Re: Ahhh...

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

Posted by Kendall Raine on May 07, 2002 at 14:29:38:

In Reply to: Re: PADI dive table posted by tecdiver on May 07, 2002 at 13:31:43:

The penny drops. I think your point is that the agencies give short shrift to the academics of decompression theory and modeling and that that is a disservice. Did I get it right? If so I completely agree, although getting consensus on how much is the right amount is a matter of debate.

If, on the other hand, you're saying the RDP has less "padding" or "conservatism" built into it, you haven't supported that arugument with any facts. Conservatism in decompression modeling is a loaded expression anyway. What, specifically, about the RDP disturbs you?

You also say "Studies have been done on shorter half times with doppler and the bubbles are bigger." I don't know what you mean. Measuring the size of venous gas bubbles with a Doppler is pretty tricky. Try it some time. Are you saying models with shorter half times produce bigger bubbles all other things being equal? While that may be true, there is a difference between causation and correlation, just as there are many factors which drive the efficacy of a model. Half-times are only one component. Indicting the RDP, or any model, purely on the basis of shorter half-times is inadequate. Lastly, as I said before, the RDP half-times are no shorter, except for the last one, than ZH-L16. I guess I missed the point of your comment.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




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