:nailbiter:
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
Seems you sure got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Sorry about that, I sincerely hope it passes quickly. I did not read anything that Lynne wrote that I think Bruce would disagree with, so I fail to understand what you're so hot and bothered about.Why is it that wherever you go on the internet there is always some wag that will chime in with an unverifiable, unproveable story about some non-repeatable occurrence that is necessarily spewed on a thread to try and disprove something that is obviously true?
First, you just verified me by 4 out 5 instances. None of you got the bent, thus 5 out of 5 of you experienced safe dives based on well known model limits. Thousands of dives were conducted today in perfect safety relying on those well known model limits. Read Weinkes books if you don't believe me, and then go argue with him about the close correlation and the figures he presents there.
Second, the outlier was obviously operator error or involved a computer no longer in production. The first error that is most commonly observed is that the diver in question had a hockey-puck/ Pelagic/other Nitrox reset and failed to set his nitrox mix, and then wouldn't admit that to you. If it wasn't that, then the operator set his computer to absurd levels of conservatism which is possible in some (even recent) computers. Uwatec Smarts have Micro bubble level settings that will create level-stop demands that are indistinguishable from deco stops during the running dive, yet are in no way mandatory in as much as the computers will not lock up when skipped. Other examples of operator error are too numerous to detail here. RTFM.
Third, you could not reproduce that outcome using any recent computers and you know it. It doesn't happen without operator error on comparably set computers. So what was your point. I know exactly what it was. Wish granted.
Fourth, there was no point to the whole concoction unless to say that in your opinion all computers are radically different, there is no correlation between models and that you daily expect any and all models to run flagrantly out of control. Is that your point? Better tell Dr. Wienke, correlation among the models is the underpinning of the design of his Thermodynamic EOS. He's wrong. You're right. Got it. Check.
Here are the words:I said no such thing. Why is it that the guy who jumps in to correct everyone (Mister Corrector guy who never originates anything) all the time continually misreads and misunderstands what he corrects. Read what I said again.
"reliable simulations of human physiological no-decompression limits in a recreational setting and well beyond."
Please respond with your explanation of where I indicated or used the word "human body". I even began the sentence in question with the warning, IN BOLD, declaring the theoretical posture of the models, yet in your zeal to spank someone (a decidedly non-moderator activity) you failed to comprehend the words.
How is it that you can ignore all this, stuff words in my mouth that I didn't say, reinterpret what I did say, and then correct it, without adding any plausible value to the proposition:
The models work. The models are reliable. Thousands of hours today, thousand of times today, yesterday, tomorrow and for years and eons yet to come.
You did not read the words. Shame on you.
Seriously?Bullshark is serious about deco discussions.
-Mitch