GUE and Sidemount position ?

[tbone1004]

Saying that I'm dismissive of any algorithm is quite a stretch, in fairness.
What I'm saying is that I find Ratio Deco a helpful tool. I was initially trained in the use of laptop software and dive computers, same as most. I've seen both sides of the "fence", and I find the grass is green on both. It's not fair to say I'm pointing fingers at anyone, and I certainly don't mean to let imply that's my intention.

Please allow me to ask you this, and I hope that you understand I mean this in no way disrespectful. It's a purely well-meaning question:

What if upon investigation it turns out that RD approximates an algorithm you currently use in your dive computer - would that change anything in your view?

Reversely, I'll gladly surrender that over time, you could adjust Ratio Deco ad hoc to meet whatever findings are presented by science, and I'll be happy to welcome such advances.

I use GUE's implementation of ratio deco as a last chance ditch at getting out of the water unbent. That is after the following fail
primary computer
backup computer
buddies primary computer-my tertiary
buddies backup computer-my quaternary
my printed tables in wet notes
my buddies tables in wet notes
our knowledge of the cave and what deco generally should be based on history
THEN GUE's ratio deco comes out knowing that that roughly approximates GF30/85. I personally believe that a gf-lo of 30 is too slow and run 60/80, but it's better than nothing.

UTD's whatever you call it is some bastardized version of 30/85 which comes out much lower than that. I believe, and scientists corroborate that that low of a GF-lo increases decompression stress in the body and all recommend getting up quick. If you think about what GF-lo is and why, you quickly realize that having that large of a gap in between the two doesn't actually compute which is why every year it seems that the gap narrows

 

[PfcAJ]

And I am not doing this for tech diving, but diving with redundancy and I don't wish to haul a pony bottle with me. Done that. PIA. Not doing it anymore.

Make a friend! Dive with a buddy! It's fun to dive with friends!

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Yes! And have my unaware new friends scare away the critters.

Really, no thanks. I know what works for me and travel

 

[DevonDiver]

Can't get doubles? Where are you diving?.

Spoken like only a resident of Florida, USA could. LMAO

 

[Dan_P]

I use GUE's implementation of ratio deco as a last chance ditch at getting out of the water unbent. That is after the following fail
primary computer
backup computer
buddies primary computer-my tertiary
buddies backup computer-my quaternary
my printed tables in wet notes
my buddies tables in wet notes
our knowledge of the cave and what deco generally should be based on history
THEN GUE's ratio deco comes out knowing that that roughly approximates GF30/85. I personally believe that a gf-lo of 30 is too slow and run 60/80, but it's better than nothing.

Okay, cool.

Will you grant that it would seem somewhat paradoxial if someone denounced UTD Ratio Deco stating the originator as a cause, and then uses GUE Ratio Deco instead?

 

[beester]

Okay, cool.

Will you grant that it would seem somewhat paradoxial if someone denounced UTD Ratio Deco stating the originator as a cause, and then uses GUE Ratio Deco instead?

Why? Tbone is stating it as a backup of a backup of a backup (to the umpth time)...not like he's using it has his game plan.

Next Gue was already emphasising a real plan using tables/decosoftware vs using ratio deco 3 to 4 years ago and all recently graduated T1 divers that I know haven't even been taught ratio deco and use 100% planning software or tables.

 

[Dan_P]

Because they have the same originator, regardless of how one might evaluate them in their current version, or choose to utilize them. If - say hypothetically - someone were to denounce one for that reason, surely, they ought denounce both.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[tbone1004]

my acceptance of GUE's ratio deco as a basically last minute resort is more of an effort to get my ass to the surface in as least of a bendy was as possible. No different than using the rule of 130 as a last ditch in a recreational environment. Unlike UTD's implementation, I tend to pad the shallow stops and stay there as long as I can instead of staying deep which as shown by multiple studies, including the one referenced, provide a less safe ascent curve for the body than getting up shallow quickly

 

[PfcAJ]

Spoken like only a resident of Florida, USA could. LMAO

I've been a few places (SE Asia included) and could wrangle doubles if I wanted.

Check out the Asian Karst Exploration Project. I don't wanna hear it that it "can't be done".

 

[victorzamora]

Okay, cool.

Will you grant that it would seem somewhat paradoxial if someone denounced UTD Ratio Deco stating the originator as a cause, and then uses GUE Ratio Deco instead?

Dan, I think the difference comes in the paradigm under which Ratio Deco is used. I like the concept of it, but I don't like that someone would plan a dive on RD and then on Buhlmann, look at the discrepancies, and say then claim that Buhlmann is bad because it doesn't match their proprietary/arbitrary RD implementation.

GUE teaches Ratio Deco as a method of fitting known and trusted algorithms.
UTD teaches Ratio Deco as a method of replacing known and trusted algorithms.

GUE teaches Ratio Deco to be used along with desktop planners.
UTD teaches Ratio Deco to be used instead of desktop planners.

GUE uses known algorithms as proof of accuracy of your personal Ratio Deco curve.
UTD uses known algorithms as proof of how bad they are compared to their rigid Ratio Deco curve.