Posted by seahunt on February 08, 2001 at 22:31:31:
In Reply to: Re: $50 Bucks posted by MHK on February 08, 2001 at 17:43:15:
>First off, should we craft an agreement whereby I submit something
>over the net I would make the stipulation that my winnings go to
>the Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber.
Fine.
>But my real reservation is that this isn't truely something that
>should be, nor can it be, adequately explained via a NG.
NG?
If it can't be explained in words or math, it ain't science and it
can't be taught, but OK, be reserved.
>I'm not of the opinion that every aspect of diving
>can/should be taught over the net.
Not asking teaching, though all classes tend to teach skills before
demonstrating them or asking the student to perform them. Net, book,
VCR, phone, book... all teach with words, media matters none. With a
few basic hints, I can teach myself. Though please fax any diagrams
or post them whree available.
>Qualified instruction can NOT be replaced with internet discussions
Not asking instruction, though you should be able to provide a
fairly detailed description. In any case, somebody should be able to
figure out what you are saying. Probably I should be able to. I solve
problems and analyze systems for a living. If nobody (judges) can
figure out how to use your method on a dive, your description will be
judged inadaquate.
>and moreover it is much easier to demonstrate the skill vis-a-vis a
>real life dive
At the end, I would still ask how you did it. As I have said, any
experienced diver can dive all day and stay out of deco. It demonstrates
nothing. That is especially true depending on the tank. It was Czar,
many years ago, who said you can dive all day with an Al 80. If you are
at less than 100 feet and do 1 hour surface intervals. It is true, but
I wouldn't want to use that system.
>which is why I continue to operate under the belief that you merely
>want to Monday morning quarterback.
Monday morning QB's tell you how they would have done it. I'm just
saying that it can't be done safely or accurately, by me, you or other
divers. I just use a computer. I can tell you how to do that. I can
tell you how the tables have been traditionally used, but I haven't
because that is a different story and is clearly meant for square
profile calculations. Using tables for multi-level dives, but not
following a square (or maybe step) profile is called guestimation...
Presumably your method relates to calculations on the depth and time
from your depth guage and bottom timer/watch. You might want to clarify
that up front.
>You asked me if I could do it and I'm telling you
>that I can. I offered to actually do it rather than discuss debatable
>points on the NG, but you have steadfastly refused to accept.. In my
>view that speaks to a reluctance to truely want answers in asmuch as
>you simply want to craft long winded critics..
As I said, a demo would not teach anything. Heck, I couldn't know the
validity of the result unless you wore a computer where you couldn't
see it. Eventually, ideas must be communciated by language or they
mostly pass with their creator.
>I'll consider the matter but I would prefer that we actually get in
>the water and properly demonstrate the skill.. It's sort of like
>explaining a mask R & R.. IT's one thing on the net, but it's a whole
>other thing when your mask get's ripped off while sharing air 2000'
>back in a cave or 2 levels down in a wreck.. The real life experience
>is MUCH more important than the potential explaination on a scuba
>forum...
Yes, but the technique for mask replacement and clearing is the same
in 20 feet of water or 2000 feet and is better learned in 20 feet of
water. Dive training manuals regularly describe how to do it. You hold
the mask against your face and lift the lowest part (side or bottom,
depending on what is being taught) so that when you blow air out of
your nose, the water exits the opening at the bottom of the mask. That
is the theory. You then follow that with practice on the surface and
then in the water. Deco calcs are different, but they are taught before
they are practiced and then you go to the water... At least my scuba
and NITROX classes taught that way.
In any case, this sounds promising. I did offer you a typical dive
profile for me in the cosmology post to use for analysis. This was
Eagles Reef and Isthmus High Spot. I dare say you have likely dove
both repeatedly. It is not a deco dive, but does come near enough
to be relevant. I can reprint that or other dives that I was glad to
have a computer along for, but really, the dive matters little as long
as you can describe how to sample depth and time, (maybe record samples)
and calculate deco from those samples with enough confidence to be able
to make a computer unneeded (though that disallows for human error). I
would just rather that you used dives with significant vertical variation
as are common in California. I think it is fair to ask that you show this
method for dives that do not fit a square profile, though if your
method is good enough, it shouldn't matter. If you describe your system
well, one tank with a square profile should allow you to explain your
method. Just as long as it can be extrapolated to real diving situations.
Or get a BBS member to offer a multi dive profile to apply the method
to.
Really, I'm not too worried about the details of the dive, only your
method. When you want to continue this, could you please start a new
thread. Lets be sure that before you describe the method and how it is
used with some example, we are clear and in agreement of what we are
both talking about. As such, I'll offer this preliminary description.
1. You can describe any theory or background you think relevant. Lets
clarify those before your main description of method. If you think I
should learn a table or something else before hand, that would be good
too. I'm a good learner.
2. *You must describe how you sample depth and time, (maybe record
samples) and calculate deco from those samples with enough confidence
to be able to make a computer unneeded.
3. *You must apply this to a non-trivial example, real or hypothetical.
4. There is going to have to be some practicality evaluation. Really,
I have no time to waste uw. This method should not take a significant
part of your BT
5. No magic. I do math just fine. My math is in a nuclear reactor, a
gamma ray spectrograph and a 256 BYTE encryption method. (yes 256 byte,
not bit. Not even Tom Clancy writes about that). I do write about human
genetics for fun. My specialty is clarifying other people's thoughts even
when they don't understand them themselves. Really, if you give me a poor,
but valid and consistant, explanation, I will return it to you in a form
that you can use to explain your method to others far better. Also, you
will clarify it for yourself by teaching it, though since you depend your
life on it, I hope you have a pretty clear idea of how you do it
already.
6. Then I would like to dive with you... I plan to be on the OE this
summer for Rigs and Farnsworth.
There are other things that should be cleared up, such as how the
validity of your answer will be determined if I have a problem applying
it. Judges should likely be determined up front to resolve any
forseeable disagreements, but this is a good start.
I'll tell you up front, unless you really surprise me with the utility
and effectiveness of this method, I will probably continue to use a
computer, but I won't say that your method is vaporware.
Enjoy, seahunt
I dunno. I used to do math for fun when I was a kid, but now I have
responsibilities to be correct, so I depend on a computer. I just give
it a (validated) method and the data and voila, I get a correct answer.