Ross,
You keep saying things like this, but never provide any evidence that your claims are anything other than wishful thinking on your part. In contrast, there is an abundance of evidence from the literature which proves that what Kevin is doing with integral supersaturation is a valid application with substantial precedent. This was articulated here:
NEDU Study
The issue of "pretending the NEDU test could be applied to tech diving" was largely addressed here where David Doolette explains why the analyses of integral supersaturation are relevant and constitute the most plausible explanation for the observed results in the NEDU study:
Deep stops debate (split from ascent rate thread) - Page 20
Kevin has subsequently compared real technical diving profiles prescribed by bubble models with GF approaches that de-emphasize deep stops but which are nevertheless exactly the same total length as the bubble model dives, and shown that the bubble model approaches result in greater total integral supersaturation and a tissue supersaturation pattern distribution that protects fast tissues at the expense of greater supersaturation in slow tissues: exactly the properties of the less successful bubble model dive in the NEDU study. It does not matter whether you believe the NEDU bubble model is a proper bubble model or whether it prescribes proper deep stops. The fact is that real tech dive bubble models prescribe decompressions that produce the same unfavourable supersaturation characteristics.
The science to connect the NEDU study to VPM was first discussed in the NEDU study report where (using integral supersaturation) they compared their profiles to 500,000 other possible profiles, some of which inevitably emulated VPM. A more specific comparison with VPM was presented by Dr Doolette (the NEDU study lead author) at that link to RBW above. You did not like this because it involved using VPM on +7 conservatism to get a profile of equal length to the NEDU study dives. This led to you arguing that VPM works on low conservatism but not high conservatism. I imagine that might seem confusing to some users. Finally, the connection between more typical tech dive profiles prescribed by VPM and alternative approaches has been promulgated by Kevin, using essentially the same integral supersaturation approach as Dr Doolette. All of these comparisons have concluded the same thing.
There is an obvious thread of scientific methodology and logic throughout this sequence and you can deny it as much as you like, but there certainly is science to connect the NEDU study and VPM.
No you have not. The post is largely more more of your difficult-to-interpret figures, the first of which purport to show that the NEDU deep stops profile did not protect fast tissues. I have previously pointed out that you cannot evaluate this by comparing peak supersaturation in the leading tissue at the first stop to the supersaturation in a slower leading tissue at some arbitrary point later in the decompression. If you want to demonstrate protection of fast tissues from supersaturation (or not) then model the fast tissues by themselves as was done by both the NEDU study authors in their report, and Kevin on RBW. For example:
Dropbox - Fast%20tissue%20supersaturations.jpg
Both of these analyses by separate authors clearly show that the NEDU bubble model protected fast tissues relative to the shallow stops model, and Kevin's analysis (see the dropbox link) shows that this protection was similar to that afforded by VPM-B on +7 conservatism.
This is true in many respects, but its the "science facts" against your reputation.
If you remain confused by the logic behind the choice of profiles in the NEDU study, then I suggest that you read this again:
Deep stops debate (split from ascent rate thread) - Page 14
Finally Ross, can you give me one good reason why I would want to promote a "fallacy position"?
Simon M
Last edited:
