So you are looking for definitive answers in a theoretical science...good luck.
Suunto RGBM vs Buhlmann ZHL-C
- Thread starter Scubanoobi
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Messages
- 19,763
- Reaction score
- 18,616
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Exactly! Why choose one decompression algorithm over another, I'll take the longer NDL
I'll take fewer known cases of DCS.....preferably 0. Potato /patato I suppose.
Andrei Astra
Registered
Can this be counted as the confirmational data?
Validation of algorithms used in commercial off-the-shelf dive computers. - PubMed - NCBI
Very old thread. If interested in Fraedrich's studies, take a look at Robert's blog @ Search Results for “fraedrich” – The Theoretical Diver
Andrei Astra
Registered
Thank you, I'll check his blog. Yes, I'm aware that the thread is old, but the topic is still hot.
He is the quote from the article link that I posted above:
"ZHL-16C could be adjusted to pass all of the tests with GF-Hi < = 70 and GF-Lo > = 55. Suunto-RGBM could be made to pass all of the tests by simply turning off the deep stop option, which is easily done on the wrist unit tested. VPM-B could be adjusted to prescribe sufficient TDT (the required conservatism factor depends on the depth-bottom time of the dive) but could not be adjusted to pass the first significant stop test; the first stop was always too deep."
He is the quote from the article link that I posted above:
"ZHL-16C could be adjusted to pass all of the tests with GF-Hi < = 70 and GF-Lo > = 55. Suunto-RGBM could be made to pass all of the tests by simply turning off the deep stop option, which is easily done on the wrist unit tested. VPM-B could be adjusted to prescribe sufficient TDT (the required conservatism factor depends on the depth-bottom time of the dive) but could not be adjusted to pass the first significant stop test; the first stop was always too deep."
Not really: for repetitive multi-day diving Fraedrich's criteria do not really apply. And conversely what is typically studied is ascent profiles for a single decompression dive; how that is relevant to recreational multi-day schedules is a bit questionable. In rec context the No-Stop Time test is the only relevant one, but without RGBM's "repetitive dive" penalties factored in, it's not much better than just comparing random NDL times from computer manuals/"plan" functions. Which has been done many times already, and it does not mean much.
scrane
Contributor
I like Buhlmann because it is flexible, consistent, and it makes sense.
Similar threads
