WhiteSands
Contributor
- Messages
- 668
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
I basically got non-answers in UTD when I started to ask what I felt were very basic questions that any instructor from any agency should be able to answer about the decompression stuff they were teaching. I felt that it's important that instructors have already researched these questions themselves and had answers to these simple questions as students come into the program without any knowledge and take what they learn and used it for their diving.
At the time, I had absolutely no idea what ratio deco was, or how it was derived. During the course, a fair part of the section on decompression models/theory was directed at bashing the Buhlmann model, that it's a dissolved gas model, it makes certain wrong assumptions about bubble formation, that it's obsolete and inferior to newer bubble models, etc. etc. Which is fair enough if you also told students that everyone else knew this, and very little if any divers still followed the Bulhman model in its original form, and that divers nowadays modify it with Gradient Factors.
There was also a lot of informal talk during the class of how UTD is superior because it doesn't use tables or decompression models etc. and pushed ratio deco as the superior decompression "model" to follow. Which begs the question from any curious student - what is ratio deco based on if not on tables and models, and how was it verified, and how do we know it works?
I thought that was a simple and innocent question, but it made the instructor uncomfortable, and all I got was a big smokescreen and non-answers, and made to understand indirectly that my questions were not welcome. Which is ironic because one of UTD's slogans is that it trains "thinking divers" instead of "protocol divers" (probably an indirect dig on GUE divers). So how do you become a thinking diver without asking questions and figuring things out for yourself and verifying facts?
When I read the magazine that UTD put out on the "science" of ratio deco, I was excited. Maybe I will finally get some answers from the man himself. But anticipation turned to more questions as I read the articles.
- two diving physicians in Italy - what are their names? What are their qualifications?
- The doctors tested several parameters - what parameters were this? How did they decide on these parameters? - blood cell dust? A google search turns up absolutely nothing
- Activation of body's immune system? How did they test this, and why is it important to decompression? (The magazine is targeted at layman students like me with little or no knowledge of decompression theory, so it would be useful if some elaboration or background info was provided)
- There was talk of incorporating RGBM and VPM into UTD's ratio deco, but totally no details about how it was done? Or a basic comparison graph showing Buhlman GF 30/80 vs RGBM vs VPM vs UTD Ratio Deco?
- What exactly were the results of the test? How many trials were conducted, what were the profiles and what were the percentages of divers getting bent on the different models?
- There was a claim of striking gold. The gold was standardized mixes. Huh? Isn't this what WKPP/GUE has been doing for ages?
- Found another gold nugget, worked with an anesthesiologist? What's his/her name? What did he/she teach that was so valuable? If it's so important, wouldn't some elaboration be necessary?
The article left me with even more questions than I started with, and I think an article presented in this way will convince only the most simple minded students.
At the time, I had absolutely no idea what ratio deco was, or how it was derived. During the course, a fair part of the section on decompression models/theory was directed at bashing the Buhlmann model, that it's a dissolved gas model, it makes certain wrong assumptions about bubble formation, that it's obsolete and inferior to newer bubble models, etc. etc. Which is fair enough if you also told students that everyone else knew this, and very little if any divers still followed the Bulhman model in its original form, and that divers nowadays modify it with Gradient Factors.
There was also a lot of informal talk during the class of how UTD is superior because it doesn't use tables or decompression models etc. and pushed ratio deco as the superior decompression "model" to follow. Which begs the question from any curious student - what is ratio deco based on if not on tables and models, and how was it verified, and how do we know it works?
I thought that was a simple and innocent question, but it made the instructor uncomfortable, and all I got was a big smokescreen and non-answers, and made to understand indirectly that my questions were not welcome. Which is ironic because one of UTD's slogans is that it trains "thinking divers" instead of "protocol divers" (probably an indirect dig on GUE divers). So how do you become a thinking diver without asking questions and figuring things out for yourself and verifying facts?
When I read the magazine that UTD put out on the "science" of ratio deco, I was excited. Maybe I will finally get some answers from the man himself. But anticipation turned to more questions as I read the articles.
- two diving physicians in Italy - what are their names? What are their qualifications?
- The doctors tested several parameters - what parameters were this? How did they decide on these parameters? - blood cell dust? A google search turns up absolutely nothing
- Activation of body's immune system? How did they test this, and why is it important to decompression? (The magazine is targeted at layman students like me with little or no knowledge of decompression theory, so it would be useful if some elaboration or background info was provided)
- There was talk of incorporating RGBM and VPM into UTD's ratio deco, but totally no details about how it was done? Or a basic comparison graph showing Buhlman GF 30/80 vs RGBM vs VPM vs UTD Ratio Deco?
- What exactly were the results of the test? How many trials were conducted, what were the profiles and what were the percentages of divers getting bent on the different models?
- There was a claim of striking gold. The gold was standardized mixes. Huh? Isn't this what WKPP/GUE has been doing for ages?
- Found another gold nugget, worked with an anesthesiologist? What's his/her name? What did he/she teach that was so valuable? If it's so important, wouldn't some elaboration be necessary?
The article left me with even more questions than I started with, and I think an article presented in this way will convince only the most simple minded students.
