Powell's Deco for Divers is a great reference
 
I did enjoy Mark Powells book. ( Deco for Divers: Decompression Theory and Physiology ) Very easy reading and highly reccomended for students once they start thinking of deeper and longer dives. Should be a required read before purchasing any dive computer, and should be taught in any OW course world wide. Not going to happen considering the major training agencies have dumped the whole subject of Deco to the dive computer manufacturers. But that is a subject for another day.

So I will answere my own question of why use one model of computer over another?

This explains it better than I could and also should be required viewing for OW courses. And also points some in a better direction, IMO
Great vid.

But IMO, I really don't think it matters when doing multiple CESA's what computer is better than any other.
My old Air III will work just fine. AND I just found out why the unit was sold in yellow!!!! Imagine that, own something for years and I just found out why it is in Yellow!

So this was the OP post>>>>> "I'm unsure what the distinction is between the different programmable MB levels (for added conservatism)." (do)

I found this on the internet,...I suggest anyone who wants this downl;oad it, because I suspect this link isn't going to last long. https://www.divetable.info/Flyer/brochure_metric.pdf

There are also a number of "Research Reports" on the internet comparing actual settings and times with varying settings. If I can find them, I will post them to answere the original OP's question. But basically from personal experience the higher the setting, "10" on my G2 the most conservative setting and my NDL times are shorter with longer stops. I frequently ignore the first reccommended stop and try to follow a constant ascent profile / with varying rates of ascent, which is BTW where everything is headed anyways.

Another tidbit from Kevin: "VGM has the ability to use stochastic data and historically ‘proven’ decompression values in an algorithm and automatically adjust it for a range of depth/time exposure scenarios." When we get rid of algorithm's totally and totally rely on "stochastic data" entirerly and include a risk devation percentage for those that continue to dive square profiles / max dive time profiles. Variable Gradient Model: An Approach To Create More Efficient Decompressions

That is worth repeating: Varying ascent rate w/ constant ascent, this will be the most efficent and safest route that we will find for dive computers. Which is most likely the best use of a dive computer yet to be manufactured. And yes this will make hanging on a line obsolete. And will create issues with how does one ascend slowly following a dive computer, I suspect it won't be all that difficult. IMO. (I am not advocation not using a line, weather it be anchor or a seperate dive line, just pointing out the actual timed stop will cease to exsist.)
 
So this was the OP post>>>>> "I'm unsure what the distinction is between the different programmable MB levels (for added conservatism)." (do)
The OP actually asked for the correspondence between MB levels and gradient factors.
I'm unsure what the distinction is between the different programmable MB levels (for added conservatism) vs gradient factors (found on computers running non proprietary Buhlman ZHL-16). How do these compare with one another?
The OP's question was answered in Post #10.
 
The OP actually asked for the correspondence between MB levels and gradient factors.

The OP's question was answered in Post #10.



I am going to disagree with you on this one. You very graciously supplied a "chart" from some source with no money in the game so to speak.

To understand the OP's question, you need to understand what is going on with Scubapro and what their definition of what a MB in relation to their UWATEK programming actually is. And since they are not very forthright with detailed explanations , they rely heavely on their dealer network, AND no one here has even come close to explaining what the varying levels of MB's do in relation to a G2 or any of the 10 MB level settings, it is virtually impossible to make this comparision. It is in fact a "loaded" question. From the very bigining. I'm saying it is very problamatic to make a direct comparison between GF and MB in the first place. And support this with information from the internet. Although I will freely support your efforts to provide the information you have supplied, no one else bothered to really do much of anything. Problem is, it dosen't come from the manufacturer. And trying to make a comparision between 10 MB settings and high / low does not do as much as understanding what diving conservativly means in the first place. Because every time someone mentions diving conservativly on this site, they get their head taken off.

Here is the only word from the manufacturer that we have:

78 GALILEO 2 (G2) USER MANUAL

3 .8 Diving with MB levels
Microbubbles (MB) are tiny bubbles that
can build up inside a diver’s body during any
dive and normally dissipate naturally during
an ascent and on the surface after a dive.
Dives conducted within no-stop times and
the observance of decompression stops do
not prevent the formation of microbubbles
in the venous blood circulation.
Dangerous microbubbles are those
migrating into the arterial circulation. The
reasons for the migration from the venous
blood circulation to the arterial circulation
can be a many microbubbles collecting in
the lungs. SCUBAPRO has equipped the
G2 with technology to help protect divers
from these microbubbles.
With the G2, you can choose – according
to your specific needs – a MB level that
will provide a level of protection from
microbubbles. Diving with MB levels
includes additional ascent stops (level
stops); this slows the ascent process,
giving the body more time to desaturate.
This works contrary to the formation of the
microbubbles and may increase safety.
The G2 features 10 microbubble levels (L0-
L9). Level L0 corresponds to SCUBAPRO’s
well-known decompression model ZH-L16
ADT and does not require level stops due
to microbubble formation. Levels L1 to L9
offer additional protection from microbubble
formation, with level L9 offering the highest
protection.
Similar to the display of information during
decompression dives or dives within no-stop
time, the G2 displays depth and duration of
the first level stop as well as the total time
of ascent as soon as the MB no-stop time
has run out. As the MB no-stop time is
shorter than the ordinary no-stop time you
will be required to perform a stop (level stop)
sooner than a diver using level L0.
If you ignore a required level stop, the G2
will simply step down to a lower MB level.
In other words, if you choose level L8 prior
to the dive, and during the dive you ignore
the L8’s recommended stops, the G2 will
automatically adjust the setting to level L7
or lower.
3 .8 .1 Comparison of dives with MB
level L0 and MB level L9
When two G2 dive computers are used
simultaneously, with one unit set to a MB
level of L9 and the other to a MB level of
L0, the no-stop time for the L9 unit will
be shortened and more level stops will be
required before the diver has the obligation
of a decompression stop. These additional
level stops help dissipate microbubbles."




So why is Scubapro mum with what it means to dive conservativly V fully explaining what their version of MBs' are? IMO it has to do with deep stops. And the confusion this creates. If setting a G2 to the most conservative setting, promotes deep stops, considering the current political climate this will not be good for sales. If on the other hand if your diving with an undiagnosed PFO, setting your G2 to 9 could very easily save your life. These are the questions that need explaining. And to date no one has come close.

I will say one thing, Scubapro certianly dosn't hold anyones hands with detailed explanations and everyone else is real short on documentation.

And here is the link again: https://www.divetable.info/Flyer/brochure_metric.pdf

I'm goanna throw this in as well: "The human body cannot currently be mathematically modelled. Not only are individuals different because of age, fitness, pulmonary and cardiac (PFO) defects, but they also vary on a daily basis due to hydration, stress, exercise, micro-nuclei generation, and many other factors."

Thanks to: Kevin G. Variable Gradient Model: An Approach To Create More Efficient Decompressions
 

Attachments

  • G2 firmware sub Marine consulting.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 66
  • G2 Sub Marine consult info.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 54
  • G2 Microbubble graph pg.78.png
    G2 Microbubble graph pg.78.png
    13.5 KB · Views: 43
@ChrisDee
I am truly amazed with your tenacity, perseverance and endurance despite of the abuse and unjustified disrespect from some good folks you get here. Eventually these folks will walk out from under their own mind shadow and start to actually read and comprehend what you are trying to say.

I am glad that you are here.
 
@ChrisDee
I am truly amazed with your tenacity, perseverance and endurance despite of the abuse and unjustified disrespect from some good folks you get here. Eventually these folks will walk out from under their own mind shadow and start to actually read and comprehend what you are trying to say.

I am glad that you are here.
He just wants to say ScubaPro is nearly perfect. and has added nothing but irrelevant references to butress -- not prove --his point.
You two SP fanboys need to get a room. :p

It is tiresome when people blindly say models are not perfect, and then conclude that therefore they must be useless.

The thread started with the OP wanting to compare MB levels to GFs. It cannot be done, of course, but post #10 provided a report where someone did the best they could.

For some reason he thinks that saying something over and over will make it true.
I can only conclude that I'm wasting my time with this thread.
 
You two SP fanboys need to get a room.
You are just jealous 😜

I disagree with the rest of your post :)
 

Back
Top Bottom