Hammerhead 10 Foot Stop Elimination?

**UWSojourner** · 3rd March 2006, 15:27

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

I hope thats not the case.. The way it appears its implemented on the HH has more benefits than negatives...

Joe, when you're using GFs, your tissue compartments either 1) will or 2) will not allow you to go to the next depth. Its not a Zen thing; either moving up violatates your GF line or it doesn't.

Code that can't recognize whether moving up is ok has something wrong buried somewhere within it. You seem to be defending an algorithm that requires the diver to break a ceiling in order for the algorithm to indicate that it was ok to do so!?

Maybe its just the old game that "If you can't fix it, feature it", but I don't get it. My guess is that someone is still trying to port that old Baker code directly, because otherwise it's easy to recognize whether a 10ft or 20ft ascent violates the GF ascent methodology.

***jradomski*** · 3rd March 2006, 16:02

Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner)

Joe, when you're using GFs, your tissue compartments either 1) will or 2) will not allow you to go to the next depth. Its not a Zen thing; either moving up violatates your GF line or it doesn't.

Code that can't recognize whether moving up is ok has something wrong buried somewhere within it. You seem to be defending an algorithm that requires the diver to break a ceiling in order for the algorithm to indicate that it was ok to do so!?

Maybe its just the old game that "If you can't fix it, feature it", but I don't get it. My guess is that someone is still trying to port that old Baker code directly, because otherwise it's easy to recognize whether a 10ft or 20ft ascent violates the GF ascent methodology.

no where is it asking you to break a ceiling... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial..

there is a big differnece between the REAL ceiling and one modified by other factors.. Personally, I'm not going to descend to satsify a 1 minute stop to make a computer happy, I'd rather the deco be adjusted to take into account my new depth thats probably ok..

If it doesnt follow Bakers implementation its Not GF..

but again the GF at 4 meters IS NOT THE same as being at 3m.. If you want to decompress per GF your 3m stop has to be done at 3m (not 3.1 or 3,2m) if you are deeper, the GF is different..

if you want to decompress somethink like GF but not exactly, then deeper is ok.. Bakers code does allow for a continuous GF as well, but you still have to decide if you want to limit the DISPLAYED ceilings to standard stop depths or have a moving ceiling..

Your looking at thinks the wrong way, its not whenther your ascent violates the ceiling but what the current GF should be for your current depth.. If your deeper the GF allowed should be lower, if you go TO your ceiling depth, then the proper GF should be used for that depth.. It keeps to the spirit of GF implementation but gives some added flexibility.. If I need to "break" a plan I want a computer to give me the best guess based on my current situation to get me out of the water, not insist I have to descent to meet its requirements when it might not be a real ceiling..

**UWSojourner** · 3rd March 2006, 16:54

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

no where is it asking you to break a ceiling... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial....

Joe, you are telling the guy who started this thread to 1) look at his watch, 2) if it says he has another minute deco at this depth, ignore it and move up to clear the watch. That is breaking a ceiling unless you already know the watch is incorrect. I'm just saying it would be better if the watch cleared because it knew it was ok to move up.

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial....

Ahhhhhhhh!!!@!? You've got to be kidding. It doesn't matter. When its time to surface, its time to surface and the watch should just indicate so.

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

If it doesnt follow Bakers implementation its Not GF..

That's cute. That's like saying if it's not Excel it's not a spreadsheet. Bakers CODE is not the GF method. The idea of a linear GF ascent is the GF method. His CODE is only an illustration of implementation .... and its not optimal for all situations (like the one under discussion). Trying to use his code directly (without understanding the mathematical manipulations that went into the code) is what is messing you up. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending a watch that can't tell the diver when its time to surface.

But ... I still want to dive with you someday

.

***jradomski*** · 3rd March 2006, 17:21

Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner)

Joe, you are telling the guy who started this thread to 1) look at his watch, 2) if it says he has another minute deco at this depth, ignore it and move up to clear the watch. That is breaking a ceiling unless you already know the watch is incorrect. I'm just saying it would be better if the watch cleared because it knew it was ok to move up.

Ahhhhhhhh!!!@!? You've got to be kidding. It doesn't matter. When its time to surface, its time to surface and the watch should just indicate so.

That's cute. That's like saying if it's not Excel it's not a spreadsheet. Bakers CODE is not the GF method. The idea of a linear GF ascent is the GF method. His CODE is only an illustration of implementation .... and its not optimal for all situations (like the one under discussion). Trying to use his code directly (without understanding the mathematical manipulations that went into the code) is what is messing you up. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending a watch that can't tell the diver when its time to surface.

But ... I still want to dive with you someday

.

It doent effect me.. I use a 10/100 setting most of the time, and it clears with my explorer, having it say 1@10 a few minutes longer is of no concern...

3rd March 2006, 15:27	#31 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 556	Re: Hammerhead 10 Foot Stop Elimination? Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) I hope thats not the case.. The way it appears its implemented on the HH has more benefits than negatives... Joe, when you're using GFs, your tissue compartments either 1) will or 2) will not allow you to go to the next depth. Its not a Zen thing; either moving up violatates your GF line or it doesn't. Code that can't recognize whether moving up is ok has something wrong buried somewhere within it. You seem to be defending an algorithm that requires the diver to break a ceiling in order for the algorithm to indicate that it was ok to do so!? Maybe its just the old game that "If you can't fix it, feature it", but I don't get it. My guess is that someone is still trying to port that old Baker code directly, because otherwise it's easy to recognize whether a 10ft or 20ft ascent violates the GF ascent methodology.
(Offline)

3rd March 2006, 16:02	#32 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 2,890	Re: Hammerhead 10 Foot Stop Elimination? Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner) Joe, when you're using GFs, your tissue compartments either 1) will or 2) will not allow you to go to the next depth. Its not a Zen thing; either moving up violatates your GF line or it doesn't. Code that can't recognize whether moving up is ok has something wrong buried somewhere within it. You seem to be defending an algorithm that requires the diver to break a ceiling in order for the algorithm to indicate that it was ok to do so!? Maybe its just the old game that "If you can't fix it, feature it", but I don't get it. My guess is that someone is still trying to port that old Baker code directly, because otherwise it's easy to recognize whether a 10ft or 20ft ascent violates the GF ascent methodology. no where is it asking you to break a ceiling... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial.. there is a big differnece between the REAL ceiling and one modified by other factors.. Personally, I'm not going to descend to satsify a 1 minute stop to make a computer happy, I'd rather the deco be adjusted to take into account my new depth thats probably ok.. If it doesnt follow Bakers implementation its Not GF.. but again the GF at 4 meters IS NOT THE same as being at 3m.. If you want to decompress per GF your 3m stop has to be done at 3m (not 3.1 or 3,2m) if you are deeper, the GF is different.. if you want to decompress somethink like GF but not exactly, then deeper is ok.. Bakers code does allow for a continuous GF as well, but you still have to decide if you want to limit the DISPLAYED ceilings to standard stop depths or have a moving ceiling.. Your looking at thinks the wrong way, its not whenther your ascent violates the ceiling but what the current GF should be for your current depth.. If your deeper the GF allowed should be lower, if you go TO your ceiling depth, then the proper GF should be used for that depth.. It keeps to the spirit of GF implementation but gives some added flexibility.. If I need to "break" a plan I want a computer to give me the best guess based on my current situation to get me out of the water, not insist I have to descent to meet its requirements when it might not be a real ceiling.. __________________ Joe Radomski CCR Trimix Instructor Trainer ANDI Instructor Trainer Director #10 All posts are personal opinions and DO NOT reflect any affiliated agency unless specifically stated.
(Online)

3rd March 2006, 16:54	#33 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 556	Re: Hammerhead 10 Foot Stop Elimination? Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) no where is it asking you to break a ceiling... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial.... Joe, you are telling the guy who started this thread to 1) look at his watch, 2) if it says he has another minute deco at this depth, ignore it and move up to clear the watch. That is breaking a ceiling unless you already know the watch is incorrect. I'm just saying it would be better if the watch cleared because it knew it was ok to move up. Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) ... Some of the "weirdness" at the 10fsw stop come from the fact that the ceiling is really 9.8 fsw since everything is done in metric and just displayed in imperial.... Ahhhhhhhh!!!@!? You've got to be kidding. It doesn't matter. When its time to surface, its time to surface and the watch should just indicate so. Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) If it doesnt follow Bakers implementation its Not GF.. That's cute. That's like saying if it's not Excel it's not a spreadsheet. Bakers CODE is not the GF method. The idea of a linear GF ascent is the GF method. His CODE is only an illustration of implementation .... and its not optimal for all situations (like the one under discussion). Trying to use his code directly (without understanding the mathematical manipulations that went into the code) is what is messing you up. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending a watch that can't tell the diver when its time to surface. But ... I still want to dive with you someday .
(Offline)

3rd March 2006, 17:21	#34 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 2,890	Re: Hammerhead 10 Foot Stop Elimination? Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner) Joe, you are telling the guy who started this thread to 1) look at his watch, 2) if it says he has another minute deco at this depth, ignore it and move up to clear the watch. That is breaking a ceiling unless you already know the watch is incorrect. I'm just saying it would be better if the watch cleared because it knew it was ok to move up. Ahhhhhhhh!!!@!? You've got to be kidding. It doesn't matter. When its time to surface, its time to surface and the watch should just indicate so. That's cute. That's like saying if it's not Excel it's not a spreadsheet. Bakers CODE is not the GF method. The idea of a linear GF ascent is the GF method. His CODE is only an illustration of implementation .... and its not optimal for all situations (like the one under discussion). Trying to use his code directly (without understanding the mathematical manipulations that went into the code) is what is messing you up. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending a watch that can't tell the diver when its time to surface. But ... I still want to dive with you someday . It doent effect me.. I use a 10/100 setting most of the time, and it clears with my explorer, having it say 1@10 a few minutes longer is of no concern... __________________ Joe Radomski CCR Trimix Instructor Trainer ANDI Instructor Trainer Director #10 All posts are personal opinions and DO NOT reflect any affiliated agency unless specifically stated.
(Online)

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