The Elusive Definition of "Deep Stops"

[tursiops]

Yes, that's what I meant.

OK, cool. But why do you think that is relevant? I get that average depth defines the average pressure I'm under, and thus the amount of gas I use, but the relationship between depth/pressure and gas absorption is not linear, so why is the average relevant? It is not, is the answer, it is just a variable fudge factor that allows you to match some profiles within narrow limits.
OK, that's about ratio deco, which obviously I still think is silly....if its goal is to match a profile you already have, why not just use that profile you already have? How is this related to deep stops? Not at all. So I'm confused that it was even part of your original post.

 

[boulderjohn]

OK, cool. But why do you think that is relevant? I get that average depth defines the average pressure I'm under, and thus the amount of gas I use, but the relationship between depth/pressure and gas absorption is not linear, so why is the average relevant? It is not, is the answer, it is just a variable fudge factor that allows you to match some profiles within narrow limits.
OK, that's about ratio deco, which obviously I still think is silly....if its goal is to match a profile you already have, why not just use that profile you already have? How is this related to deep stops? Not at all. So I'm confused that it was even part of your original post.

Criminy, I was just demonstrating the evolution of deep step in my experience from half the maximum depth to 3/4 of the maximum depth, expect that I was a little more exact in saying that it was an average depth. Since just about all those dives had square profiles, the difference between average depth and maximum depth would be a few feet. I cannot believe this is becoming such a big deal. If you would like, I will send you my address and you can fly out to my house and beat me with a stick if it will make you feel better.

 

[tursiops]

Criminy, I was just demonstrating the evolution of deep step in my experience from half the maximum depth to 3/4 of the maximum depth, expect that I was a little more exact in saying that it was an average depth. Since just about all those dives had square profiles, the difference between average depth and maximum depth would be a few feet. I cannot believe this is becoming such a big deal. If you would like, I will send you my address and you can fly out to my house and beat me with a stick if it will make you feel better.

I apologize for the diversion, which distracted from both your question and from my response. I forgot that even joking criticism of RD brings out the villagers and pitchforks.

The rest of my post, giving a position on what a deep stop is and is not, stands.

 

[PfcAJ]

OK, cool. But why do you think that is relevant? I get that average depth defines the average pressure I'm under, and thus the amount of gas I use, but the relationship between depth/pressure and gas absorption is not linear, so why is the average relevant? It is not, is the answer, it is just a variable fudge factor that allows you to match some profiles within narrow limits.
OK, that's about ratio deco, which obviously I still think is silly....if its goal is to match a profile you already have, why not just use that profile you already have? How is this related to deep stops? Not at all. So I'm confused that it was even part of your original post.

For most dives, your avg depth (avg pressure) is a perfectly reasonable way to figure out your gas absorption for deco.

RD is mad handy for adjusting plans in the water or coming up with a plan impromptu on the surface. Example: you wanna dive wreck A but there's already two boats on wreck A so your charter moves to wreck B which is a bit shallower.

Obvi a shallower avg depth (see what I did there!?) gives you more bottom time for the same deco or less deco for the same planned bottom time. With RD you can adjust your plan to fit the new parameters super fast and easy while still ending up with a schedule that a normal algorithm would put out.

As for in water stuff, say your plan was to hang out at 160' but there was something cool at the superstructure at 140' and you stayed there instead. Wat do? RD it and enjoy a longer bottom time or shorten your deco.

It's neat. BUT it has limits. That's for another thread I imagine.

 

[kelemvor]

Huh. Interesting read for a non tech diver. I assumed a deep stop was any stop deeper than the 20' I've been trained to do for regular deco stops. No class I've yet taken has covered deep stops.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Hello,

Great idea but I think you will find the question very difficult to answer.

I put a post of some relevance on the other thread before I realised this was was here. In truth it is relevant to both threads.

Deep Stops Increases DCS

Simon M

 

[Shotmaster]

I'm going to follow the science and the hard results, and make adjustments to my deco based on it, and not other theories. When one derives income from developing a product based upon an unproven theory, anything that challenges the accepted thought or belief is seen as threat, not to the theory, but to the income. The potential loss results in defensive maneuvering calling for any challenger to provide "proof", all the while asking the customer for said product to continue to accept the theory as peddled ( this is where stating the length of time it has been used, or its' popularity with divers, is used to defend the product) That my friends is illogical. I don't care how many people have bought it, and use it, all that proves is a sales record. Without proof, all theories are conjecture.

 

[kelemvor]

I agree! I'm not buying into that whole "Relativity" thing the physicists are pushing either!

 

[Shotmaster]

I agree! I'm not buying into that whole "Relativity" thing the physicists are pushing either!

If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?

 

[Shotmaster]

This quote from the above link says it all.

"When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as our knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old one: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors."