Re: re- not de-compression

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by MHK on May 01, 2001 at 15:51:40:

In Reply to: re- not de-compression posted by JRM on May 01, 2001 at 15:32:55:

I agree we are talking chamber in the study but I was relaying that we are *guinea pigs* in that we are applying the same theory to our de compression theories.

Kendall is compiling out doppler tests and after we have enough to form a conclusion, or impression, we'll post the results.. But in the interim I wouldn't suggest that other's follow what we are doing..

As for studies there are a couple that I have become fond of. As you know I'm a big believer in the Weinke RGBM theory and I believe there is a fair amount of merit in the Thermodynamic Model that Hill has advanced. The thermodynamic model deals with tissue gas exchanges, phase separation, isobaric counter diffussion issues and is more in line for the deeper stage decompression dives.. Since we try to keep our open ocean dives to under 90 minutes the RGBM makes more sense..

If you read through Weinke's model look at the Critical Phase Volume Time limits and the Critical Phase Volume Gradients and then all we have done is slowly manipulate the coefficients..

In layman's terms it means that I have been using a Helium based 50/50 decompression mix but applying the Nitrogen based time restrictions. Knowing that He *uptakes* at a rate 2.65 times faster than N2 we are testing the lipid solubility of the gas when used as a decompression tool, which is in direct conflict from the prevailing data. That's why I keep repeating, we are guinea pigs and no one should follow this advise until we understand the effects...

Hope that helps..


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]