Why do computers rot the brain?

[MikeFerrara]

AquaTec,

I am addressing this to you because there are some who don't seem to want to talk to me (I'm gonna get a complex). I love to talk deco and the pros and cons of different methods. When you do so, the subject of how much confidence you have in a method and why usually comes up. I can talk to someone who says they like it this way because the feel better afterwards and I can talk to my former cave instructor who roles his eyes when I talk about how much I like deep stops. Keep in mind he has read all the theories and knows some of the guys who have developed the theories and he has also spent more time below 200 ft than I have in the water (including baths, showers and swimming when I was a kid) and he points out that he feels just fine after decompressing on streight beullmen (spelled wrong I'm sure) tables. Yes he has incorporated newer methods also but does point out they are new. I have even talked deco with UP and it didn't end this way.

It seems there are alot of divers who use the same technique to get out of a conversation. I thought I had some valid points that would make for good conversation. I didn't try to insult anyone. Wouldn't you think these guys would be willing to discuss their own experience with the methods they use vs the ones they used to use or don't want to use? All some talk about is what is on Quest or Techdiver. Ah..Oh you don't suppose that quest and techdiver is the extent of their experience do ya?

 

[Jarhead]

nradov once bubbled...
Those who want to learn know where to continue that process, and those that want to continue being misinformed are free to do so.

But who's who?

 

[Scuba]

If equally matched, we can offer battle;
If slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy;
If quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.

Sun-tzu,
The Art of War.

 

[AquaTec]

It also drives me nuts when i back hese guys i a corner with common since and valid principles, like you are presenting, and then they just say , i am taking my ball and going home.

it is deffinetly dementrates that there is no depth in the theories presented to them other than because someone says it works for them.

i to love to discuss deco procedures and theories, especialy the ones others are using..thats one way i learn

as for your friend. I do not think deep stops make you "feel" better, I think they are a preventative method, like a flew shot. they help stop the growth of seed bubbles.

the "feel" better comes from longer stops at the highest Po2 of the gas you are breathing, slower ascents from your last stop, the reduction of nitrogen in the gas you are breathing.

I think the opposite of "feel" better is fatigue etc, and i think that is a result of nitrogen loading, it can also come from Co2 buildup, or lactic acid build up...but i think most commonly from nitrogen loading

skipping deep stops will not make you "feel" worse [unless it results in dcs] it will however result in the development of seed nitrogen seeds which may or may not grow into bubbles

I do think the majority of the people on this boards experience is internet based. I was reading another thread and something like 76% of the people here have less than 100 dives.
so therefor it becomes very difficult to discuss their experience as they do not have any, it is all vicarious through others

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
AquaTec,

I am addressing this to you because there are some who don't seem to want to talk to me (I'm gonna get a complex). I love to talk deco and the pros and cons of different methods. When you do so, the subject of how much confidence you have in a method and why usually comes up. I can talk to someone who says they like it this way because the feel better afterwards and I can talk to my former cave instructor who roles his eyes when I talk about how much I like deep stops. Keep in mind he has read all the theories and knows some of the guys who have developed the theories and he has also spent more time below 200 ft than I have in the water (including baths, showers and swimming when I was a kid) and he points out that he feels just fine after decompressing on streight beullmen (spelled wrong I'm sure) tables. Yes he has incorporated newer methods also but does point out they are new. I have even talked deco with UP and it didn't end this way.

It seems there are alot of divers who use the same technique to get out of a conversation. I thought I had some valid points that would make for good conversation. I didn't try to insult anyone. Wouldn't you think these guys would be willing to discuss their own experience with the methods they use vs the ones they used to use or don't want to use? All some talk about is what is on Quest or Techdiver. Ah..Oh you don't suppose that quest and techdiver is the extent of their experience do ya?

 

[Uncle Pug]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
I have even talked deco with UP and it didn't end this way.

So I don't get a complex... would you amplify this a bit?

 

[AltonK]

I use a oceanic computer that uses the following models:

DataTrans Plus
Tech Specs

No Decompression Model
Basis
· Modified Haldanean Algorithm
· 12 tissue compartments

Data Base:
· Diving Science and Technology (DSAT) - Rogers/Powell

Performance:
· Tissue compartment half times (in minutes) Spencer’s “M” values 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200, 240, 320, 400, 480
· Reciprocal subsurface elimination
· 60 minute surface credit control for compartments faster than 60 minutes
· Tissue compartments tracked up to 24 hours after last dive

Decompression Capabilities:
· Decompression stop ceilings at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, & 60 feet (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, & 18 meters)

Altitude Algorithm:
· Based on National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tables

Oxygen Partial Pressure (PO2) Limits:
· Based on National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tables


I also back it up with a set of padi tables developed by DSAT:

You can get some general info about them and the other Haldane style multi-tissue compartment models here.

There is an exstensive body of published peer review reproducible scientific experimentation and literature on the commonly accepted multi-tissue compartment models and some new work on the VPM and bubble gradient models begining to become available to divers.

The closest thing to scientfic literature on the George method is scattered ranting and obsentities of his on his web site and message boards. so I would turn the same question to you.

Where is the published peer reviewd data on the George Method?





Cole B. Decompression and Computer-Assisted Diving. Best Publishing, Flagstaff, AZ, 1993.

Hamilton RW, Rogers RE, Powell MR, Vann RD. The DSAT Recreational Dive Planner: Development and validation of no-stop decompression procedures for recreational diving; 1994. Hamilton Research, Ltd., 80 Grove Street, Tarrytown, NY 10591-4138.

Huggins KE. Microprocessor Applications to Multi-Level Air Decompression Problems. Michigan Sea Grant Publications, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd., Ann Arbor , MI 48109; 1987.

Lang MA, Hamilton RW. Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences Dive Computer Workshop, Univ. of California Sea Grant Publication # USCSG-TR-01-89, 1989.

Lewis, JE., Ph.D., Shreeves KW. The Recreational Diver's Guide to Decompression Theory, Dive Tables and Dive Computers, 2nd Ed. International Padi, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, 1993.

Lippman J. A Statistical Review of Dive Computer Safety. Alert Diver, May/June, 1994; p. 16.

Loyst K. Dive Computers: A Consumer's Guide to History, Theory and Performance. Watersport Publishing, Inc., San Diego, 1991.

Spencer MP. Decompression limits for compressed air determined by ultrasonically detected blood bubbles. Jour Appl Phys 1976;40:229-235.

Stangroom JE. Decompression Demystified. Modern Decompression Theory in Plain English. The Hope Valley Press, Derbysire (England), 1991.

Wienke BK. Basic Decompression Theory and Application. Best Publishing, Flagstaff, AZ, 1991.

 

[AquaTec]

AltonK

You have made your choice of decompression priciples on good sound judgement, based on the principles of research by many different independent sources. each one comming to the same conclusion.

My personal belief is that with all the people observing GI et al such as Duke university. there must be a reason none of them have published a paper, they have only given the oppinion that they can not figure out how he is doing it and surviving.

the method passes none of the accepted tests that every industry uses to validate anything.

number one is seperate independent studies and conclusions

I would love to see the same sort of information provided by the believers in the george method....other than a link to a DIR et al web site

 

[AltonK]

One more thought. If the DIR/George method is actually predictable and reproducible, The heuristics and algorithms could be in fact coded into a dive computer and it could rot your brain also!

 

[MikeFerrara]

Uncle Pug once bubbled...

So I don't get a complex... would you amplify this a bit?

It was meant as a complement. You are as devoted a GUE/DIR practitioner as anyone I know (even if I don't really know you) and you are able to discuss different methods and the reasons why YOU have chosen certain ones. I often enjoy the discussions. Also, it often seems clear that many of your views are based on personal experience in contrast to others who seem to only repeat what they have read.

When someone just repeats what they read and haven't given it any critical thought they aren't prepared to really discuss it regardless of wether it's right or wrong. It's no fun talking to someone who's only reply is "because George said so" I guess I was saying you weren't one of those.

Did that help or did I really confuse things?

 

[Uncle Pug]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
I guess I was saying you weren't one of those.

Thanks... I wasn't sure which side of the fence I was on that one