DSAT vs GF high 95, examples

[Wibble]

Why should I dive a tech std of 50/80? I actually dive 80/95.

Because all dives incur decompression and 50:80 works**.

Mixing algorithms is a complication and inevitably leads to discrepancies as per your OP. Or in the case of a Suunto, much more time on the last stop whilst ignoring its deep stops — AKA Suunto tax.


** for the purposes of this discussion

 

[scubadada]

Hi @Wibble

Your strategy works very well for your diving. My strategy works very well for mine

 

[tursiops]

all dives incur decompression

Said a lot, but silly. In today's lingo, "decompression" means mandatory decompression stops.

50:80 works**.

So do lots of other GFs.

Mixing algorithms is a complication

How is he "mixing" algorithsm? He is using two and comparing them.

and inevitably leads to discrepancies as per your OP.

I think you mean differences, not discrepancies.

Or in the case of a Suunto, much more time on the last stop whilst ignoring its deep stops — AKA Suunto tax.

Total Red Herring/Strawman.

 

[boulderjohn]

Because all dives incur decompression and 50:80 works**.

Mixing algorithms is a complication and inevitably leads to discrepancies as per your OP. Or in the case of a Suunto, much more time on the last stop whilst ignoring its deep stops — AKA Suunto tax.


** for the purposes of this discussion

Now, with SurfGF, I surface with a GF of no higher than the low 80s.

If he stays in the water until his SurfGF takes him to the low 80s, he is actually roughly diving 50/80.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the approach described in this thread. It would not be my choice--I would prefer to choose one algorithm and have it on both computers. But that's me.

 

[scubadada]

If he stays in the water until his SurfGF takes him to the low 80s, he is actually roughly diving 50/80.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the approach described in this thread. It would not be my choice--I would prefer to choose one algorithm and have it on both computers. But that's me.

I've been successfully diving DSAT since 2002, a little over 2000 dives. My 2010 Oceanic VT3 has 1631 dives and 1704 hours on it, still going strong. I've only been diving Buhlmann with GF for about 5 years, a little less than 900 dives. I've had my Teric and SurfGF for a little less than 2 1/2 years

Using my settings, I'm still a little concerned about the very long NDLs I get on some of my shallower dives with my Teric. A good, albeit, extreme example, is in the 2nd dive I posted above, 5 minute of deco on my VT3 and 40 min of NDL on my Teric.

My diving is much simpler than yours or @Wibble

 

[dmaziuk]

Why not just follow a standard Bulhmann + GF for every dive, say 50:80?

Because he's not going into "real" deco. Dr. Mitchell's et al studies and advice focus on "technical" dives with several decompression stops and significant deco time. What we have for no-stop dives with occasional "optional stop shall be mandatory" deco obligation, is decades of DSAT use.

 

[Wibble]

I can't remember the last "must stick within NDL" dive I had. Even if I'm in a mucky puddle (Wraysbury, max 10m/30') I still use the technical settings and 50:80. If there's deco, so be it. Even a shallow 30m/100' dive will be for at least an hour's bottom time, probably longer. To me that's simple diving.

One day I'd love to dive somewhere else that's warm and come to understand what you mean by simple diving. Maybe next year if the bat flu ever lets us travel again... Sigh.

---

(Strawman detail: My opinions on 'mixing' algorithms came from three years of using a Suunto as a backup to a Perdix primary on OC. Because the damn thing would lock up for days if you dare go outside of its suggestions, it resulted in several dives being extended by up to 10 minutes, and that was on the most "aggressive" setting. Thankfully I don't do that now.)