Where Is Your GF?
- Thread starter Michael Guerrero
- 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
Dsix36
Contributor
- Messages
- 1,657
- Reaction score
- 1,405
Everything was done assuming the computer would be my plan. My dive planning was done with the same setting as my dive computer and ascent/descent rate etc. were all per my dive plan.
On the dive, I followed my dive computer. In hind sight padding the stops a great amount after knowing I was bent and went back for IWR would have been the most logical and sensible thing to do.
On the dive, I followed my dive computer. In hind sight padding the stops a great amount after knowing I was bent and went back for IWR would have been the most logical and sensible thing to do.
I think that as a general rule, when you are diving to the extremes of human experience, you need to be very careful and cannot assume that what works well in more normal dives would work well at those extremes.
As an example, go into multi-deco and use any of the algorithms in there to plan a deco dive to 200 feet at an altitude of 16,000 feet. You will get a dive plan. How can anyone know how well that plan will work on a dive at a depth and altitude combination that has never been done successfully by anyone in the world?
I know two people who did attempt a dive at that depth and altitude, and it did not go well. I don't know what their plan was, or how they came up with it. I do know that after it was over, I talked to a dive theorist who works with NASA and the Pentagon on high altitude decompression planning for astronauts and U-2 pilots. He said that as you go to such extremes, factors that do not have to be considered at lower altitudes start to become very important. (He mentioned water vapor volume as an example.) He said he believed there are only about 6 people in the world with the requisite knowledge to plan such a dive, and I know that no one like that was consulted. Just going off the top of his head, he estimated a dive schedule that was nowhere close to what you would get planning that dive with any algorithm in multi-deco.
I would say the same thing would be true about very deep dives. Dives like that have not been done with enough frequency and with enough study for anyone to be confident they are following a plan that will work.
As an example, go into multi-deco and use any of the algorithms in there to plan a deco dive to 200 feet at an altitude of 16,000 feet. You will get a dive plan. How can anyone know how well that plan will work on a dive at a depth and altitude combination that has never been done successfully by anyone in the world?
I know two people who did attempt a dive at that depth and altitude, and it did not go well. I don't know what their plan was, or how they came up with it. I do know that after it was over, I talked to a dive theorist who works with NASA and the Pentagon on high altitude decompression planning for astronauts and U-2 pilots. He said that as you go to such extremes, factors that do not have to be considered at lower altitudes start to become very important. (He mentioned water vapor volume as an example.) He said he believed there are only about 6 people in the world with the requisite knowledge to plan such a dive, and I know that no one like that was consulted. Just going off the top of his head, he estimated a dive schedule that was nowhere close to what you would get planning that dive with any algorithm in multi-deco.
I would say the same thing would be true about very deep dives. Dives like that have not been done with enough frequency and with enough study for anyone to be confident they are following a plan that will work.
admikar
Contributor
50/80, for now, down to 120-150ft. Before getting SW, I dove with Mares DC (NDL diving) and would feel tired sometimes.
So far, only light deco and usually with air as bottom and EAN50 as deco gas. No significant work and no cold water. Most of the times doing a 5 min safety stop.
If going deeper, working or cold, probably would go to 40/70, but it's just a guess for me at his point.
So far, only light deco and usually with air as bottom and EAN50 as deco gas. No significant work and no cold water. Most of the times doing a 5 min safety stop.
If going deeper, working or cold, probably would go to 40/70, but it's just a guess for me at his point.
Interesting blog post about this in the theoretical diver blog.
How many are diving are plan switching to GF 65-70/70? According to this analysis it should be a sweetspot.
The Theoretical Diver – Theorizing about scuba diving
How many are diving are plan switching to GF 65-70/70? According to this analysis it should be a sweetspot.
The Theoretical Diver – Theorizing about scuba diving
- Messages
- 19,804
- Reaction score
- 18,673
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Hi @taimen
I have been following the development of SAUL for 5-6 years now and find it quite interesting. I have corresponded with Saul Goldman on several occasions, he is quite responsive
For the interested, here is a link to the website Modern Decompression There is a link to the recently introduced recreational dive planner on the home page. As an example, a 1st, clean dive to 60 feet on air for 57 minutes (the DSAT NDL), with a 3 min safety stop, has a probability of decompression sickness, P(DCS), of 0.347%, 1/288.
At one time, this algorithm was being contemplated for implementation on a Liquivision computer(s). That did not work out, we'll see what the future holds.
I have been following the development of SAUL for 5-6 years now and find it quite interesting. I have corresponded with Saul Goldman on several occasions, he is quite responsive
For the interested, here is a link to the website Modern Decompression There is a link to the recently introduced recreational dive planner on the home page. As an example, a 1st, clean dive to 60 feet on air for 57 minutes (the DSAT NDL), with a 3 min safety stop, has a probability of decompression sickness, P(DCS), of 0.347%, 1/288.
At one time, this algorithm was being contemplated for implementation on a Liquivision computer(s). That did not work out, we'll see what the future holds.
I didn't vote: no option there for me. I use 65/90 for mostly recreational dives. Once in a great while there will be some light deco with less than 5 minutes.
- Messages
- 19,804
- Reaction score
- 18,673
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Using my dive Excel spreadsheet for a dive to 100 ft for 25 minutes produces 6 minutes of deco at 10 ft with 75/95, 3 minutes for 85/95, and 1 minute of deco at 95/95. The difference is significant. I would stick with 75/95. If you're not doing any deco than 95/95 might be an option.
Similar threads
