Multi deco vs V-planner vs GUE Deco Planner

[EFX]

He not only checked for bubbling right after divers surfaced, he tested them repeatedly afterward. The difference was significant. The divers who used a shallower stop model had bubble levels drop off over time as predicted, but the deeper stop divers not only maintained high levels much longer, they initially increased over the initial readings after surfacing.

All of the studies I read emphasized the amount of bubbles and not their size which bubble models track along with supersaturation levels. At least not to the level of scientific rigor that I require.

I haven't see this argument raised since the epic deep stop wars in several forums, including ScubaBoard. You seem to be channeling Ross Hemingway, who was for the most part the only one making that argument.

I'm not channeling anyone. I made several arguments in those threads on why the evidence presented did not eliminate the validity behind the basic premise of bubble models. What was proven beyond any doubt is that group think is alive and well on SB.

 

[boulderjohn]

All of the studies I read emphasized the amount of bubbles and not their size which bubble models track along with supersaturation levels. At least not to the level of scientific rigor that I require.

Which studies are those?

 

[boulderjohn]

What was proven beyond any doubt is that group think is alive and well on SB.

Yep. Foolish sheep tend to follow the advice given by the all world's known experts. They're funny that way.

 

[tbone1004]

Honest question: NAUI was big on RGBM, and with that their Tech Classes then (or at least in my experience my instructor required us to) had you using VPM. Does anyone know if they have taken a different position?

NAUI was in bed with Bruce Wienke, that's why we still have to teach it. We don't have to use it, but we are required to teach it academically because of him.

 

[tbone1004]

All of the studies I read emphasized the amount of bubbles and not their size which bubble models track along with supersaturation levels. At least not to the level of scientific rigor that I require.


I'm not channeling anyone. I made several arguments in those threads on why the evidence presented did not eliminate the validity behind the basic premise of bubble models. What was proven beyond any doubt is that group think is alive and well on SB.

I mean if group think is following the recommendation of leading decompression researchers then that's a bizarre use of the term but it would apply. I am not aware of any credible decompression researchers that are actively advocating for a bubble model. I do however know of several that are personally using a GF of 50/70 or similar ratio scaled up or down based on the GF-hi. Are you aware of anyone credible who is presently alive who is actively advocating for any bubble models?

 

[nadwidny]

I mean if group think is following the recommendation of leading decompression researchers then that's a bizarre use of the term but it would apply. I am not aware of any credible decompression researchers that are actively advocating for a bubble model. I do however know of several that are personally using a GF of 50/70 or similar ratio scaled up or down based on the GF-hi. Are you aware of anyone credible who is presently alive who is actively advocating for any bubble models?

Ross Hemingway.

Wait. I missed the "credible" part.

 

[Wibble]

It's interesting how the diving community is developing so rapidly. Not only protocols and kit -- the DIR mob -- but also how decompression algorithms evolve back to the future.

In the beginning there was Haldane. Then came the bubble pretender. Now it's back to Haldane in the form of Buhlmann + GF but around 50:80 to 50:70ish (depending on your personal attitude)

That old adage applies: The problem with methodologies is methodologists.

And please don't mention Ross' name: we'll be back to another hundred pages of arguments and Dr Mitchell's got much better things to do with his life

 

[boulderjohn]

If you notice in my earlier post, I used the terms "deeper" and "shallower" rather than "deep" or "shallow." That is because the people who are advocating against "deep stops" (including me) are still doing their first stops deeper that pure Buhlmann.

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

I use Multi deco (Buhlmann) for dive planning, and the computer-generated software also includes the V-planner algorithm. I have spoken to several prominent expedition divers and they all have different Gradient Factors, one whom advocates the use of V-planner with deep stops. The best advice I can offer is slow ascents. The dive computer is working in real time, and I set my Gradient Factors so I remain in the water column that little bit longer. Each to his own devise.

 

[KevinNM]

NAUI was in bed with Bruce Wienke, that's why we still have to teach it. We don't have to use it, but we are required to teach it academically because of him.

Bruce developed that model for a very, very select audience. If your job doesn’t involve the possibilities of deep dives to recover a nuclear weapon and then immediately needing to fly in a mc-130 you are probably not that audience. It might well work better for that need, but as a general purpose model it’s been shown to be not ideal.