WKPP dive profiles

[jbd]

A post in the thread titled dive computers vs dive tables vs WKPP has me wondering how WKPP came up with their protocol. Specifically its post #5 in which BRW notes that a particular dive profile using the RGBM requires a 12 deco and that the same dive with WKPP's protocol uses also uses a 12 hour deco.

What I'm wondering is how did GI3 and company come up with their protocol? What guided them in making their decisions to try certain profiles in regards to deco?

I tried a qucik check of the GUE website but didn't see anything that would seem to provide that information. Did GI3 etal publish anything about their methods?

 

[WaterDawg]

Ck out the DIR DVD's it talks about that a bit on the 3rd disk.

 

[KLD]

JBD,

GI3 told me WKPP started with standard Haldane and
started shaving time, depending how they felt toward the
end of the deco path. Plus reducing N2 (smart), and
introducing deep stops (smart too). What works, works
was a maxim. Same with C & C back about 12 yrs ago, but
we were not as aggressive as WKPP, and started blending
bubble and gas model staging on computers.

The evolution of WKPP profiles is discussed in one of
the QUEST publications by JJ and GI3 a few years ago. And
is was basically trial and error, building on deep stops and
then migrating to gas switch strategies. I'll see if I can
retrace the publication and post.

Regards,

BW

A post in the thread titled dive computers vs dive tables vs WKPP has me wondering how WKPP came up with their protocol. Specifically its post #5 in which BRW notes that a particular dive profile using the RGBM requires a 12 deco and that the same dive with WKPP's protocol uses also uses a 12 hour deco.

What I'm wondering is how did GI3 and company come up with their protocol? What guided them in making their decisions to try certain profiles in regards to deco?

I tried a qucik check of the GUE website but didn't see anything that would seem to provide that information. Did GI3 etal publish anything about their methods?

 

[jbd]

JBD,

GI3 told me WKPP started with standard Haldane and
started shaving time, depending how they felt toward the
end of the deco path. Plus reducing N2 (smart), and
introducing deep stops (smart too). What works, works
was a maxim. Same with C & C back about 12 yrs ago, but
we were not as aggressive as WKPP, and started blending
bubble and gas model staging on computers.

The evolution of WKPP profiles is discussed in one of
the QUEST publications by JJ and GI3 a few years ago. And
is was basically trial and error, building on deep stops and
then migrating to gas switch strategies. I'll see if I can
retrace the publication and post.

Regards,

BW

That QUEST article would be interesting to read. If anyone can provide information on how I might obtain it would be sincerely appreciated.

Also would like to know if they used anything like Doppler after the dives to detect bubbles while they were developing their deco profiles?

jbd

 

[Spectre]

I'm not positive it's the article that Bruce is referring to, but it appears that Vol 3, No. 1 of Quest is mostly decompression stuff.

As a GUE member, you can get into the quest archives and see all the articles from previous issues.

 

[ScubaDadMiami]

I asked this question to George Irvine. One story he told was that certain cave configurations did not allow for exiting by a more or less straight ascent. So, on the way out, there were times that divers would have to swim a shallower stretch (but not as shallow as called for by traditional tables) and then proceed to the shallower section after that. When divers started noticing that they felt better after the dive, the deeper stops were incorporated even when the cave structure did not require it.

 

[jbd]

I asked this question to George Irvine. One story he told was that certain cave configurations did not allow for exiting by a more or less straight ascent. So, on the way out, there were times that divers would have to swim a shallower stretch (but not as shallow as called for by traditional tables) and then proceed to the shallower section after that. When divers started noticing that they felt better after the dive, the deeper stops were incorporated even when the cave structure did not require it.

That would seem to be somewhat similar to what Richard Pyle noticed with stops made to deflate the air bladders on fish he captured deep.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I asked this question to George Irvine. One story he told was that certain cave configurations did not allow for exiting by a more or less straight ascent. So, on the way out, there were times that divers would have to swim a shallower stretch (but not as shallow as called for by traditional tables) and then proceed to the shallower section after that. When divers started noticing that they felt better after the dive, the deeper stops were incorporated even when the cave structure did not require it.

I'm not involved with the WKPP but this is something that we have to deal with on almost every cave dive. It's not out of the ordinary to have an hour swim at some intermediate depth before you get to a deep section of a cave or to have a shallow section between deep sections.

The DIR 3 video includes some discussion of GI and JJ talking about their early thought process. Part of the driving factor was the simple fact that to do traditional decompression would result in MANY hours more than they already do which is already incredible. There was a lot of trial and error and theorizing.

I've run software schedules on some of their dives and dives that other groups have done and in some cases they were short by 5 hours or more according to other models (for lack of a better word) yet it works. A friend of mine did a dive in Mexico and after 3+ hours of bottom time with a max depth of 350 ft they did like 5 hours less decompression than my software called for. They were in a remote location and didn't feel they were pushing it.

The same holds true for their treatment of O2 exposure. They expose themselvs to many times the NOAA recommended exposure. I'm not sure any one can explain why it works but it seems to. We don't do any dive that can compare to what the WKPP does (and I don't want to) but we certainly blow away the NOAA numbers. It's hard tro do much of a dive and not do it.

There is lots about this stuff that the scientists just don't know yet and maybe never will.