UTD Ratio deco discussion

[mikeny9]

I think you've got the basic idea. What the NEDU study shows, as Dr. Mitchell will surely point out, is that while bubble models or deep ascent profiles do protect the fast tissues, this protecting of the fast tissues is not what is needed to lower your overall risk of DCS.

This idea that fast tissues need more protection than slow tissues is one of the things I was talking about before that has been proven to be incorrect.

R..

"Incorrect" is an incorrect conclusion. The study concludes: "The practical conclusion of this study is that controlling bubble formation in fast compartments with deep stops is unwarranted for air decompression dives."

"Unwarranted" is much different than "incorrect. " Meaning, it's not necessary, but not incorrect to perform the deep stops either. Based on the conditions and divers they tested, adding additional time to the deeper part of the ascent is unnecessary in air-based decompression dives, but not incorrect. The divers tested were healthy Navy divers which I am not; I'd rather take extra precaution in protecting fast tissues. To do so, based on the study, I risk additional slow tissue saturation, and use oxygen decompression and perhaps additional shallow stop time to help mitigate that risk.

 

[PfcAJ]

The mental gymnastics here are just astounding.

 

[Diver0001]

It's ok. We're still making progress. He's thinking about the right issue now. I hope Simon gets back on to explain it to him in more authoritative terms. I can feel the breakthrough coming... like a pimple that's almost out.

BTW, additional shallow time is a key here. What Kevin was talking about before is really relevant. If you don't care how long it takes then it probably doesn't matter much if your ascent line is deep. The problem becomes how to guess how much more time shallow is needed.

You know what would be very interesting, actually, would be to make a dive with a RD type ascent and just have a computer running on Buhlmann 50/80 or so and then to see when the RD profile was complete how much more deco the computer still says needs to be done. As anyone tried that?

R..

 

[mikeny9]

It's ok. We're still making progress. He's thinking about the right issue now. I hope Simon gets back on to explain it to him in more authoritative terms. I can feel the breakthrough coming... like a pimple that's almost out.
R..

More patronizing from @Diver0001. In case you haven't noticed, my position hasn't changed.

AJ, you're a GUE WKPP guy right? Do you or sway from GUE's prescribed 20/85 in light of the NEDU deep stop study?

 

[Diver0001]

More patronizing from @Diver0001. In case you haven't noticed, my position hasn't changed.

Just having a little fun, Mike. Loosen up.

I hadn't actually noticed that your position hadn't changed. The way you were responding to Simon seemed hopeful.

R..

 

[PfcAJ]

More patronizing from @Diver0001. In case you haven't noticed, my position hasn't changed.

AJ, you're a GUE WKPP guy right? Do you or sway from GUE's prescribed 20/85 in light of the NEDU deep stop study?

I'm doing 40/80-85 currently.

 

[mikeny9]

Just having a little fun, Mike. Loosen up.

I hadn't actually noticed that your position hadn't changed. The way you were responding to Simon seemed hopeful.

R..

It hasn't changed, at what point did you think it had?

You've claimed that UTD's RD has several elements that have been "debunked," which simply isn't true. I've asked you specifically which elements have, and received no response. Also, Dr. Mitchell mentioned, "debunks is probably too strong a word..."

You've criticized me for "being behind the curve" by presuming I didn't read or understand the NEDU deep stop study, but you don't have any knowledge or experience on how UTD's RD works and the reasons behind the ascent strategy; you've only had it "explained to you:"

I've had it explained to me but I don't have any real experience using it.

It's fine if you don't understand RD, but stop being condescending. I am trying to explain a bit of it here, if you choose to listen, despite me being the one accused of "not listening." What's wrong with being extra careful about treating fast tissues by risking issues with slow tissues, and attempting to mitigate those risks with oxygen decompression and/or additional padding in the shallows?

Besides, shouldn't you be teaching your OW students about all of your vast deco knowledge so they could teach AG a thing or two?

...but I honestly believe that AG is stuck in a paradigm lock and I honestly believe that my OW students could teach him a thing or two.....and that they actually understand the basics better than he does.

...just having a little fun

I'm doing 40/80-85 currently.

AJ, just to be clear, that's a personal choice rather than an agency guideline right? I wouldn't want to mis-associate your personal choices with the agency, as some others in this thread have done repeatedly.

 

[PfcAJ]

It hasn't changed, at what point did you think it had?

You've claimed that UTD's RD has several elements that have been "debunked," which simply isn't true and Dr. Mitchell mentioned, "debunks is probably too strong a word..."

You've criticized me for "being behind the curve" by presuming I didn't read or understand the NEDU deep stop study, but you don't have any knowledge or experience on how UTD's RD works and the reasons behind the ascent strategy; you've only had it "explained to you:"


It's fine if you don't understand RD, but stop being condescending. I am trying to explain a bit of it here, if you choose to listen, despite me being the one accused of "not listening." What's wrong with being extra careful about treating fast tissues by risking issues with slow tissues, and attempting to mitigate those risks with oxygen decompression and/or additional padding in the shallows?

Besides, shouldn't you be teaching your OW students about all of your vast deco knowledge so they could teach AG a thing or two?


...just having a little fun


AJ, just to be clear, that's a personal choice rather than an agency guideline right? I wouldn't want to mis-associate your personal choices with the agency, as some others in this thread have done repeatedly.

Not a gue thing, just a me thing. Although a good number of folks are also backing away from a gf low of 20 as well.

 

[mikeny9]

Good to know, thanks. I'm going to a NEUE event this weekend; I'm curious to know Bob's and other's opinions as well. Will report back if I learn anything worth sharing.

 

[Diver0001]

It hasn't changed, at what point did you think it had?

I thought you were having an epiphany at the point where you seemed genuinely interested in listening to what Simon had to say. In retrospect I think I misread the signal. What I mistook for an epiphany was actually a sensitivity for hierarchies.

I'm not really interested in that kind of dynamic. I prefer a discussion among equals and that's not going to happen here so I would advise you to keep listening to Simon since you respond to him as a superior and seem inclined to take what he has to say at least somewhat seriously even if you don't let it affect your paradigm... at least not yet. I hope he has the patience for it.

R..