Slow tissue on gas from stops

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Ross has a great product. It's flexible, convenient, and works well. It offers more than one algorithm to choose from and supports gas mixing and top-off predictions reasonably well (even if I sometimes wish for a bit more flexibility there). His licensing policy for new devices is very reasonable, and there is a smartphone version (even if it misses a few features of the PC version that I'd like to have on a boat). I use it for gas planning, even though I no longer do I use it for the actual schedules, since the actual dives are never square anyway and I have two computers that know what I'm breathing and exactly how deep I have been for how long. I use it for mixing, too. I have not encountered anything better yet. Though I'd be happy to learn about it if it existed, Multi-Deco and V-Planner before it are good enough that I probably wouldn't want to pay another license fee to get it.

I have said the same things many times.

Simon M

 

[UWSojourner]

Most of his [Dr. Simon Mitchell] new information is not peer reviewed, so someone has to check up on his ideas and math. In the area of decompression, Sadly that task seems to fall to me alone.

A better example of a Walter Mitty moment would be hard to find.

 

[Scuba J7]

Most of his new information is not peer reviewed, so someone has to check up on his ideas and math. In the area of decompression, Sadly that task seems to fall to me alone.

.
.

I was under the impression you are a software developer, perhaps you should post your credentials.

 

[admikar]

1) you now understand that slower tissues can continue to on-gass during ascent. Do you believe that they on-gass MORE during a deeper ascent than they do during a more shallow ascent?

2) Assuming you said yes to #1 do you believe that this higher tissue gas load should be taken into account by deco algorithms?

3) Do you believe that deep stops in essence result in a deeper ascent line that leads to more on-gassing of slower tissues? (referring to #1 and #2)

What a load of made up and insulting rubbish.

You keep loosing each technical discussion on this topic, and now your only retort is to fabricate insults about other peoples intelligence, as thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. How very "academic" of you.

.

You didn't answer the questions.

R..

I would like to see answers on these questions too....

I might be wrong, but that's why I am here, to learn. Current thinking is that fast tissues tolerate higher supersaturation ratio than the slow ones does, before DCS occurs? So, in a nutshell, we should protect our slower tissues from ongasing by going as shallow as "safely" possible and then let our fast tissues offgas, since those tissues are more efficient? So, even if there is a bubble formation in those tissues, they are more able to get rid of them?
@Dr Simon Mitchell, I would appreciate if you would confirm this, or more importantly, explain this to me if I'm wrong?

 

[UWSojourner]

I would like to see answers on these questions too....

I might be wrong, but that's why I am here, to learn. Current thinking is that fast tissues tolerate higher supersaturation ratio than the slow ones does, before DCS occurs? So, in a nutshell, we should protect our slower tissues from ongasing by going as shallow as "safely" possible and then let our fast tissues offgas, since those tissues are more efficient? So, even if there is a bubble formation in those tissues, they are more able to get rid of them?
@Dr Simon Mitchell, I would appreciate if you would confirm this, or more importantly, explain this to me if I'm wrong?

Much of what you're asking about is available in the deep stop discussions on SB and RBW.

This post by Dr. Mitchell might be helpful.

 

[rossh]

I was under the impression you are a software developer, perhaps you should post your credentials.

Yes I am.

But here is the problem. Simon is out here pushing new ideas and new interpretations of existing science and deco theory. We get severed his opinion mostly. He does this change in the public arena - the internet... and not in the traditional peer review process of science. As a result, he gets the changes through, without the proper scientific backing. It's called a fait accompli.

So who checks up on his ideas? No-one.

Very few in the diving public have the skill or time or tools to read the background theory and check on the decompression aspects of Simon's new ideas. I get to analyses his new deco ideas because that is the area I work with everyday. I show up where the mistakes are made (by others).

Some people don't like me doing this, and feel I should be chased away for daring to criticize the favorite one. But do we want our deco based on science and supporting math, or someones opinion for change?

.

 

[nadwidny]

This has now gone beyond ridiculous.

 

[rossh]

I can't make sense of your graphs.
Simon M

Except in another thread, you and friends already verified and helped standardized the formula used in those charts. Did you forget?

You have that MultiDeco program with you. Right click the graph and select "show cell #" this breaks out the individual cell pressures.... understand it now?


It's the same details as shown in the Baker chart formats... .except we show the important information in a better format.

 

[UWSojourner]

I show up where the mistakes are made.

Never a truer statement posted on the internet.

 

[UWSojourner]

Simon is out here pushing new ideas and new interpretations of existing science and deco theory. We get severed his opinion mostly. He does this change in the public arena - the internet... and not in the traditional peer review process of science. As a result, he gets the changes through, without the proper scientific backing. It's called a fait accompli.

So who checks up on his ideas? No-one.

Ross, you consistently try to imply Dr Mitchell is all alone in his posts. But Dr. Mitchell's "new ideas and new interpretations" are neither his new ideas or interpretations on decompression.

You rely on knowing that most people aren't going to actually read the research put out by the NEDU, nor the NEDU's own interpretation of their landmark study. Nor will most find and read the many posts of others (e.g. Dr Pollock, Dr Doolette) over a number of years supporting Dr. Mitchell and opposing your views. Nor cross reference other research Dr. Mitchell has posted and discussed.

Give it a rest Ross.