Riding deco ceiling on ascent

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Fully calculate the ceiling. You do not care if it is 17.95m or 18.05m -> 18m for you deco stop is good enough.

Yes, if programmed by the accountant from the joke: "how much is two times two? -- How much do you need?"

When programmed by a computer programmer, C = (P - a) * b results in a "fully calculated" ceiling. The only possible "good enough" thing about it is floating-point representation issues, but those were covered in Scientific Computing 201.
 
There's 2 sides to every story so maybe have a look at Suunto fused RGBM. Dr. Bruce Wienke.
 
There's 2 sides to every story so maybe have a look at Suunto fused RGBM. Dr. Bruce Wienke.
Good luck with that, since all their algorithms are proprietary.
 
While we don't have access to the exact algorithms employed in the dive computers, Bruce Wienke wrote a paper on the RGBM model. It is included below. Beyond all the initial pages on the math he has some interesting comments at the end of the paper.
 

Attachments

  • deco_weinke_rgbm.pdf
    135.5 KB · Views: 126
Beyond all the initial pages on the math he has some interesting comments at the end of the paper.
Hi EFX,

Slightly off topic, but hopefully interesting.

Thanks, I had not seen Bruce's RGBM article in a while, and decided to remind myself of the 'interesting comments'. The 'Empirical practices' bit caught my eye because it is often raised in discussions about bubble models.

I and a number of colleagues have always been fascinated by Bruce's citation of empirical decompression practices of Torres Strait Islanders and Hawaiian diving fishermen as being supportive of deep stop / bubble model approaches. In the article you posted he characterises these practices as...

"...deeper decompression stops, but shorter decompression times than required by Haldane theory, were characteristics of their profiles".

...and says...

"While the science behind such procedures was not initially clear, the operational effectiveness was always noteworthy and could not be discounted easily. Later, the rationale, essentially recounted in the foregoing (description of RGBM), became clearer".

It is worth reflecting on what we actually know about the "operational effectiveness" of these decompressions because it is indeed "noteworthy".

In the case of the Torres Strait Islanders, and after reading the paper where Bruce apparently got his information [1] this is what David Doolette and I concluded in a recent textbook chapter [2].

"The earliest of these papers, an observational study of the practices of pearl divers in the Torres Strait of Australia, often cited as unqualified support for deep stops, is difficult to obtain and worth summarizing here. These pearl divers performed air dives to depths up to 80 msw followed by empirically-derived decompression schedules that had deeper stops and were somewhat shorter than accepted navy decompression schedules. Thirteen depth/time recordings were made of such dives, and these dives resulted in 6 cases of DCS (46% incidence). The remaining data was a count of dives performed from four fishing vessels over a two month period and these 468 man-dives resulted in 31 reported cases of DCS (7% incidence)."

In the case of the Hawaiian fishermen, the paper where Bruce apparently got his information [3] says:

"All divers interviewed had experienced one of more incidents of decompression sickness (DCS) which they treated by immediate in-water recompression. Some divers reported experiencing DCS symptoms as often as one out of three diving days".

As David and I said in the textbook chapter [2]:

"It takes a certain cognitive dissonance to interpret these high incidences of DCS as supporting a deep stops approach".

Simon M

References:

1. Le Messurier DH, Hills BA. Decompression sickness: a thermodynamic approach arising from a study of Torres Strait diving techniques. Hvalradet Skrifter 1965; 48: 84.
2. Mitchell SJ, Doolette DJ. Extreme scuba diving medicine. In: Felletti F (ed). Extreme Sports Medicine. New York: Springer Publishers; 313-333, 2017.
3. Farm FP Jr, Hayashi EM, Beckman EL. Diving and decompression sickness treatment practices among Hawaii's diving fishermen. Sea Grant Technical Paper UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TP-86-01. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program; 1986.
 
On the potential drawback side of riding the ceiling, there is an increased risk of overshooting the ceiling while riding it up (possibly multiple times).

This.

No need (for me) to try to fix what ain’t broke.
 
This is, to a degree, reminding me of a common statement about nitrox, a statement claiming that nitrox divers have only two choices: 1) follow an air diving schedule for greater safety or 2) dive to the nitrox limits for longer bottom times. That argument assumes there is no middle ground--if you follow the nitrox limits, you are required to stay at depth for the full nitrox NDL. You are not allowed to stay longer than the air schedule (more bottom time) and stay away from the nitrox limits (more safety).

Similarly, this discussion assumes two possibilities--1) stay at scheduled decompression stop depth or 2) ride the ceiling. If you know you have a ceiling that is, say, 8 feet above your current scheduled deco stop, is there any reason you can't ascend to, say, 4 feet shallower?
 
If you know you have a ceiling that is, say, 8 feet above your current scheduled deco stop, is there any reason you can't ascend to, say, 4 feet shallower?

I'm not sure how likely the 8 feet is IRL: it's too close to the next stop depth. That said, you don't have to space your stops at 10 feet, you could make stops at (just below) the ceiling wherever that happens to be. The paper posted by @Dr Simon Mitchell says on page 8 it could reduce your deco time by 8-15% and refers to "Gutvik CR, Brubakk AO. A model predictive framework for dynamic calculation of optimal decompression profiles. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2004;31:342"
 
If you know you have a ceiling that is, say, 8 feet above your current scheduled deco stop, is there any reason you can't ascend to, say, 4 feet shallower?

You're posing a similar question to "why not increase your GFs?". Presumably they are what they are for any number of reasons, but some related to perceived risk. If you are OK with a higher value on an ongoing basis, you probably would have already increased it.
 
says on page 8 it could reduce your deco time by 8-15%
That's the benefit, but at what cost? Without testing, we just don't know. A lack of desire to be a guinea pig was one of the motivations for the OP.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom