Rebreather World - View Single Post

aainslie · 9th April 2008, 20:15

Well, let's get to a few basic points:

a) You don't like VPM because it's been modified twice. Yet you love Buhlmann which contains almost a century's worth of modifications from its origination as the Haldanian model.

b) You don't like VPM because it hasn't been empirically tested as much as Buhlmann. Is mere superiority of volume of empirical testing enough? Ross's software gets used a lot with no evidence of an unusually high level of bends and little evidence of ANY bends. It may not be as much as the data behind Buhlmann, but don't you think it's suffficient? Both have a remarkably low incidence of DCS hits.

It seems you pick your battles. On the first rationale (changes) you should be the first to disqualify Buhlmann. So - is occasional change enough to disqualify a model? if so, be consistent and disqualify Buhlmann. Especially if you use it with GF, which I'll bet you do.

I'm not going to go into your endless debates about who did what dive to what depth on what algorithm - your fixation on that is not really of much interest to me or most of the rest of us.

Oh - and you DO have a serious ego. However since I'm occasionally accused of the same I should probably tread lightly there...

9th April 2008, 20:15	#39 (permalink)
aainslie Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: LA Posts: 113	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Well, let's get to a few basic points: a) You don't like VPM because it's been modified twice. Yet you love Buhlmann which contains almost a century's worth of modifications from its origination as the Haldanian model. b) You don't like VPM because it hasn't been empirically tested as much as Buhlmann. Is mere superiority of volume of empirical testing enough? Ross's software gets used a lot with no evidence of an unusually high level of bends and little evidence of ANY bends. It may not be as much as the data behind Buhlmann, but don't you think it's suffficient? Both have a remarkably low incidence of DCS hits. It seems you pick your battles. On the first rationale (changes) you should be the first to disqualify Buhlmann. So - is occasional change enough to disqualify a model? if so, be consistent and disqualify Buhlmann. Especially if you use it with GF, which I'll bet you do. I'm not going to go into your endless debates about who did what dive to what depth on what algorithm - your fixation on that is not really of much interest to me or most of the rest of us. Oh - and you DO have a serious ego. However since I'm occasionally accused of the same I should probably tread lightly there... __________________ Andrew Ainslie Last edited by aainslie : 9th April 2008 at 21:29.
(Offline)