Why do computers rot the brain?

[The Chairman]

"I am not sure", or was it "I don't know". Definitely an honest seeker when it comes to diving.

Now if we can get him to stop using all those diving analogies in his preaching... :tease: I can hear one of his hymns now...

Arise, my soul arise...
But do a deep stop first!

:all: :tease: :all:

 

[AquaTec]

sometimes a good real world analogy in a scerman can be benifical

 

[Scuba]

There is nothing wrong with saying that you are using a method that is highly experimental, but showing good solid promising results, from its limited test basis. The problem is in extrapolating this to mean that you have a proven method better than others, without objective evidence to confirm.

There is nothing wrong with saying that your X is better than others for you. But when you extrapolate this to mean it is the best for all without rigorously confirming it from many other perspectives (perspectives will show you specifics), you are left with an unsubstantiated opinion.

When it comes time to show the cards on the table. You are left with a bluff. Wether intentional or not.

Moral of the story: Don't Get Your Poles Crossed.

 

[Dr Deco]

Dear Readers:

I have found the many posts to this thread to be very interesting. If I may, I would like to offer a few comments in general.

New Decompression Researchers

Several readers mentioned something to the effect that, if new techniques were good, contemporary diving scientists would have embraced them. The truth of the matter is that there are conservative viewpoints in the research community the same as in any gathering. The viewpoints of these individuals are very often grounded in decades-old methods. Many who learned these are not inclined to adopt differing views. Very often, the new views will be quite unpalatable and rejected out of hand.

Quite often, an idea will, in reality, be quite old. Tissue microbubbles (micronuclei) was advanced by EN Harvey in the 1940s. It is only in the past decade that it has gained much credence, and not in the form originally proposed. We see a long incubation time.

Many ideas are advanced by those not in the medical profession, the largest segment of diving researchers (at least until recently). Thus, we have Harvey (physicist), Hills (chemical engineer), Yount (physicist), Powell (biophysicist) and Wienke (physicist) who are offering hypotheses not based on classical physiology. Those who are “classically trained” will cleave to the classical ideas of JS Haldane.

New Methods

Clearly, not everything that is new is of value. Many fine ideas are of great utility but will require time to ripen and mature. There are also some wonderful methods that work well in one setting (0-g depressurizations at NASA, for example). In another mode, they could be no real benefit. It may be that some of the techniques used by cave divers will be lights to us all within definite, bounded conditions. Obviously, they cannot be against the laws of physics if the methods are successful.

I have reasons to believe that some of these will work, although my reasons for believing so might be worded differently from the original authors. I for one am curious.

In addition, I will assure you that my ideas in barophysiology are anything but mainstream and well accepted by the professional community. I still maintain that I am correct and have the data, and physical principles, to back my position.

Time will tell. I will watch what comes out from others in the diving community.

Dr Deco :doctor:

 

[AquaTec]

Dr Deco once bubbled...
Dear Readers:
In addition, I will assure you that my ideas in barophysiology are anything but mainstream and well accepted by the professional community. I still maintain that I am correct and have the data, and physical principles, to back my position.
Dr Deco :doctor:

Your wild and crazy theories are based on know principles of phisics which back youuur oppinions, which you also back up with the data.

it seems that the george method has the data, but were is the math.

You do make a good point about the slow evolution of aceptance in the scientific world, how about the commercial or military world, they seem to be ones willing to try new cutting edge ideas both having different agendas, why are they not using the George method.
I will also say that mainstream tech divers are absorbing and applying new diving theories like crazy, how come it is only the DIR crowd using these principles, i would think tat with the successes of the wkrp et al that more explorers pushing their own boundries would be using these methods.

why I ask is it only GUE et al teaching, and using these methods. the simple answer must be because no body else is willing to. then we must ask why are they not, does George know something that nobody else does or is able to figure out.

 

[boomx5]

AquaTec once bubbled...
i would think tat with the successes of the wkrp

but WKRP is in Cincinnati, and WKPP is in Florida

Just thought I would clear that up.

 

[AquaTec]

I was going to say WKRAP..but knew that wasn't right so i eliminated the A.

 

[Dr Deco]

Dear AquaTec:

When people discuss the scientific basis of the techniques utilized by George Irvine and the WKPP divers, I would need to know specifically which ones we are discussing. I read the piece that was on the web that had a transcript of this talk to a Bay Area, CA, dive club. Some of it sounded realistic to me. On other parts, I rather shook my head.

I have a feeling that much of the success can be traced to long periods of decompression while in the water. This weightless period will foster the dissolution of tissue micronuclei. Most military and commercial decompression is not performed in this matter (i.e., in water). Rather the diver will exit and deco in a chamber where he can walk around, thus generating micronuclei.

This difference could lead to a dive specific method that works very well in that arena, but might fail in others. I really do not know and am also looking for the answer.

Dr Deco :doctor:

 

[Scuba]

Dr. Deco

No doubt you are an expert on deco theory. Pun intended.

Would you please comment on the relevancy of the greater precision computers introduce in calculating an actual dive profile and applying it to the tables in real time, compared to manual planning and mental tracking.

In particular as it relates to what I consider is a typical dive profile exhibiting some degree of a sawtooth pattern.

 

[Dr Deco]

Dear Scuba:

No matter how you calculate the bottom times, you will most likely be in a relatively safe zone if you are a recreational scuba diver. The tables and meters do not “allow” any dive, they simply keep track of the partial pressures in the various hypothetical compartments of your body so that at the end of the day you have a good idea of on gassing and off gassing. It is really an “accounting system.”

You would be in the safest position if the nitrogen dose were the least when you started your next dive after the surface interval. Calculating a square wave profile would vastly overestimate your body’s gas load and would prolong the surface interval (or shorted the next dive for a short SI). If one wishes to increase the bottom time, then it is possible to accurately track all of the ups and downs and the times at each depth. This brings every dive to the “model limit” and allows no conservatism. You are down longer on a dive, and have a reduced IS and then can perform a longer subsequent dive. That is what deco meters do.

Now, the true is, if we were really on the “bends-no bends” limit, we would have seen more cases of DCS as divers started to increase their usage of deco meters. This has, in fact, not occurred. The reason is that dive tables are calculated to be a long way for the unsafe region in diving.

The “Bend-No Bends” Limit

Every individual has a DCS limit if the dose of nitrogen is increased sufficiently. Hardly anyone will ever find that limit. Thank the Gods of Diving. As the nitrogen dose is increased, we pass from no bubbles to silent bubble to frank DCS. At some point, a diver will say, “I really think my elbow is hurting.” This requires a gas load much in excess of recreational dive tables – in almost all cases.

There is the great “palace secret” which says that fluids will not effervesce (bubble) unless there are already microbubbles present. Minimize these and gas loads become less important (although they will always have significance). The nuclei (microbubbles) are generated by strenuous physical activity. In altitude studies, we can reduce DCS by ten fold (not one tenth) by having the subjects sit instead of stand. Physical activity makes that much difference!

There is no way that a diver cannot walk but s/he can certainly minimize lifting tanks and climbing ladders with full gear.

• We have the Dr Deco’s Golden Rules of Diving
• minimize activity on the bottom and perform some cycling maneuvers at the deco stop,
• perform some light activity during the surface interval – no sleeping,
• do not climb with full gear and do not lug equipment around on deck.

A lot of safety is in the diver’s control.

Dr Deco :doctor: