Riding GF99 instead of mandatory/safety stops

[Wallowa]

You are trying to have it both ways, aren't you?
You say it's all a crap shoot, then you list all the things you are going to do to improve your odds even further than your Peregrine suggests. Why not just admit that there is some real value in the Peregrine calculations, and in your mitigation measures, and that the current models and experience-based behaviors are FAR BETTER than "just a crap shoot."

Because there are no verified methods of reducing all damage...hence, it is a crap shoot.......mitigating a risk is not removing a risk….crap shoot....no illusions....I accept the uncertainty going in.

Not playing both ends against the middle and expecting to have it both ways.....assumption of risks but with the understanding that the risks are unknown all the while attempting to lessen the unknown risks...."far better"? None of this is far better, but only a 'hail Mary' attempt to reduce damage.

 

[tursiops]

Because there are no verified methods of reducing all damage...hence, it is a crap shoot.......mitigating a risk is not removing a risk….crap shoot....no illusions....I accept the uncertainty going in.

Not playing both ends against the middle and expecting to have it both ways.....assumption of risks but with the understanding that the risks are unknown all the while attempting to lessen the unknown risks...."far better"? None of this is far better, but only a 'hail Mary' attempt to reduce damage.

Nonsense.
Good luck with the fantasy.

 

[Wallowa]

Nonsense.
Good luck with the fantasy.

Lighten up....as I stated this was only the manner that I approached this....your nonsense and fantasy determination is entirely yours....

 

[tursiops]

Lighten up....as I stated this was only the manner that I approached this....your nonsense and fantasy determination is entirely yours....

Saying what you are doing is one thing; suggesting why based on total delusion is another.
You really should not mislead people on matters of safety.
You are saying that reputable, fact-based, experience-tested, expert consensus-agreed decompression models provide no useful information, a "crap shoot."
You are wrong, and you are misleading readers by claiming this.

 

[rjack321]

You are wrong, and you are misleading readers by claiming this.

It wouldn't be the first time. "Breathing O2 on our no deco safety stops" was another doozy.

 

[rjack321]

Objective - flexibility. On a multi-level deep dive, you may want to change depth and time durations e.g. you find something interesting at a particular depth and wish to stay there longer (within the available gas logistics). Or perhaps an unplanned event occurs requiring the dive duration to be increased or reduced. Kevin's article suggests VGM may be more suitable. It appears that on a VR3/VRX the GF parameters change automatically. While on a Shearwater, the GF parameters have to be manually changed (requiring an educated decision to be made by the diver driving the computer).

You are mixing up doing multi-level dives with changes in on-gassing due to reduced pressure gradients as you multi-level your way up - with changing your GFs which is altering your allowable offgassing as you ascend.

You can just leave the GFs alone. There is no demonstrated need to alter them throughout the dive.

PS the VR3 is absolutely ancient technology

 

[Wallowa]

Ah, the nastys are out...come on keep it civil even if you disagree with posted opinions.......saying what I am choosing to do is ok but to say why is "total delusion"? There are no “expert consensus-agreed decompression models" hence differing algorithms…and never stated that these models do not provide relevant information, just that the total picture is still an unknown.

No “wrong” claims that mislead people but only offer my views and opinions. Simply how I dive and one size truly does not fit all.

And of course Rjack’s addendum was inaccurate as well….use of oxygen on safety stop is a proven manner to wash out inert gases….pretty certain ‘tech” divers use this to avail themselves of the ‘oxygen window’ benefit with 100% oxygen….but Jack knows that.

Differing opinions are needed and should be respected without slander. Otherwise, these are not dialogues but derisive monologues.

Out here……………..

 

[tursiops]

Differing opinions are needed

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”​

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[dmaziuk]

There are no “expert consensus-agreed decompression models" hence differing algorithms…

Well, actually, there is: it's consensus-agreed that gas is driven by the pressure differential, that log(2) approximates its kinetics well enough for practical purposes, that overall gas kinetics for the entire body is approximated by taking discrete "slices", and that at certain values of delta-P the clinical DCS becomes very likely.

Most of the "differing algorithms" differ in the details of what values of delta-P are "too risky" and exact details of how they compute them. (And what bubble models actually do, all their nuclei crushing pressure voodoo notwithstanding, is compute M-values differently.)

 

[Wallowa]

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”​

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Glib and a most auspicious statement coming from a career politician......consider that theories are initially generated by opinions, suppositions, that once verified beyond doubt are entitled facts.....while some human physiological and physical responses to hyperbaric/hyperbaric have been described beyond doubt; many more are unknown and the grist of many ongoing investigations. Diving medicine is an evolving science where new theories abound. To assume that all aspects are factual and immutable is disingenuous rather than considering science has only scratched the surface of the variables. Challenge the dominant paradigm to advance knowledge, acceptance without questioning verifies nothing. Always consider that we could be wrong.

Old saw: “Know what you do know and know what you don’t know”. Today’s facts were yesterday’s theorems. Theorems growing out of informed opinions. Nothing is static and change is the norm so scrutinizing beliefs improves knowledge and can edge beliefs closer to what is described as a fact.

Just my opinions and never presented as fact……………..and yes, I could be wrong.