Posted by Kendall Raine on May 07, 2002 at 12:14:48:
In Reply to: PADI dive table posted by tecdiver on May 06, 2002 at 20:38:10:
Normally I'd give anyone who says anything coming from PADI is worthless the benefit of the doubt, but the RDP was developed by some pretty smart people who don't otherwise work for PADI.
Why do you say it's no good for multi-day repetative diving? Did someone tell you that it fails after two dives? True, it uses shorter tissue half times than Buhlmann. Is that why you say what you say? If so, then please explain how this really matters since the M value range is pretty similar to Buhlman ZH-L12 and ZH-L16-ZH L16 has only one compartment with a half-time appreciably longer than 480 minutes. Perhaps you can describe how often or under what conditions it is that the controlling tissue compartment has a half time of over 480 minutes. You say that after two dives it "falls apart." How? Remember, this is a table that is designed exclusively for short shallow (no required deco) exposures.
Is there any evidence that people who use the RDP get hit more often than people using some other model? Is there a difference between the types of hits that RDP users get from the distribution of hits non-RDP users get? How about Doppler studies that differentiate between modles? Your comment that "On the third or fourth day of diving your bent..." suggests there should be such evidence.
If you're point is that as a neo-Haldanean model it's not as good as some others, fine. But that's not what you said.
I'll be the first to bash PADI if what you say is so. Help me out, please. If you can't explain the modeling or physics, how about just naming your "reliable sources."
Post a Followup