Quote: (Originally Posted by
aainslie)
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.
Nope, I do like VPMBE which is what I use all the time to plan ALL my big dives and I do like and trust vr3vpm (Which in the words of the creator of V-planner is similar to VPMB). I never said VPMBE was crap or that I didnt like or trust it. My comments were about earlier versions of VPM that didnt give enough deco.
Quote:
b) You don't like VPM because it hasn't been empirically tested as much as Buhlmann.
Its not a case of 'not liking it' I simply made the point that it hadnt been tested as much as Buh - thats all. Testing is good. Proper testing is better. Proper testing is not done by sports divers in a non control group - thats my ONLY point re: testing and I cant see how anyone would disagree
Quote:
Is mere superiority of volume of empirical testing enough?
yes in part it is. Models are best tested formally under controlled conditions not on sports divers under varying conditions, no control, TOOO many variables and poor/min reporting and correlation.
Quote:
Ross's software gets used a lot with no evidence of an unusually high level of bends and little evidence of ANY bends.
theres
no way you can quantify that with any degree of certainty as theres no way to capture all the incidents and look at the data look at any variations in the profiles followed gases used, hydration levels etc etc etc. Just looking at Ross list of dives Ive shown how its easy to asume the wrong data. If data collection is done by word of mouth its often just
hearsay - which is in part one of the reasons why control studies are the best method.
Quote:
It may not be as much as the data behind Buhlmann, but don't you think it's suffficient?
No I dont think its really sufficient and I dont think you will find anyone learned in the field who will agree that it is. Yes it does look like VPMBE works quite well but thats not really something we can
quantify without proper study, and you can never study enough.
Quote:
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.
Again you are off track. Changes are
not the issue. Changes are a good thing if they improve the no. of bends as it did with VPMX. I never said that a model is crap IF its been changed - that would be kinda stupid to suggest. Change is the way we improve. All I said re:vpx was it had undergone changes to make it more useful (stop bending divers) which it has - whats wrong with that??
Quote:
I'm not going to go into your endless debates about who did what dive to what depth on what algorithm
Theres been no debate here re: who did what dives. Who (anywhere or anytime) is debating that Ben did use VPM? er nobody. I posted Bens words - he used Zplanner. Who (anywhere or anytime) is debating Yamashiro dive was to 176m? In previous post Ross himself acknowledged that depth (the decostop) These facts are straight forward enough for you or anyone else to check. The
only fact where theres any debate is CV dive depth at SraKeow - and for that I simply posted the link to his dive buddies dive report where he tells what happened - no debate was entered into.
So honestly I dont know what these 'endless debates' are you mention.
Quote:
- your fixation on that is not really of much interest to me or most of the rest of us.
another thing we see with people like you who jump into a discussion with an agenda is they use the word WE a lot
fixation on what? (I put it to you that you are the one fixating on CV dive as for me its just a coincodence that its one of the dives incorrectly reported)
So you have no interest in fact dives listed on V-planner website as vpm dives or dives to certain depth arent in fact either? Interesting. Personally I try to look at correct data when choosing or trusting a model. In addition if its not really of much interest to you - why are you talking?
Sure sure one of the dives is one of the contentious ones debated before -
It does apear that your fixating on that one fact - when you shouldnt as if you ignore that dive the rest of the errors (Bens zplanner dive and Yamashiro depth) stand independantly.
This is exactly why I wrote in a previous post:-
Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)
It is indeed unfortunate, and im well aware of, the risk that seeing as CV dives are two of the dives on the list inaccurately reported that it could be seen as a personal cruisade - but its not, honestly. I havent for eg seen CV ever suggest he went to 190m on the yamashiro - so this is likely no more than Ross's typo error.
alas you didnt read or wish to believe it
Quote:
Oh - and you DO have a serious ego. However since I'm occasionally accused of the same I should probably tread lightly there...
Not necessary I never suggested I was anything more than intolerant and egotistical - BUT I do like to debate facts and logic I dont see any of those coming from a discussion about egos or personality - i suggest such topics are irelevant, when it comes to discussing facts figures and opinions, and shouldnt be brought up