Re: in addition, deep stops on NitrOx help whereas deep air stops hurt

JuJee Beads, handmade flamework glass beads

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

Posted by bigbadtekdiver on November 07, 2001 at 12:06:36:

In Reply to: in addition, deep stops on NitrOx help whereas deep air stops hurt posted by Karl S. on November 07, 2001 at 10:46:27:

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 19:02:43 -0000
Subject: [BA_TechDiver] Is there too much "diving software"?

Am I the only one here who thinks too many divers are depending on
computer software to plan their dives? Maybe I am just old fashioned?

I think spreadsheets set up to run the depth calculations are great.
They save time and avoid math errors. But it seems to me that
computer programs that supposedly tailor dives to selected parameters
is relegating too much responsibility to some unknown computer
programmer. What if the software gives really great answers, but
your own body doesnt agree with it?! What if you are one of the 5%
or 1% or 1/10th of 1% that falls outside of the standard deviation?!

A dive table is only a general model. Fine tuning a computer program
to give different results than a table seems really dangerous to me.
Yet so many divers seem to think that if they are playing with a
computer deco model then they are really being a good technical
diver!?! It almost seems to go without saying around here: "Duh, if
I can play with deco software then I must be smart! Then everybody
will think I am kewl."

I can understand using a conservative table that was formatted using
Doppler bubble detector equipment, like DCIEM, then adding bottom
time to your calculations for the deep stops at 80% ATA increments.
After awhile, I can even agree to shortening deco stops to 1/2 at 20
fsw or 10 fsw if using pure O2 at those stops. I would test this
first, however, rather than just assuming it to be valid. There
might be some other personal factor that applied which I didnt
already know about.

I can also see shortening all stops by 1/3 if using EANx of 50% or
higher, although I would test this first too, for the same reason.
Those are all a lot of calculations, but a spreadsheet handles
calculations nicely.

But all these manipulations to software that I am hearing about, such
as varying M values and quotients and other stuff, seems like
dangerous voodoo to me. The nerd version of voodoo, where if
something sounds smart then it must be good.

Just because Jobs & Wosniak came up with a desk top computer and some
other lab geeks wrote a software program to simulate diving tables
does not make it safe or wise to do so. It seems to me that the nerd
factor has crept into diving and tech diving just like into
everything else, and diving seems like the last place on this earth
that it belongs.

Someone here, maybe Michael, said that on a square profile for a deep
technical dive, a diving computer would be of little if any value. I
would think the same thing is true of deco software. Yet the nerd
factor seems to make its presence continually known in diving,
especially in deco planning. That just doesnt seem right to me.

Those are real micro-bubbles that could start to foam inside your
blood and body tissues, and unless you are conservative in your dive
planning and deco planning, you could be in for a huge physiological
response to your arbitrary choice of deco software and M values etc.

Thats why I would ALWAYS do my dive planning and deco planning off a
table, and NEVER off software. Guess I'm just old fashioned. Am I
the only one?

/s/ Karl S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




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