Posted by seahunt on February 05, 2001 at 11:24:12:
In Reply to: Re: I think he answered you just fine. posted by MHK on February 02, 2001 at 15:24:56:
Let's see. How did this discussion progress? JW levels an unprovoked
attack on some guy that posts and slams he PADI. I replied for the
personal attack. He says he didn't attack the guy, he just laughed at
him... I've had some pets like that.
You came along and justified slamming PADI and brought in DIR. I
never mentioned either.
Since you find my posts confusingly detailed, note that while I will
add some comments to respond to your last post, there will be only
one question at the end of this post.
Dealing with your 'explanations' of DIR has seemed off the wall at
times, so I had let the issue of DIR drop until you offered us an
answer to the issue of deco calculations. That seemed like about the
most difficult thing you have proposed and the main safety issue that
seems to come up. I'll ignore efficincy and convenience for the
moment.
But then you again come up with the basically outrageous claim that
"I spent a wealth of time discussing all your concerns". You haven't
explained much of anything and what you have written is poor quality
and disconnected. I save all these posts and can give you a concatenated
version of your replys if desired.
In the 01/10/01 set of posts you posted,
>>SO the short answer to your question is that I carry the IANTD
>>tables but more importantly I took teh time to study and learn
>>the algorithms and the variances within the competing models... It's
>>called decompression THEOR
>>With respect to the diference between the Buhlamn modified B and C
>>models the only real distinction is that the subset C calculates in
>>REAL time as opposed to PLANNED time and thus allows for the continuous
>>data sampling that you allude to. By understanding the models you can
>>do the same thing...
This is the closest you have come to explaining this procedure. It is not
enough for me to make any use of. As far as answering my curiosity, you
could use any table to describe how you do your sampling and
calculations. And this is just an example of how you handled one question.
You haven't done any better on other questions either.
Your description of drag (doubles/console) showed that you don't use an
engineering or physical examination of DIR. You handle DIR, which has
good potentials, as a belief system, not an engineering system. I only
have interest in it as a science that can be repeated. You do not convey
it that way. You convey it as a system based on authority and prescidence,
not reason and logic.
When you aren't poorly expressing your ideas, you mangle what other
people say. Here is a good example from this past exchange.
I wrote:
"You ignored my observation that about 70% of your statements and the
statements on the the George's and JJ's web sites are not applicable
to CA sport diving."
You replied:
"FTR, I reject the notion that 70% of DIR does not apply and you have
demonstrated nothing in that regard..."
There is a pretty huge difference here. I can't say what percentage of
DIR applies to CA sport diving. It's just that when I analyze point by
point what is written on the websites, it's about 7 out of 10 points
don't apply to CA sport diving. Read what I say, not what you think I
say... By the way, in my long cosmology post, I went point by point to
show why I said that. You ignored that.
Now as to your challenge. You assumed I don't dive with a console and
you assumed I don't dive charter boats. You assume that if I don't
dive with you, that I'm just posting to bother you. You can assume the
sky is pink, but in all 4 cases you would be wrong. As for in the
hereinafter, you're right, my attitude towards DIR has changed from one
of curiosity to one of having examined DIR and evaluated it. It seems
like a fine system for diving, but it doesn't impress me as being near
as good as you claim and it has notable drawbacks. Whoopee!
Your challenge is a poor way to try to resolve this. Most experienced
divers that push BT, like hunters, can easily stay out of deco with a
single tank, just from memory. It's not hard, but for safety reasons we
don't do it that way. Also the dive boat skippers plan normal trips to
keep divers out of deco. Please just do what was originally requested and
what I patiently waited for, tell us how the rest of us divers are supposed
to do these deco calculations and sampling, so accurately. Even if we
went diving together, at the end I would still ask you how you did your
calculations. Then I and other divers should be able to figure out how
useful the system is and we, individually will decide if it is a system we
want to use. I gave you a description of a typical dive for me at Eagles
Reef and Isthmus High Spot (Cosmology post), that would not bring someone
into deco, but is a good example of a dive with lots of vertical
movement. Tell us how that dive should be evaluated. You can certainly
tell us that answer before I could even drive to the dive boat.
DIR is the new kid on the block and does a lot of big talking. Well,
the new kid's got an awful lot to prove.
So how about we leave this here where it was. Last set of posts was
about 25 days ago when I said that I wanted to know your method. I
still want to know, as do others.
Enjoy the diving, seahunt