I apologize in advance. I am not trying to stir up a flamefeast or something similar. I am just trying to express something which concirns me a bit.
One thing that strikes me a lot -- in general and in this thread -- is that the question from the original poster to me seemed quite clear, and could be phrased simply as "what's the DIR way of computing dive / deco profiles?"
Unfortunately, the answers provided are not phrased as clearly, but amount to "You're going to enjoy this journey, my friend. Keep asking 'why' and 'how.' Keep searching" and "Buhlman is wrong and computers use an outdated algorithm" (paraphrased from a post above).
I do not know the answer myself either, not having had any GUE training. I know how Buhlman, VPM and (to some extend) RGBM works (I'm currently studying the litterature on RGBM) -- that's well doccumented in scientific litterature (and elsewhere), well tested and described in an "open" and scientific way, as well as in more popular and easilly applicable terms. That said, where the models fail are also well doccumented. All that makes me relatively comfortable calculating my profiles and add conservativism as well as what I have found to "work for me". It may not yield "optimal" (shortest possible) deco schedules, but it keeps me out of the chamber.
What I do find disturbing is, that "the DIR deco and dive profile calculation method" is elusive -- seemingly not really doccumented outside GUE circles. And any questions or probes for information are met with "it's a holistic approach, you need to take the class and convert to DIR" (again paraphrased).
As a diver and a scientist, I am reluctant to accept "new" procedures (as in "procedures which invalidate best current pratice") without the procedure(s) being openly doccumented, independantly tested and preferably peer reviewed by the broader diving medical and scientific community.
On the topic on the GUE/DIR procedures for calculating dive/deco profiles, I have found little public info besides very "broad terms", usually qualified by "take the class, it's a holistic thing". Personally, that does indicate to me that the system isn't tested following the criteria which I hold in high regard (clinical testing, peer reviewed by the diving medical and scientific community). I do believe that to be a shame, especially since the proponents of GUE/DIR seem to maintain that their procedures not only work, but that they work very very well, even.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if what I am looking for really exists "out there". In that case pointers to relevant material would be much appreciated.
A couple of disclaimers.
Every decompression model is exactly that: a MODEL. Hence, there are conditions under which it applies and conditions under which it doesn't apply. Publishing a model, as well as the conditions under which it is found to apply would, imho, accomodate the whole "holistic" requirements (which I assume is something about physical condition and exercise regimen, health, diet etc.)
Also, I do not believe in "Internet divers" or "textbook divers". Diving, including decompression procedures cannot be learned solely from reading and studying models. Anyone who goes diving without training takes a risk -- so one should always "take the class". However publicly available information might be what would pursuade someone like me that I should "take the class".
One thing that strikes me a lot -- in general and in this thread -- is that the question from the original poster to me seemed quite clear, and could be phrased simply as "what's the DIR way of computing dive / deco profiles?"
Unfortunately, the answers provided are not phrased as clearly, but amount to "You're going to enjoy this journey, my friend. Keep asking 'why' and 'how.' Keep searching" and "Buhlman is wrong and computers use an outdated algorithm" (paraphrased from a post above).
I do not know the answer myself either, not having had any GUE training. I know how Buhlman, VPM and (to some extend) RGBM works (I'm currently studying the litterature on RGBM) -- that's well doccumented in scientific litterature (and elsewhere), well tested and described in an "open" and scientific way, as well as in more popular and easilly applicable terms. That said, where the models fail are also well doccumented. All that makes me relatively comfortable calculating my profiles and add conservativism as well as what I have found to "work for me". It may not yield "optimal" (shortest possible) deco schedules, but it keeps me out of the chamber.
What I do find disturbing is, that "the DIR deco and dive profile calculation method" is elusive -- seemingly not really doccumented outside GUE circles. And any questions or probes for information are met with "it's a holistic approach, you need to take the class and convert to DIR" (again paraphrased).
As a diver and a scientist, I am reluctant to accept "new" procedures (as in "procedures which invalidate best current pratice") without the procedure(s) being openly doccumented, independantly tested and preferably peer reviewed by the broader diving medical and scientific community.
On the topic on the GUE/DIR procedures for calculating dive/deco profiles, I have found little public info besides very "broad terms", usually qualified by "take the class, it's a holistic thing". Personally, that does indicate to me that the system isn't tested following the criteria which I hold in high regard (clinical testing, peer reviewed by the diving medical and scientific community). I do believe that to be a shame, especially since the proponents of GUE/DIR seem to maintain that their procedures not only work, but that they work very very well, even.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, if what I am looking for really exists "out there". In that case pointers to relevant material would be much appreciated.
A couple of disclaimers.
Every decompression model is exactly that: a MODEL. Hence, there are conditions under which it applies and conditions under which it doesn't apply. Publishing a model, as well as the conditions under which it is found to apply would, imho, accomodate the whole "holistic" requirements (which I assume is something about physical condition and exercise regimen, health, diet etc.)
Also, I do not believe in "Internet divers" or "textbook divers". Diving, including decompression procedures cannot be learned solely from reading and studying models. Anyone who goes diving without training takes a risk -- so one should always "take the class". However publicly available information might be what would pursuade someone like me that I should "take the class".