Safety stops

[jbd]

Does that result in a reduced incidence of DCS in practice?

Therein lies the difficulty IMHO. The incidence rate of DCS is so low that to quantify actual benefit to the diving category you specify would be most likely impossible which is the same opinion I have regarding the use of nitrox for the same category.

Having said that, it would seem logical, that while there may not be a documentable increase in safety, the benefits do exist in reality, thus making such stops good procedure.

 

[lairdb]

I haven't felt bad doing it the industry standard way. The suggestion that I said otherwise misrepresents the state of this discussion. In fact I haven't seen anyone in this thread complain about feeling bad after doing dives within the no-decompression lmits and using the industry standard approach.

Oh, please. Now you appear to be intentionally obtuse just to troll. On that basis,

Ascending at a varying rate in order to match a theoretical optimal profile is hard[...].

is an equally "false" statement. To your second sentence above, Soggy has said just that, and I'll second it.

"I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong, declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read. Take it all with a grain of salt."
--Steven J. Owens

But, if you really prefer, try this:

Many divers, amounting to a population representing a vast majority, self-report symptoms of fatigue to mild discomfort following diving, with the incidence and severity increasing as their dive profiles approach conventional recreational NDLs. This occurs despite adherence to accepted industry-standard ascent procedures. These symptoms have commonly come to be described as "subclinical DCI".

Divers varying these ascent procedures toward those known as "deep stops" or "Pyle stops" report a substantial reduction or elimination of these symptoms. This is consistent with the conclusions reached by numerous phase-Doppler anemometry studies, which are able to measure bubble formation levels quantitatively and below the threshold at which they yield perceivable symptioms.

 

[pete340]

I wasn't wondering about you felt bad after doing it the industry standard way. I was wondering what made you think that the comment made by lamont was made up information?

The comment was:

the reason why you felt bad doing it the industry standard way ...

I made no such statement, so his assertion that I felt bad doing it the industry standard way was made up information.

 

[Charlie99]

I realize what I presented was a straight line from 70' up...I also understand that we are talking about 'minimum deco' or NDL dives where, at least in theory, the deco is built into the ascent rate. .........However, like someone up above said, we aren't talking about typical decompression dives...I know I come out feeling better than I did when I was just doing a 3-5 minute safety stop at 15 feet and I'm able to do repetitive dives without much concern for risidual nitrogen buildup....I just double the shallow stops on the repetitive dive.

Soggy, I'm not saying that your linear ascent is bad. It's definitely better than just popping up to a safety stop. My point is that the profile you showed is far from the optimum use of the allotted ascent time.

I don't know enough about DIR protocols to know if you are accurately representing DIR methods, but if you are going to spend 7 minutes in your ascent, you neither want to spend it in 7 minutes of linear 10fpm ascent (or the equivalent 1 minute stops every 10'), nor do you want to do a rapid ascent to 15' where you spend the remaining time.

Are there any DIR instructors out there that want to jump in with a recommended ascent from 100'? I just can't believe that Soggy's method is "doing it right".

 

[pete340]

Oh, please. Now you appear to be intentionally obtuse just to troll. On that basis,

Originally Posted by pete340
Ascending at a varying rate in order to match a theoretical optimal profile is hard[...].

is an equally "false" statement. To your second sentence above, Soggy has said just that, and I'll second it.

The statement that I said that in reply to was:

the natural curve that you want to hit is going to look sort of like a decay curve to the surface

Nobody has yet explained how to do that. Soggy described a step-like approach that may be closer to it than the usual industry approach, but doesn't actually do it. The issue is whether there's enough benefit to outweigh the added complexity.

 

[pete340]

Many divers, amounting to a population representing a vast majority,

How vast? 80% of all divers? 90%? Where does this number come from?

 

[pete340]

Oh, please. Now you appear to be intentionally obtuse just to troll.

I'm just trying to figure out the extent that claims here are based on careful field studies, how much on theoretical analysis, and how much on a half understood mishmash of facts and myths. Usually when people resort to ad hominem arguments it's the third.

 

[jbd]

I made no such statement, so his assertion that I felt bad doing it the industry standard way was made up information.

I see your point although I don't think lamont intended it to be considered quite so personally. I took it to be more broad in scope. I guess thats the nuances of language and the internet.

 

[scottfiji]

The statement that I said that in reply to was:



Nobody has yet explained how to do that. Soggy described a step-like approach that may be closer to it than the usual industry approach, but doesn't actually do it. The issue is whether there's enough benefit to outweigh the added complexity.

What is so complex about stopping at half your maximum depth? And I just read the detailed definitions of Pyle stops, it seems pretty simple to me. I certainly wouldn't use the phrase "added complexity" to describe a little simple arithmetic. I think I'm going to start adding some deeper stops to my dives, it logically seems like a good idea, and I don't see any downside.

Scott

 

[pete340]

What is so complex about stopping at half your maximum depth?

Nothing. The statement that launched this was:

the natural curve that you want to hit is going to look sort of like a decay curve to the surface

That's quite a different matter from stopping at half your maximum depth.