Posted by Kendall Raine on May 09, 2002 at 09:22:17:
In Reply to: Re: PADI dive table posted by tecdiver on May 09, 2002 at 08:22:27:
I have to side with Steve on this. Your first post said:
"...if any one studies dive tables and bubble models you will determine the PADI dive table is piss a** poor for repetative diving..."
"On the third or fourth or day of diving your bent and can not figure out why."
The implication is that there is something inherently wrong with the RDP: "I mean it is fine for one dive and maybe a second but then falls apart." The "it" is the RDP, not all table models per se. You then go on to mention "reliable sources" who confirm, by implication, that PADI are aware that their model is defective or suboptimal.
Look, I have no issue with anyone who says that bubble models are more theoretically robust than dissolved gas models. You haven't said that. Furthermore, the RDP is only one of several popular dissolved gas models. Singling it, and PADI, out for abuse seems unwarranted without additional information particular to the RDP.
How about you assume that all of us who have responded to your post are dummies and state, clearly and with facts, exactly what you're trying to say. Please include answers to the following:
1. Are you saying the RDP is flawed beyond its limitations as a dissolved gas model? That is, is the RDP any worse or more limited than say Navy, DCIEM, Buhlman or Spencer models?
2. If yes, what, specifically, about the RDP accounts for this flaw? Feel free to lay out the math.
3. If no, please explain what you're talking about.
Post a Followup