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

[UWSojourner]

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.

.

No. We don't have "Big scientists arguing."

We have research scientists in a number of different studies and from a number of different angles telling us that bubble-model-type deep stops have been oversold to the tech diving community. On the other side we have two people (although mostly just you on these forums) defending commercial interests without any data at all to stand on.

As Dr. Pollock said about bubble model proponents, "There is theorizing and hand waving, but no measures."

 

[rossh]

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.

I don't need new data to prove my case - I'm not trying to change the world. You guys are, on false presumptions of a shallow stop test... Its your arguments that are faulty.

.

 

[David Doolette]

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.
.

Ross, do not confuse my arguments with you, which are a hobby, with my Navy job - the latter requires an order of magnitude greater understanding of decompression theory.

 

[UWSojourner]

I don't need data -

... said the hand-waiving bubble model marketer.

 

[oya]

@David Doolette

If you guys did 2 minutes of home work, you would see the errors you used.
.

You see? Here's your problem in a nutshell. You made a career out of this and worked your entire professional life on it.

If you had just spent 2 minutes on it instead of all that extra time it would make perfect sense.

 

[rossh]

Ross, do not confuse my arguments with you, which are a hobby, with my Navy job - the latter requires an order of magnitude greater understanding of decompression theory.

No David... not me... ... The NEDU lot vs the LANL lot....

 

[David Doolette]

I'm only interested in how VPM-B (with no corrections, i.e. conservatism) compares to a standard. The only standard that I have access to is the US Navy Air Table 5. That is clearly an apples and oranges problem but maybe something can be teased out. A big problem too, as that table is highly nonlinear (with respect to deco) in both depth and bottom time. See first two graphs. -extremely hard to get a general "feel' for it.

Returning to the thread topic briefly, but part of your problem might be using what appears to be the old (1957) tables. They were calculated with an unusual safe ascent criterion, parts of the exceptional exposure tables (where you are working) were calculated at a different time, there are many transcription errors, and limited testing. You might have better luck with your curve fitting if you use a more modern set.The present VVal-18M tables are given, along with estimate risk of DCS (for working dives) in NEDU TR 07-09
VVal-18 and VVal-18M Thalmann Algorithm Air Decompression Tables and Procedures.

David Doolette

 

[UWSojourner]

I don't need new data to prove my case - I'm not trying to change the world.

That's true. You're not trying to change the world. You're trying to keep the world from adapting to new information.

And you're right. You don't need new data for that. In fact, what you need to do is hide, obfuscate, misinterpret, malign, and ignore the data and hope you wakeup back in the early 2000s when all the tech world was enamored with their new bubble models.

 

[rossh]

That's true. You're not trying to change the world. You're trying to keep the world from adapting to new information.

And you're right. You don't need new data for that. In fact, what you need to do is hide, obfuscate, misinterpret, malign, and ignore the data and hope you wake back up in the early 2000s when all the tech world was enamored with their new bubble models.

There is no NEW information - only misinterpreted unrelated old information, that is being re-hashed by some on a false premise. No one wants that (well, some like the imaginary part).

There was a proper workshop of peers to discuss this, in 2008 (UHMS deep stop workshop). All the current information was there.... they made a decision and recommendation and I follow it. end of story.

IF they convene a new workshop and come to a different recommended position, I will adapt to it too.

But today, all we have is one person trying to side step the proper process and coerce the public directly - not acceptable.

.

 

[oya]

But today, all we have is one person trying to side step the proper process and coerce the public directly - not acceptable.

Finally, something I think we can all agree on!