This is EXACTLY why it is not a scientifically valid study. If you want to compare the relative efficiency of different ascent strategies then you need to compare them on the same time scale. Every 1st year Bachelor student knows this.
R..
Yes, good experiment design wants two equal time profiles, but you can't have it when comparing two independent diving models. You need to come up with a better experiment design.
One simply cannot take two different decompression models with two naturally different run times for the same dive, and then force one of those profiles shorter or longer. In doing so, you have corrupted one of the test samples...even before you start. That's the same screwed up mess the Nedu test got so badly wrong, when they distorted the A2 profile so badly, in the end it represented nothing.
i.e. to compare model A to model B, don't try to manipulate one of them to fit it into the other ones space.
To use your car analogy... your asking to compare a Ferrari and a VW on a road test, but at the same speed. However a VW is unsafe at Ferrari speeds, and a Ferrari is no fun at VW speeds, so you get a junk comparison.. Hence to be relevant the road test needs to be done at different speeds.
You can make ANY ascent "safe" if you take long enough to do it.
R..
Yes you can.... providing other stresses ( like thermal stress) do not accumulate too much and offset that gain. And by doing the longer ascent, you are lowering your supersaturation levels... just like BOTH Spisni CDM and RDS plans did.
The GF does too - lowers supersaturation by some percentage.
The Spisni RDS plan also very much lowered stress, across the whole ascent in varying amounts (shown above).
Sure... deep stops are safe... if you COMPENSATE for that inefficiency with more shallow time.
R..
Yes, and existing models like VPM-B, ZHL, RGBM, etc, all do that correctly now, because they have a math model at its center, tracking all on/off gassing at every place in the dive and ascent, and dictating how much extra deco to add accordingly.
Every diving day you see this in action on your dive computer.... it tracks what every you do and builds an ascent plan as you go, including multilevel, deep stops and anything else you do.
This obsession you have to add extra time amounts manually, beyond what the model says, is not justified by any model math. What you asking for is extra time on top of extra safety on top of extra margin. This has turned into a compounding error.
By all means, feel free to add all the unnecessary extra you want, but please stop trying to justify this with false reasons.
Question: If you need to "compensate" for your ascent strategy, then why wouldn't you just use a more efficient ascent strategy? R..
The math and models we all use today, already correctly compensate for any amount of extra on gassing, anywhere in the dive... It doesn't need anybody patching more on top of more.
By all means, feel free to add all the unnecessary extra you want, but please stop trying to justify this with false reasons.
I understand that you make money on an algorithm that includes "deep stops" so just say it and get it over with.
R..
I sell software for BOTH sides of this argument...and I make the same amount of money either way. That makes me neutral. While people like you are clearly on one side of it.
a mounting body of scientific evidence that the paradigm is wrong.
R..
There is no valid evidence for your cause.... this Spisni test has no support for your argument. The nedu test has no scientific connection to deep stops. All the nedu really showed us is that proper models that follow real math still work (ZHL, VPM-B, etc), and that hand made junk profiles do not work.
The very basic math formula of supersaturation stresses is all we have for a stress measure... which I have shown above. These formula are intrinsic to most research, studies, modelling, graphing and comparing, for most of diving history.
David Doolette August 2016, here on SB:
"The "obsession" with supersaturation versus bubble mechanics is well founded. The putative cause of DCS is injury as a result of bubble formation. Supersaturation is a required condition for bubble formation and growth. There is broad (universal?) agreement that modelling tissue gas uptake with a range of exchange rates - as we do for instance with a collection of compartments with mono-exponential gas exchange - captures the essential processes, at least crudely. ...."
I challenge you to cite even ONE bonafide scientific paper since 2007 that corroborates your opinion.
R..
Opinion of what? I'm not interested in your made up straw man arguments.
.