Which Deco Model

***caveseeker7*** · 23rd March 2005, 23:35

Dave,

both Explorer and VR3 had issues early on, as Rob pointed out, the Explorer had problems with the cases, and the VR3 had problems with buttons (they fell out iirc). Both Hydrospace and DeltaP fixed those issues.

So it comes down to the algorithms, metal vs. plastic case, preferred display etc.
I don't trimix, so for the algorithms you have to ask someone else. But from what I've seen in dive plans, RGBM and VPM-B are fairly close.

No news on SMI's deco implementation, it's not high priority right now, catching up with backorders is. They do have an agreement with B.W. to use the RGBM, so in that respect the Explorer would be a better match.

Metal vs Plastic - one is light, doesn't corrode, the other is very solid. Take your pick.
Displays - I really like the Explorer's, but also like the VR3 prompting what happens when you push either or both buttons. Much easier to use, I'm not the biggest fan of multiple screens, menues, selections etc.

If you have a chance to check either out I would do so, at least read through their manuals.

DeltaP also offers the VR2 for nitrox mixes CC and OC (up to 4). Costs considerably less than the VR3, plastic case, optional air-integration (OC) or cell-integration (CC).

Non-integrated choices are Ambient Pressure's Nexus (O2/N2) and Cochran's Commander (O2/N2 and O2/N2/He). I believe their Gemini would work, too, for nitrox mixes. Don't know much about the Cochrans other than they have simple displays and huge memory (and a myriad of graphs). Info is on their website and Joe Radomski tried it at ZeroG. Since he also uses the Explorer and at least used the VR3 in the past he can provide plenty of input when he finds time.

Read a Nexus test in a German dive mag, it reportedly works well for CC but is very agressive for OC, so much so that they recommended rather not using it for that. It is, I believe, the least expensive of the pO2/fO2 calculating deco computers.

Both Cochran and APD use wet contacts on their computers if you find the Explorers uncomfortable and have lingering doubts about the VR's buttons. Coming from Uwatecs I can tell you that wet contacts can be a pita to operate.
The operating manuals are available for download in the manufacturer's websites.

Pelagian · 27th March 2005, 19:40

Are you saying that the Suunto model is actually Buhlman with pyle Stops?

Quote: (Originally Posted by schford)

I met the Suunto Guys recently in the UK and drilled them about this - actually I was a little confretantional and said how the hell do they get away with calling their buhlman model which they use in Suunto computers RGBM!

It all came down to marketing and money - they paid a license fee for the name only - they DO NOT have RGBM implemented.

In fact their new D9 which has deep stops has Pyle stops...

Start

Are you saying that the Suunto's are actually Buhlman's with pyle Stops?

Cheers

**nigelh** · 29th March 2005, 12:46

Bühlmann + what I feel like on the day conservatism.
That used to be Pyle stops but now what the VR3 calls for and then pad the stops until I get cold or the tea withdrawal symptoms get too pressing.

Crazyduck · 30th March 2005, 04:21

Ok, Cleanup batter stepping up to the plate.

On Decompression following the M-valve and pressurize gradient changes is what impressed me the most about GAP. Now with that said!

I enjoy trying to FRY my mind with the RGBM Schedule and how they come up with their answers. That is a Faith based set of tables. They work, just not well enough between my ears.

The best worked and communicated set of tables by fair has been VPM and Ross at Deco Stop- I need to ask him to join us. He supports his product something vicious and is always available even to the blind and communicated impaired such as myself.

This is as close to replacing Zplanner as I have found.

Suunto-
There are few things that need to be said about the Deco scheduling for Suunto.

First the RGBM is “rolled” into the backside of the equation and really all we are seeing is deep stops added, not effectively used. Bend and Fix style- which I do not subscribe to. Also for those of use that really USE and ABUSE these units you will notice that your NDL time might shrink- here and there. They have worked into the equation a manner in which if you abuse it, boarder line break it, or just break your ascent rate often enough then the computer starts to become MORE conservative. Suunto is a recreational product or their own limitations make it a recreational unit.

The Nexus- is a product of Northern European Manufacture (come to me in a minute.) Benthic Group! They also produced a similar computer for Zeagle- tapping the screen and all. While it is probably the most affordable computer in the bunch it must be said that patience is required when programming the computer. It takes something like 16 steps to program the unit. You will be worn out before the dive.

Cochran- If you like Cochran skip this paragraph; hopefully the minders won’t see and threaten to sue me again. OK, it goes like this- You have a 300% return rate divers will eventually tell you to kiss off. If almost every computer but a few taken to Bikini locks out after less than two days of diving and they say “don’t bring it.” Divers will stop using it. http://www.bikiniatoll.com/Cochran.html - (It’s not a nice read.)

Cochran will not release their algorithm and will not discuss it. I have tried. I have even offered to help organize “working professional groups” they refused. On top of this any changes or problems you pay. A close buddy of mine Loved… his Nitrox Commander. It blew threw batteries worse than an GPS unit. But he still loved it. Recently, the unit flooded and we found a crack in the case. He took the unit to them (in person)- they charged him $85.00 to look at it. They said no good; please trade in the unit for a $100.00 and put it towards a new $800.00 unit. Needless to say I see an Uwatec in his future

. Ps- the crack was probably long term battery changing after every weekend. My biggest complaint is still they REFUSE to talk about their algorithm.

Vr3 and explorer are the same for pretty much all intensive purposes outside of the algorithms. If you are using the Explorer you can get the information to ensure that the coding is matching the RGBM coding from Bruce. However, this unit is the most up to date version of the coding of RGBM. I like the VR series but with the current exzchange rate it is not favorable for me.

OK, enough for now. Need to get some sleep.
I need to post my excel spreadsheet of computers- Tomorrow.
Regards, Andrew

Mark Chase · 30th March 2005, 08:14

Quote: (Originally Posted by nigelh)

Bühlmann + what I feel like on the day conservatism.
That used to be Pyle stops but now what the VR3 calls for and then pad the stops until I get cold or the tea withdrawal symptoms get too pressing.

Yep that what I do. VPM type profiles deep Bhulman Shallow and just use the VR3 as a guide to the overall profile. Pure 02 at 6 has made a big diferance to my apres dive wellbeing. I found He on 1.3 all the way out left me feeling crap.

I voted fro VPM as my much loved GF deco program (Decoplanner) dosent offer CCR so I switched to Vplanner. I am pleased that they offer the VPM BE and I can see me using this a lot. I am looking forward to VPM being available on the VR3 asap.

ATB

Mark Chase

apitkin · 30th March 2005, 14:08

Quote: (Originally Posted by trob09)

One of the things that has always concerned me about RGBM is the wide variations in 'licensed' application (a Suunto RGBM profile looks nothing like a GAP RGBM profile).

I've read the collected works of the good doctor (and actully think I understand some of it!) and feel that it makes quite a bit of sense. But I find it difficult to understand how something that is so thoroughly tested can be licensed with such seeming disregard to consistency.

Apologies for coming into this late, and please excuse my ignorance.

Who has actually tested the RGBM? I mean, scientifically, with statistics and all, rather than a few divers trying it out and saying 'I feel better with that profile than I did last week with [insert name of last year's model]'?

I know it's old-fashioned, but goat- and human-bending trials at least give a deco model a veneer of reliability. Buhlmann did do that, whatever you think of his.

Andy

**trob09** · 30th March 2005, 14:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by apitkin)

Apologies for coming into this late, and please excuse my ignorance.

Who has actually tested the RGBM? I mean, scientifically, with statistics and all, rather than a few divers trying it out and saying 'I feel better with that profile than I did last week with [insert name of last year's model]'?

I know it's old-fashioned, but goat- and human-bending trials at least give a deco model a veneer of reliability. Buhlmann did do that, whatever you think of his.

Andy

Andy,

Dr. Wienke has some of the testing on his site http://www.rgbmdiving.com. While it doesn't have the total weight of goat and human guinea-pig trials due to the brief history of RGBM, it is more thorough than an 'I feel OK' style of validation.

Perhaps Rob can chime in on some of the other testing and validation.

Tim
(who is pretty sure VPM-B works for him)

ROB DAVIE · 1st April 2005, 08:30

Andy, and Tim,

When I was starting out on the trail of RGBM, so to speak, I read the texts from Bruce Almighty (a.k.a. Wienke), and then started to ask people about it. (You will note that I said I read the TEXTS. Fortunately, the Doc put enough text in to allow one to read around the higher math

, and still understand what was being said.)

I heard claims and counter-claims about its testing and/or lack thereof. So I went to the horse's mouth, so to speak. I met Bruce at one of the DEMA's, told him about my diving goals, and asked him about that very subject. What he said, added to what I had learned, and what others whom I trusted said, made good common sense.

First, we know that researchers of old made great headway by bending goats, and then men. A lot of their experiments, if done today, would wind up with them being censured by their Board of Regents at the least, or their being arrested, in the worst case. Ethics Committees tend to take a dim view of your research when you tell them you are going to puposely bend some divers. PETA takes a dimmer view of you bending goats!

So the real question is, how in heck to go about it.

In a nutshell, you take the research that has been done, by the Haldanes, Buhlmann, Hamilton, et al, and assign mathematical values to all of it. Then you take your theoretical concept, in this case the bubble phase mechanics, and assign values to that. After linking the two mathematically, you crunch the numbers through your model, and compare the results to known results from all of the original researchers, plus the U.S. Navy, the Royal Navy, and some commercial firms.

Comparing all of this data and crunching it accurately would be impossible, were it not for the fact that Dr. Wienke works at Los Alamos National Laboratory. There they have computer power surpassed only by the NSA (No Such Agency).

Dr. Wienke was allowed a certain amount of run-time for this project because he is also, as a diving boffin, an advisor to the diving part of our government's nuclear emergency response teams.

Now, the critical question. Just how much "crash test dummy" work had been done on this? I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it was not last night! I also love my flying job, and getting crinked trying out a new theory in my hobby (diving) is greatly frowned upon by the AvMed people.

As it turns out, the boys on the NEST teams tried this stuff out a lot. Also, the guys from NAUI's technical research group tried this out a lot, as in many,many dives and diving hours.

Now, I am not paranoid, but as you know, just because you ARE paranoid does not mean that they are NOT out to get you. So I also asked Tim O'Leary, from NAUI's Tech Team, if they did do a lot of diving on this, and it was confirmed. It was related to me that they did had a few "niggles", and numbers were adjusted accordingly, but no serious incidents.

One must remember that decompression algorithms are mathematical models anyway, no matter which model you are talking about. If you take the math of the old researchers, as validated by all the diving done on those models, and compare your model to those numbers, you are following on in the same tradition of those very men. They, by the way, did their math by hand. Doc Wienke had the power of Cray monster computers to utilize. He, of course, is no mean slouch at math. He holds a doctorate in particle physics after all.

So, I would have to say that the model has been thoroughly tested mathematically, and, more importantly, live and in person.

I like the fact that dual phase (i.e. solution-bubble) models handle helium better than single phase models. I also like the unity or simplicity of having full RGBM on the desk-top (GAP), and in the wet-computer (HS), and in table format (NAUI tables).

Hope that helps.

Cheers, lads!

Rob

**trob09** · 1st April 2005, 12:03

Thanks for circling back on this Rob. I have also read Dr. Wienke's works and am gearing up to give 'em a run through again. I'm treating it like existentialist philosophy - every time I read it I understand a little bit more...

I have been diving VPM-B for the last 2 years. I bought GAP this year which I've been using to compare against my typical VPM-B profiles. They are similar, with RGBM being slightly more conservative - which I tend to veer towards. So I'm going to give RGBM a run for a few 'lighter' deco dives this season to see how things go.

The challenge for me is that the electronics in my soon-to-arrive meg use Buhlman with GF which I can map pretty closely to VPM-B (thanks to some advice from Phi last year) so if I go to RGBM, I don't have the unanimity of desktop/handset algorithm. I don't have that anyway unless I revert back to Buhlman with G/F all around. But I'm sold on the physics/theory of the dual-phase bubble models...

Tim

ROB DAVIE · 1st April 2005, 16:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by trob09)

I have also read Dr. Wienke's works and am gearing up to give 'em a run through again. I'm treating it like existentialist philosophy - every time I read it I understand a little bit more...

The challenge for me is that the electronics in my soon-to-arrive meg use Buhlman with GF which I can map pretty closely to VPM-B (thanks to some advice from Phi last year) so if I go to RGBM, I don't have the unanimity of desktop/handset algorithm. I don't have that anyway unless I revert back to Buhlman with G/F all around. But I'm sold on the physics/theory of the dual-phase bubble models...

Tim

Tim, et al,

After all the work I've done in studying this, I would still have to say that having the unified field, i.e. having all the elements in synch, is more important than which model one uses, as long as you are coming out of the water feeling O.K.

Rob

23rd March 2005, 23:35	#21 (permalink)
*caveseeker7* Who loves ya, baby Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Too far from Neverland Posts: 5,408	Dave, both Explorer and VR3 had issues early on, as Rob pointed out, the Explorer had problems with the cases, and the VR3 had problems with buttons (they fell out iirc). Both Hydrospace and DeltaP fixed those issues. So it comes down to the algorithms, metal vs. plastic case, preferred display etc. I don't trimix, so for the algorithms you have to ask someone else. But from what I've seen in dive plans, RGBM and VPM-B are fairly close. No news on SMI's deco implementation, it's not high priority right now, catching up with backorders is. They do have an agreement with B.W. to use the RGBM, so in that respect the Explorer would be a better match. Metal vs Plastic - one is light, doesn't corrode, the other is very solid. Take your pick. Displays - I really like the Explorer's, but also like the VR3 prompting what happens when you push either or both buttons. Much easier to use, I'm not the biggest fan of multiple screens, menues, selections etc. If you have a chance to check either out I would do so, at least read through their manuals. DeltaP also offers the VR2 for nitrox mixes CC and OC (up to 4). Costs considerably less than the VR3, plastic case, optional air-integration (OC) or cell-integration (CC). Non-integrated choices are Ambient Pressure's Nexus (O2/N2) and Cochran's Commander (O2/N2 and O2/N2/He). I believe their Gemini would work, too, for nitrox mixes. Don't know much about the Cochrans other than they have simple displays and huge memory (and a myriad of graphs). Info is on their website and Joe Radomski tried it at ZeroG. Since he also uses the Explorer and at least used the VR3 in the past he can provide plenty of input when he finds time. Read a Nexus test in a German dive mag, it reportedly works well for CC but is very agressive for OC, so much so that they recommended rather not using it for that. It is, I believe, the least expensive of the pO2/fO2 calculating deco computers. Both Cochran and APD use wet contacts on their computers if you find the Explorers uncomfortable and have lingering doubts about the VR's buttons. Coming from Uwatecs I can tell you that wet contacts can be a pita to operate. The operating manuals are available for download in the manufacturer's websites. __________________ Cheers Stefan "It is still a good day if you are on the green side of the grass! Su amigo Roberto!" Sponsor Lou in Race For Life!
(Offline)

27th March 2005, 19:40	#22 (permalink)
Pelagian Multi-Circuit Meg Monkey! Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Sport Kiss Optima Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Leeds, England Posts: 275	Suunto RGBM Are you saying that the Suunto model is actually Buhlman with pyle Stops? Quote: (Originally Posted by schford) I met the Suunto Guys recently in the UK and drilled them about this - actually I was a little confretantional and said how the hell do they get away with calling their buhlman model which they use in Suunto computers RGBM! It all came down to marketing and money - they paid a license fee for the name only - they DO NOT have RGBM implemented. In fact their new D9 which has deep stops has Pyle stops... Start Are you saying that the Suunto's are actually Buhlman's with pyle Stops? Cheers __________________ 'Because... I was Inverted!'
(Offline)

29th March 2005, 12:46	#23 (permalink)
nigelh New Member Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brighton, Sussex, UK Posts: 821	Bühlmann + what I feel like on the day conservatism. That used to be Pyle stops but now what the VR3 calls for and then pad the stops until I get cold or the tea withdrawal symptoms get too pressing. __________________ nigelh
(Online)

30th March 2005, 04:21	#24 (permalink)
Crazyduck Underwater Mechanic Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: TEXAS, Dallas/ Ft.Worth Posts: 704	Clean up batter! Ok, Cleanup batter stepping up to the plate. On Decompression following the M-valve and pressurize gradient changes is what impressed me the most about GAP. Now with that said! I enjoy trying to FRY my mind with the RGBM Schedule and how they come up with their answers. That is a Faith based set of tables. They work, just not well enough between my ears. The best worked and communicated set of tables by fair has been VPM and Ross at Deco Stop- I need to ask him to join us. He supports his product something vicious and is always available even to the blind and communicated impaired such as myself. This is as close to replacing Zplanner as I have found. Suunto- There are few things that need to be said about the Deco scheduling for Suunto. First the RGBM is “rolled” into the backside of the equation and really all we are seeing is deep stops added, not effectively used. Bend and Fix style- which I do not subscribe to. Also for those of use that really USE and ABUSE these units you will notice that your NDL time might shrink- here and there. They have worked into the equation a manner in which if you abuse it, boarder line break it, or just break your ascent rate often enough then the computer starts to become MORE conservative. Suunto is a recreational product or their own limitations make it a recreational unit. The Nexus- is a product of Northern European Manufacture (come to me in a minute.) Benthic Group! They also produced a similar computer for Zeagle- tapping the screen and all. While it is probably the most affordable computer in the bunch it must be said that patience is required when programming the computer. It takes something like 16 steps to program the unit. You will be worn out before the dive. Cochran- If you like Cochran skip this paragraph; hopefully the minders won’t see and threaten to sue me again. OK, it goes like this- You have a 300% return rate divers will eventually tell you to kiss off. If almost every computer but a few taken to Bikini locks out after less than two days of diving and they say “don’t bring it.” Divers will stop using it. http://www.bikiniatoll.com/Cochran.html - (It’s not a nice read.) Cochran will not release their algorithm and will not discuss it. I have tried. I have even offered to help organize “working professional groups” they refused. On top of this any changes or problems you pay. A close buddy of mine Loved… his Nitrox Commander. It blew threw batteries worse than an GPS unit. But he still loved it. Recently, the unit flooded and we found a crack in the case. He took the unit to them (in person)- they charged him $85.00 to look at it. They said no good; please trade in the unit for a $100.00 and put it towards a new $800.00 unit. Needless to say I see an Uwatec in his future . Ps- the crack was probably long term battery changing after every weekend. My biggest complaint is still they REFUSE to talk about their algorithm. Vr3 and explorer are the same for pretty much all intensive purposes outside of the algorithms. If you are using the Explorer you can get the information to ensure that the coding is matching the RGBM coding from Bruce. However, this unit is the most up to date version of the coding of RGBM. I like the VR series but with the current exzchange rate it is not favorable for me. OK, enough for now. Need to get some sleep. I need to post my excel spreadsheet of computers- Tomorrow. Regards, Andrew
(Online)

30th March 2005, 08:14	#25 (permalink)
Mark Chase I go down for ages Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,539	Quote: (Originally Posted by nigelh) Bühlmann + what I feel like on the day conservatism. That used to be Pyle stops but now what the VR3 calls for and then pad the stops until I get cold or the tea withdrawal symptoms get too pressing. Yep that what I do. VPM type profiles deep Bhulman Shallow and just use the VR3 as a guide to the overall profile. Pure 02 at 6 has made a big diferance to my apres dive wellbeing. I found He on 1.3 all the way out left me feeling crap. I voted fro VPM as my much loved GF deco program (Decoplanner) dosent offer CCR so I switched to Vplanner. I am pleased that they offer the VPM BE and I can see me using this a lot. I am looking forward to VPM being available on the VR3 asap. ATB Mark Chase __________________ Is it supposed to make that noise ? I took my unit to the dive shop and demanded they bolt on every thing that would fit. Join my elite diving teem and get a Tshirt "Doing It Chasey"Hammerhead Eccr Advanced Diving System
(Offline)

30th March 2005, 14:08	#26 (permalink)
apitkin New Member Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 99	Quote: (Originally Posted by trob09) One of the things that has always concerned me about RGBM is the wide variations in 'licensed' application (a Suunto RGBM profile looks nothing like a GAP RGBM profile). I've read the collected works of the good doctor (and actully think I understand some of it!) and feel that it makes quite a bit of sense. But I find it difficult to understand how something that is so thoroughly tested can be licensed with such seeming disregard to consistency. Apologies for coming into this late, and please excuse my ignorance. Who has actually tested the RGBM? I mean, scientifically, with statistics and all, rather than a few divers trying it out and saying 'I feel better with that profile than I did last week with [insert name of last year's model]'? I know it's old-fashioned, but goat- and human-bending trials at least give a deco model a veneer of reliability. Buhlmann did do that, whatever you think of his. Andy
(Offline)

30th March 2005, 14:22	#27 (permalink)
trob09 . Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 695	Quote: (Originally Posted by apitkin) Apologies for coming into this late, and please excuse my ignorance. Who has actually tested the RGBM? I mean, scientifically, with statistics and all, rather than a few divers trying it out and saying 'I feel better with that profile than I did last week with [insert name of last year's model]'? I know it's old-fashioned, but goat- and human-bending trials at least give a deco model a veneer of reliability. Buhlmann did do that, whatever you think of his. Andy Andy, Dr. Wienke has some of the testing on his site http://www.rgbmdiving.com. While it doesn't have the total weight of goat and human guinea-pig trials due to the brief history of RGBM, it is more thorough than an 'I feel OK' style of validation. Perhaps Rob can chime in on some of the other testing and validation. Tim (who is pretty sure VPM-B works for him)
(Offline)

1st April 2005, 08:30	#28 (permalink)
ROB DAVIE Administrator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: HOUSTON, REPUBLIC OF TEJAS Posts: 1,120	Rgbm Andy, and Tim, When I was starting out on the trail of RGBM, so to speak, I read the texts from Bruce Almighty (a.k.a. Wienke), and then started to ask people about it. (You will note that I said I read the TEXTS. Fortunately, the Doc put enough text in to allow one to read around the higher math , and still understand what was being said.) I heard claims and counter-claims about its testing and/or lack thereof. So I went to the horse's mouth, so to speak. I met Bruce at one of the DEMA's, told him about my diving goals, and asked him about that very subject. What he said, added to what I had learned, and what others whom I trusted said, made good common sense. First, we know that researchers of old made great headway by bending goats, and then men. A lot of their experiments, if done today, would wind up with them being censured by their Board of Regents at the least, or their being arrested, in the worst case. Ethics Committees tend to take a dim view of your research when you tell them you are going to puposely bend some divers. PETA takes a dimmer view of you bending goats! So the real question is, how in heck to go about it. In a nutshell, you take the research that has been done, by the Haldanes, Buhlmann, Hamilton, et al, and assign mathematical values to all of it. Then you take your theoretical concept, in this case the bubble phase mechanics, and assign values to that. After linking the two mathematically, you crunch the numbers through your model, and compare the results to known results from all of the original researchers, plus the U.S. Navy, the Royal Navy, and some commercial firms. Comparing all of this data and crunching it accurately would be impossible, were it not for the fact that Dr. Wienke works at Los Alamos National Laboratory. There they have computer power surpassed only by the NSA (No Such Agency). Dr. Wienke was allowed a certain amount of run-time for this project because he is also, as a diving boffin, an advisor to the diving part of our government's nuclear emergency response teams. Now, the critical question. Just how much "crash test dummy" work had been done on this? I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it was not last night! I also love my flying job, and getting crinked trying out a new theory in my hobby (diving) is greatly frowned upon by the AvMed people. As it turns out, the boys on the NEST teams tried this stuff out a lot. Also, the guys from NAUI's technical research group tried this out a lot, as in many,many dives and diving hours. Now, I am not paranoid, but as you know, just because you ARE paranoid does not mean that they are NOT out to get you. So I also asked Tim O'Leary, from NAUI's Tech Team, if they did do a lot of diving on this, and it was confirmed. It was related to me that they did had a few "niggles", and numbers were adjusted accordingly, but no serious incidents. One must remember that decompression algorithms are mathematical models anyway, no matter which model you are talking about. If you take the math of the old researchers, as validated by all the diving done on those models, and compare your model to those numbers, you are following on in the same tradition of those very men. They, by the way, did their math by hand. Doc Wienke had the power of Cray monster computers to utilize. He, of course, is no mean slouch at math. He holds a doctorate in particle physics after all. So, I would have to say that the model has been thoroughly tested mathematically, and, more importantly, live and in person. I like the fact that dual phase (i.e. solution-bubble) models handle helium better than single phase models. I also like the unity or simplicity of having full RGBM on the desk-top (GAP), and in the wet-computer (HS), and in table format (NAUI tables). Hope that helps. Cheers, lads! Rob __________________ [SIZE=2]"CC Rebreathers will become a viable part of tech diving [U]WHEN PIGS FLY[/U]!!"--GI3[/SIZE]
(Offline)

1st April 2005, 12:03	#29 (permalink)
trob09 . Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 695	Thanks for circling back on this Rob. I have also read Dr. Wienke's works and am gearing up to give 'em a run through again. I'm treating it like existentialist philosophy - every time I read it I understand a little bit more... I have been diving VPM-B for the last 2 years. I bought GAP this year which I've been using to compare against my typical VPM-B profiles. They are similar, with RGBM being slightly more conservative - which I tend to veer towards. So I'm going to give RGBM a run for a few 'lighter' deco dives this season to see how things go. The challenge for me is that the electronics in my soon-to-arrive meg use Buhlman with GF which I can map pretty closely to VPM-B (thanks to some advice from Phi last year) so if I go to RGBM, I don't have the unanimity of desktop/handset algorithm. I don't have that anyway unless I revert back to Buhlman with G/F all around. But I'm sold on the physics/theory of the dual-phase bubble models... Tim
(Offline)

1st April 2005, 16:45	#30 (permalink)
ROB DAVIE Administrator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: HOUSTON, REPUBLIC OF TEJAS Posts: 1,120	Rgbm Quote: (Originally Posted by trob09) I have also read Dr. Wienke's works and am gearing up to give 'em a run through again. I'm treating it like existentialist philosophy - every time I read it I understand a little bit more... The challenge for me is that the electronics in my soon-to-arrive meg use Buhlman with GF which I can map pretty closely to VPM-B (thanks to some advice from Phi last year) so if I go to RGBM, I don't have the unanimity of desktop/handset algorithm. I don't have that anyway unless I revert back to Buhlman with G/F all around. But I'm sold on the physics/theory of the dual-phase bubble models... Tim Tim, et al, After all the work I've done in studying this, I would still have to say that having the unified field, i.e. having all the elements in synch, is more important than which model one uses, as long as you are coming out of the water feeling O.K. Rob __________________ [SIZE=2]"CC Rebreathers will become a viable part of tech diving [U]WHEN PIGS FLY[/U]!!"--GI3[/SIZE]
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode