DIR recreational deco?

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!

MikeFerrara:
I suppose I could provide mine though it wasn't really the subject other than in reference to an article on the WKPP site.

I would consider a bounce dive as just what it sounds like...all up and down. Of course repetative bounce dives would be more than one of them.

The reason I asked is from what I read in BRW's book about decompression theory and application. In it he talks about bounce dives that may have bottom times of 40 minutes or more. Generally it seems also that he his talking about one dive per day. In the past I had heard of bounce dives referring to a dive with only 2 or 3 minutes bottom time and maybe more than two dives per day.

I wonder if GI's definition of a bounce dive is the same as BRW's definition :06:

I also wonder how many of these discussions would be much clearer if the words or phrases all meant the same to all the participants :06:
 
MikeFerrara:
No doubt science doesn't have it all figured out when it comes to decompression. Certainly the WKPP dives some pretty extreme profiles and they must be doing something right. However, when a finance guy tries to explain the physiological reasons why what they do works without data it's just only going to go so far. Anecdotal data can be very misleading. Homegrown non-scientific explainations for it can sound pretty good too but that doesn't make it true.

I have limited experience in this field and havent read that much so far. Having watched the latest DIR DVD, and listened to GI explaining how his scooter works, well as an engineer I thought he sounded exactly like a guy with no formal training but some idea of what he wanted (IE reliable), but his explanations were pretty damm simplistic, I think my understanding of Physics at age 16 would have been enough to baffle GI on this issue.

Going back to this deepest dive last theory, this sounds a similar setup, He's been there, done it, and it worked for him but as to the mechanics it sounds a bit wishy. It sounds plausible to me but what do i know!!! I think i would prefer to stick to the scientific approach myself
 
Albion:
Going back to this deepest dive last theory, this sounds a similar setup, He's been there, done it, and it worked for him but as to the mechanics it sounds a bit wishy. It sounds plausible to me but what do i know!!! I think i would prefer to stick to the scientific approach myself

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Only when it comes to decompresion we don't usually wait for the full blown science. Some one tries it, and if it works, some scientist will come along later and explain why it works.

I do't doubt that he's explaining what has worked for him.
 
jbd:
The reason I asked is from what I read in BRW's book about decompression theory and application. In it he talks about bounce dives that may have bottom times of 40 minutes or more. Generally it seems also that he his talking about one dive per day. In the past I had heard of bounce dives referring to a dive with only 2 or 3 minutes bottom time and maybe more than two dives per day.

I wonder if GI's definition of a bounce dive is the same as BRW's definition :06:

I also wonder how many of these discussions would be much clearer if the words or phrases all meant the same to all the participants :06:

I can't answer.

I have "Technical Diving in Depth" but not "Decompression Theory and Application" I'd like to see what he was talking about.
 
jbd:
Mike & Lamont--can you each provide your definition of a bounce dive?

I was using it based on what GI wrote:

``Now here is the important part. If you understand everything I have said above, then you know that bouncing to 20 feet or whatever to pick up a bottle and immediately returning to the surface is the like giving yourself a homemade PFO: the bubbles in the venous side compress enough to get past the lungs and then will re-expand on the arterial side and lodge in the worst places, the spine and brain blood supplies. You do not want this.''
 
lamont:
I was using it based on what GI wrote:

``Now here is the important part. If you understand everything I have said above, then you know that bouncing to 20 feet or whatever to pick up a bottle and immediately returning to the surface is the like giving yourself a homemade PFO: the bubbles in the venous side compress enough to get past the lungs and then will re-expand on the arterial side and lodge in the worst places, the spine and brain blood supplies. You do not want this.''

This sounds like what BRW referes to as a spike dive.

I'll bring in the Decompression/Application book this evening and make sure I'm using the same terms as BRW.
 
Albion:
I have limited experience in this field and havent read that much so far. Having watched the latest DIR DVD, and listened to GI explaining how his scooter works, well as an engineer I thought he sounded exactly like a guy with no formal training but some idea of what he wanted (IE reliable), but his explanations were pretty damm simplistic, I think my understanding of Physics at age 16 would have been enough to baffle GI on this issue.

Hehehe

I've watched this part too. I thought the same thing :)

That being said, it IS good enough to get the point across, and what he says is basically correct, so the "Engineers" can give him a pass and realize that what he's saying RE Scooter is far more important than the electrical theory behind it. Actually, as a layman, I thought he did pretty well.

"Simple" works for me every time. I'm a simple guy.

Steve
 
Scuba_Steve:
Hehehe

I've watched this part too. I thought the same thing :)

That being said, it IS good enough to get the point across, and what he says is basically correct, so the "Engineers" can give him a pass and realize that what he's saying RE Scooter is far more important than the electrical theory behind it. Actually, as a layman, I thought he did pretty well.

"Simple" works for me every time. I'm a simple guy.

Steve

Maybe he can be talked into doing cookery shows next :)
 
Mike,

I have a copy of the book if you would like to borrow it. I got it a couple of years ago on ebay. I met Bruce at a show nd he was pleasantly suprised at what I had to pay to get it. I think it made his day :wink:

Dan



MikeFerrara:
I can't answer.


I have "Technical Diving in Depth" but not "Decompression Theory and Application" I'd like to see what he was talking about.
 
Dan Gibson:
Mike,

I have a copy of the book if you would like to borrow it. I got it a couple of years ago on ebay. I met Bruce at a show nd he was pleasantly suprised at what I had to pay to get it. I think it made his day :wink:

Dan

I'd love to have a look at it.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom