Son of Deep Stops *or* Waiting to be merged with the mother thread...

[rossh]

Different profiles.

The nedu ascent schedules were the same length but with different stop distributions. One shallower and one deeper.

My example is two ascent schedules with the same length, one shallower and one deeper.

The point is to show that the nedu test is absolutely relevant and does test "deep stops".

No, you showed us, a model profile, vs a fudged extended fitted to my desire profile. Not the same thing. The fudged up, fitted to my desires today profile, is not a model profile.

Same length - coincidence. Did they all finish at the surface too?

Nedu deep stops ?? These are the imaginary ones, that don't actually exist?? A2 has a first stop: 12 minutes long.... sounds like a shallow stop to me..

 

[UWSojourner]

Why don't you post some confirming details David?

I don't have a bone in this fight either way. Don't care. But I know you guys tried to put a (not real) RGBM profile into the public domain, only to discover you did not add the runtime correctly.

But one thing is for certain, The NEDU and the LANL have been in an internal squabble / war ever since each embarked on different deco strategies and paths.

Of course government interdepartmental wars are nothing new, and clearly yours (NEDU vs LANL) is ongoing. Would anyone be the least bit surprised if one was quietly trying to undermine the integrity of the other? Of course not.

David, we don't care.

But you did care. You cared enough to make the completely groundless (and desperate) claim that the NEDU switched profiles after communicating the profiles to the peer review group.

After that workshop Wienke seemed content enough to describe the A2 profile as "RGBM-like". That is a GOOD description when you look at the profiles (see here). It's only AFTER the results of the study came out that Wienke attempted to distance RGBM from the study.

Here's his post.

 

[rossh]

But you did care. You cared enough to make the completely groundless (and desperate) claim that the NEDU switched profiles after communicating the profiles to the peer review group.

After that workshop Wienke seemed content enough to describe the A2 profile as "RGBM-like". That is a GOOD description when you look at the profiles (see here). It's only AFTER the results of the study came out that Wienke attempted to distance RGBM from the study.

I was replying to someone else's question on it and filling in background. Thanks for posting more of it. Who cares.

I'm quite certain of one thing - this two sides have been at odds ever since deep stop designs came about. Big scientists arguing. And two government departments "not co-operating", and trying to make the other look bad.

.

 

[cerich]

Yes, avoid getting cold - it affects your deco dramatically - read the report.

So in other words, your software makes no recommendations beyond cold affects deco. That makes the position that anybody diving in thermal conditions that are outside your software temp range (what is that temp range by the way?) Avoid the cold. What it doesn't do is provide any guidance of how to mitigate the increased risk of getting cold beyond stay warm? That is completely head in the sand considering how much diving is done in cold water.

 

[David Doolette]

I don't have a bone in this fight either way. Don't care. But I know you guys tried to put a (not real) RGBM profile into the public domain, only to discover you did not add the runtime correctly.
.

Ross, the RGBM profile you reference was put in the public domain by Wienke in the UHMS Decompression and the deep stops workshop proceedings, page 35 and here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...P4WB_RFHvESBv_h3A&sig2=h7dhtjaEywVG08VEq7xUNA
in table 6.
I know you mistakenly think the stop times given are run times.

 

[rossh]

So in other words, your software makes no recommendations beyond cold affects deco. That makes the position that anybody diving in thermal conditions that are outside your software temp range (what is that temp range by the way?) Avoid the cold. What it doesn't do is provide any guidance of how to mitigate the increased risk of getting cold beyond stay warm? That is completely head in the sand considering how much diving is done in cold water.

I asked Neal Pollock about some this at TekUSA just the other month. This thermal stress stuff and other deco stress causes and measures, are somthing he was presenting about.

I'd love to be able to say, "... add x minutes for this or that.." But as he pointed out, it can't be done. We don't have dimensions to calibrate too.

How cold is a little bit cold? Whats that worth?

*****************


When you go diving, its YOUR responsibility to be prepared, equipped and capable. You must possess the right knowledge and training for the task. You must use the right procedures, and have sufficient knowledge to deal with contingencies. Anything that needs extra deco to compensate, is for you to decide.


Deco modeal make basic plans, per a basic decompression requirement - anything extra is your responsibility.


Examine this... look at all the contributing factors... Deco models have control on just two of these - the rest is up to YOU.

 

[rjack321]

I was replying to someone else's question on it and filling in background.

I'm still waiting to hear what your ideal outcome of this discussion is. You have a mountain of criticisms of the NEDU study and no data of your own to offer except a database of VPM dives that don't show outcomes. If you had say a 1.5% hit rate in that database perhaps I'd be more willing to listen to your critique of the NEDU study. But for all we know your database has a hit rate worse than NEDU's 5% hit profile.

 

[UWSojourner]

I was replying to someone else's question on it and filling in background.

No, you clearly wanted people to believe that 1) Wienke didn't see the actual profiles tested and 2) that the NEDU switched profiles after he and the other peer review group members reviewed the testing procedures.

There is an interesting back story to that. In 2004 it was going to be as Bruce said, and it was going to be good - a real model comparison. At least that's how he explained it.

And then..... look what the nedu did instead.

 

[AlexL]

The divers in the NEDU study were WORKING during the bottom phase of the dive.

this has always been in the back of my head while reading the various back and forth on this topic.

trying to compare a deco model designed for 'working dives' and models for 'recreational technical dives' solely by depth and time exposure is comparing apples and oranges. of course recreational dives are going to incur massively smaller amounts of deco! it does not mean that recreational deco models are more effective. nor does it mean the NEDU profiles are 'invalid' or 'fake' based on run times and stop schedule.

in the end, pick your deco model, take your chances, and hope/pray you don’t become the next statistical data point for DCS occurrence.

 

[rossh]

Ross, the RGBM profile you reference was put in the public domain by Wienke in the UHMS Decompression and the deep stops workshop proceedings, page 35 and here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...P4WB_RFHvESBv_h3A&sig2=h7dhtjaEywVG08VEq7xUNA
in table 6.
I know you mistakenly think the stop times given are run times.

If you guys did 2 minutes of home work, you would see the errors you used. I don't know or care who made them.


What this whole episode demonstrates, is exactly what I said about your little inter-department war. You lot will put petty little squabbles ahead of "getting it right". This childish prerogative to do anything possible to cause the other side shame. Disregardful behavior.


.