VR3 BUH or VPM

Drmike · 15th April 2008, 23:53

Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie)

Mike,

One minute you're claiming that the data we have based on thousands of successful dives on V-Planner don't constitute hard data because they weren't collected in a controlled fashion, then you're using what an economist friend of mine calls a "manwho" statistic, i.e. "I know a man who...". This anecdotal evidence you're quoting here is inadmissible by your own rules, and completely unprovable.

what kind of logic is that?

Am I not supposed to notice these manifestations? If I do am I not allowed to develop any opinion on them, if i do am i not allowed to share my observation and option? and what has that got to do with model validation?

nothing.

I can differntiate unsupported 'opinion' and supported opinion - can you?

just as i can differentiate supported models with unsuported ones.

What 'rules' I choose to follow personally has sweet f all to do with this discussion.

Drmike · 16th April 2008, 00:05

Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie)

The best way to do that is to not do deco dives.

And I have no problem with erring on the side of caution. I have a problem with using different rules for using data depending on your mood. It's just poor empiricism.

It doesnt matter what 'I' do, how 'I' behave or what colour underwear Im wearing.

Im not selling deco software people trust their lives/health to

Im sorry but this kind of 'you stink!' - 'well you stink too!' kind of argument is
the kind of argument I expect from a 6 year old.

the points ive made in this thread are:

1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???)
2) Non control dives are not as good validation as control dives (who disagrees with that??
3) Many of the deep dives on Ross Website are/were incorrectly reported (Im sat next to Matt, was chatting with Ben last night, and CV never claimed 191m) - i gave Ross links to proof he has wrong data down but its still up on the site

I suggest that last point is telling.

I have no idea what your arguing against.

Im arguing for ACCURATE dive reporting, open discussion without the kind of childishness we saw earlier

and PROPER model validation

and you?

Those are the only points I ever made in this thread so if you disagree with above argue the facts

Drmike · 16th April 2008, 00:11

Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie)

In eariler posts Mike claimed that type (2) was not useful.

No I didnt. I infered its less useful than proper validated control dives - who argues with that?.

Quote:

Then he went on to use type (1). That's inconsistent.

thats irrelevantto this discussion

Quote:

The inference I was hoping people whoud draw is, Mike should accept the (lower, but still acceptable) utility of data of type (2) before he starts relying on type (1). .

yes of course that makes sense if type 2 is good enough. It isnt for deep dives as proven by the fact many of Ross listed deep dives are incorrectly reported One wasnt even VPM for gods sake!

**aainslie** · 16th April 2008, 00:52

It doesn't take a careful read of this thread to see you making a series of fairly personal attacks against Ross. And I'm the 6 year old? This whole thing is eerily reminiscent of your little pissing match over Cedric's dive a while back, albeit a far smaller version.

And it'd be nice if you kept your (usually very useful) opinions to subjects where you don't have an agenda. You did against Cedric, and you do against Ross. The childish behavior here is as much yours as anyone's.

Anyway, I for one am happy to use the uncontrolled experiments being conducted by many people on VPM-B as evidence that it works, especially now that Ross has incorporated a data collection mechanism in the X1 that truly DOES see how the dive was conducted. No one will ever validate any model for all gases in the future - the whole problem has just become to uncontrollably difficult, and these controlled experiments are just too expensive - so good data collection on dives actually conducted is really useful. DAN's project is a great example of this. It's the only way anything will be validated going forward - although the data analysis must be incredibly difficult given the extraordinary range of gases, setpoints, switch depths etc etc used by different divers.

Interestingly overall I think we agree on many underlying issues - it's just that you've decided to pervert logic to suit your need to be 6-ish with Ross, and I in turn may have perverted mine a bit to be 6-ish with you, simply to offset your silliness.

I'll end with some answers to your 3 statements:

1) True - but who dives true 100% Buhlmann?
2) True - as long as you understand what they validate
3) This actually is a pretty minor point to me. I'd rather know that thousands of dives are done every day on this stuff than have a couple of isolated "big dive" datapoints to focus on. But admittedly my diving is quite a bit less ambitious than yours.

Serge · 16th April 2008, 01:58

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

...1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???)

Validated for what exactly, a 5 ATA dive for 5 min, a box profile with a standard rate of ascent? I'm not knocking Buhlmann at all, but I find this "well validated" argument a bit surprising. Maybe true for cleaning swimming pools, but in real life? Throw in a slight variation and the whole validation becomes no more than an educated guess. You cannot anticipate and validate every dive condition or profile. These non-ideal process conditions are exactly what bubble models attempt to approximate, and are thus rapidly moving away from the traditional methods. On a very fundamental level, the bubble model is a better approach.

Drmike · 16th April 2008, 02:33

Quote: (Originally Posted by Serge)

Validated for what exactly,

validated on more than vpm. Thats my only point.

Quote:

Throw in a slight variation and the whole validation becomes no more than an educated guess.

yes but the better validated the base is the less of a guess the variation will be.

Quote:

These non-ideal process conditions are exactly what bubble models attempt to approximate,

really? how does that work? How is a dive comp using VPM not guessing where a dive comp using bul based algo is guessing?

Quote:

and are thus rapidly moving away from the traditional methods.

if this is true why is vpm becoming more like a trad model with longer shallow stop times vpma, b, be.

Quote:

On a very fundamental level, the bubble model is a better approach.

in theory maybe, maybe not, who knows - I dont believe there has been enough proper testing to say that with absolute confidence.

Drmike · 16th April 2008, 02:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie)

It doesn't take a careful read of this thread to see you making a series of fairly personal attacks against Ross. And I'm the 6 year old? This whole thing is eerily reminiscent of your little pissing match over Cedric's dive a while back, albeit a far smaller version.

more irelevance

Quote:

And it'd be nice if you kept your (usually very useful) opinions to subjects where you don't have an agenda. You did against Cedric, and you do against Ross. The childish behavior here is as much yours as anyone's.

irelevant and untrue - i have no agenda against ross or cedric for that matter - if I do its the same one and that is the request for correct data amd honest reporting - that all. If thats a crime against god then so be it.

Quote:

Anyway, I for one am happy to use the uncontrolled experiments being conducted by many people on VPM-B as evidence that it works,

good for you. but that doesnt change anything.

Quote:

so good data collection on dives actually conducted is really useful.

EXACTLY! its must be good data ! but when I try to correct the quality of that data (correct mistakes on ross site) I get told by you to shut up and told I have an agenda! - give me a break.!

Quote:

Interestingly overall I think we agree on many underlying issues - it's just that you've decided to pervert logic to suit your need to be 6-ish with Ross,

show me where I have perverted logic.

Quote:

3) This actually is a pretty minor point to me. I'd rather know that thousands of dives are done every day on this stuff than have a couple of isolated "big dive" datapoints to focus on. But admittedly my diving is quite a bit less ambitious than yours.

well it is important to the increasing number of those people doing deeper dives

rossh · 16th April 2008, 03:27

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???)
2) Non control dives are not as good validation as control dives (who disagrees with that??
3) Many of the deep dives on Ross Website are/were incorrectly reported (Im sat next to Matt, was chatting with Ben last night, and CV never claimed 191m) - i gave Ross links to proof he has wrong data down but its still up on the site

Mike,

1/ NO method of planning in common use today has been man tested. Normal practice now is that divers and computers have moved away from these tested designs, modify and expand on them further from their validated origin. They reshape and resize it to make look and feel and comply to the concepts of a deep stop and bubble model designs.

Your body cannot distinguish between a "reshaped, resized, morphed to look like a de-facto bubble model plan", and an original deep stop / bubble plan. It may give peace of mind to know the morphed plan once resembled a man tested data set, but the mind does not control the deco mechanics.

But Mike, you said before the the reshaped and resized plan started out as a man tested one, so then things are OK... That is badly flawed logic. The modified plan no longer resembles the original concept. It has abandoned the original test parameters and has been morphed into a different deco concept. All that counts is the numbers on the deco tablet, and if look and feel like a deep stop / bubble plan, then that is what is being used.

2/ I look forward to the academic side of diving catching up to today's diving practices. Deep stop approaches with mixed gas are in common use now, and included in many of the technical dive computers purchased today. Many of these computers have data and detailed logging and can submit reports to DAN for its research. In the coming months and years, the recorded data base of anecdotal information will grow.

Mike, you seem to think that these extra deep exploration and record break dives some how add validation?? That's nonsense... Very deep and short dives have no data worthy of validation, regardless of the dive plan origin. No diver makes these dives to test or probe for the thresholds of deco. The dive typically has large amounts of extra time added and padded on all over the plan, because that is the prudent thing to do on a really deep dive. It's OK for you to add extra time margin on these dives Mike, and you don't need to feel guilty about it. But, if we sent you on that same deep dive every weekend, then I think you would quickly reduce the deco to a more realistic numbers.

3/ Are your still pissed about Cedric, and that you were tossed off that dive Mike? All this fussing over web page language and Cedric's dives?
Read the page again... The Yamashiro IS at 190m, and the page makes no mentions of Cedric's depth but instead it refers to a trip report. In the Sra Keow dive, the web page describes that Cedric used a rebreather and a deco model, but does NOT mention what deco model Ben used. This agrees with all the information you have asserted Mike.
So kindly stop implying there is anything dishonest here. The only errors are your interpretation of the language Mike.
.

**aainslie** · 16th April 2008, 03:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

i have no agenda against ... cedric ...

THAT is just plain funny!

OK, I'm done. The 6 year old playground is all yours.

rossh · 16th April 2008, 04:05

Quote: (Originally Posted by am)

Practically every deep diver I know in the UK who used early versions of VPlanner was bent beyond 100m (and a lot shallower/shorter in some cases) and accordingly the model was revised.
The model therefore at that stage, was not revised according to a scientific subset of principles (relating to the mechanics of the algorithm) but according to the physiological experiences of a group of divers......Every diver that I know that has used VPM to any reasonable depth has been bent.
AnneMarie

.
What a load of BULL!

Where did these imaginary people go for treatment? They never appear in any of the yearly statistics issued by the various hyperbaric organizations.

The VPM model revision work started in mid 2002, and was completed by years end. It was done by two of the principal authors of the VPM, and changes were based on reasons of math and physics. VPM-B was made available in Jan-Feb 2003.

All this occurred long before your made up friends ever heard of VPM.

We have been through these facts many times AnneMarrie, but you choose to ignore this, and instead persist on telling whopping great fibs?
.

15th April 2008, 23:53	#131 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,300	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie) Mike, One minute you're claiming that the data we have based on thousands of successful dives on V-Planner don't constitute hard data because they weren't collected in a controlled fashion, then you're using what an economist friend of mine calls a "manwho" statistic, i.e. "I know a man who...". This anecdotal evidence you're quoting here is inadmissible by your own rules, and completely unprovable. what kind of logic is that? Am I not supposed to notice these manifestations? If I do am I not allowed to develop any opinion on them, if i do am i not allowed to share my observation and option? and what has that got to do with model validation? nothing. I can differntiate unsupported 'opinion' and supported opinion - can you? just as i can differentiate supported models with unsuported ones. What 'rules' I choose to follow personally has sweet f all to do with this discussion. __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 00:05	#132 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,300	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie) The best way to do that is to not do deco dives. And I have no problem with erring on the side of caution. I have a problem with using different rules for using data depending on your mood. It's just poor empiricism. It doesnt matter what 'I' do, how 'I' behave or what colour underwear Im wearing. Im not selling deco software people trust their lives/health to Im sorry but this kind of 'you stink!' - 'well you stink too!' kind of argument is the kind of argument I expect from a 6 year old. the points ive made in this thread are: 1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???) 2) Non control dives are not as good validation as control dives (who disagrees with that?? 3) Many of the deep dives on Ross Website are/were incorrectly reported (Im sat next to Matt, was chatting with Ben last night, and CV never claimed 191m) - i gave Ross links to proof he has wrong data down but its still up on the site I suggest that last point is telling. I have no idea what your arguing against. Im arguing for ACCURATE dive reporting, open discussion without the kind of childishness we saw earlier and PROPER model validation and you? Those are the only points I ever made in this thread so if you disagree with above argue the facts __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 00:11	#133 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,300	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie) In eariler posts Mike claimed that type (2) was not useful. No I didnt. I infered its less useful than proper validated control dives - who argues with that?. Quote: Then he went on to use type (1). That's inconsistent. thats irrelevantto this discussion Quote: The inference I was hoping people whoud draw is, Mike should accept the (lower, but still acceptable) utility of data of type (2) before he starts relying on type (1). . yes of course that makes sense if type 2 is good enough. It isnt for deep dives as proven by the fact many of Ross listed deep dives are incorrectly reported One wasnt even VPM for gods sake! __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 00:52	#134 (permalink)
aainslie So Cal Tech Diver Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: LA Posts: 163	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM It doesn't take a careful read of this thread to see you making a series of fairly personal attacks against Ross. And I'm the 6 year old? This whole thing is eerily reminiscent of your little pissing match over Cedric's dive a while back, albeit a far smaller version. And it'd be nice if you kept your (usually very useful) opinions to subjects where you don't have an agenda. You did against Cedric, and you do against Ross. The childish behavior here is as much yours as anyone's. Anyway, I for one am happy to use the uncontrolled experiments being conducted by many people on VPM-B as evidence that it works, especially now that Ross has incorporated a data collection mechanism in the X1 that truly DOES see how the dive was conducted. No one will ever validate any model for all gases in the future - the whole problem has just become to uncontrollably difficult, and these controlled experiments are just too expensive - so good data collection on dives actually conducted is really useful. DAN's project is a great example of this. It's the only way anything will be validated going forward - although the data analysis must be incredibly difficult given the extraordinary range of gases, setpoints, switch depths etc etc used by different divers. Interestingly overall I think we agree on many underlying issues - it's just that you've decided to pervert logic to suit your need to be 6-ish with Ross, and I in turn may have perverted mine a bit to be 6-ish with you, simply to offset your silliness. I'll end with some answers to your 3 statements: 1) True - but who dives true 100% Buhlmann? 2) True - as long as you understand what they validate 3) This actually is a pretty minor point to me. I'd rather know that thousands of dives are done every day on this stuff than have a couple of isolated "big dive" datapoints to focus on. But admittedly my diving is quite a bit less ambitious than yours. __________________ Andrew Ainslie
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 01:58	#135 (permalink)
Serge New Member Current Rebreather/s: Evolution Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NY Posts: 92	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) ...1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???) Validated for what exactly, a 5 ATA dive for 5 min, a box profile with a standard rate of ascent? I'm not knocking Buhlmann at all, but I find this "well validated" argument a bit surprising. Maybe true for cleaning swimming pools, but in real life? Throw in a slight variation and the whole validation becomes no more than an educated guess. You cannot anticipate and validate every dive condition or profile. These non-ideal process conditions are exactly what bubble models attempt to approximate, and are thus rapidly moving away from the traditional methods. On a very fundamental level, the bubble model is a better approach. Last edited by Serge : 16th April 2008 at 02:02.
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 02:33	#136 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,300	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by Serge) Validated for what exactly, validated on more than vpm. Thats my only point. Quote: Throw in a slight variation and the whole validation becomes no more than an educated guess. yes but the better validated the base is the less of a guess the variation will be. Quote: These non-ideal process conditions are exactly what bubble models attempt to approximate, really? how does that work? How is a dive comp using VPM not guessing where a dive comp using bul based algo is guessing? Quote: and are thus rapidly moving away from the traditional methods. if this is true why is vpm becoming more like a trad model with longer shallow stop times vpma, b, be. Quote: On a very fundamental level, the bubble model is a better approach. in theory maybe, maybe not, who knows - I dont believe there has been enough proper testing to say that with absolute confidence. __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 02:45	#137 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,300	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie) It doesn't take a careful read of this thread to see you making a series of fairly personal attacks against Ross. And I'm the 6 year old? This whole thing is eerily reminiscent of your little pissing match over Cedric's dive a while back, albeit a far smaller version. more irelevance Quote: And it'd be nice if you kept your (usually very useful) opinions to subjects where you don't have an agenda. You did against Cedric, and you do against Ross. The childish behavior here is as much yours as anyone's. irelevant and untrue - i have no agenda against ross or cedric for that matter - if I do its the same one and that is the request for correct data amd honest reporting - that all. If thats a crime against god then so be it. Quote: Anyway, I for one am happy to use the uncontrolled experiments being conducted by many people on VPM-B as evidence that it works, good for you. but that doesnt change anything. Quote: so good data collection on dives actually conducted is really useful. EXACTLY! its must be good data ! but when I try to correct the quality of that data (correct mistakes on ross site) I get told by you to shut up and told I have an agenda! - give me a break.! Quote: Interestingly overall I think we agree on many underlying issues - it's just that you've decided to pervert logic to suit your need to be 6-ish with Ross, show me where I have perverted logic. Quote: 3) This actually is a pretty minor point to me. I'd rather know that thousands of dives are done every day on this stuff than have a couple of isolated "big dive" datapoints to focus on. But admittedly my diving is quite a bit less ambitious than yours. well it is important to the increasing number of those people doing deeper dives __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 03:27	#138 (permalink)
rossh Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 111	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) 1) VPM isnt as well validated as Buh (now who disagrees with that???) 2) Non control dives are not as good validation as control dives (who disagrees with that?? 3) Many of the deep dives on Ross Website are/were incorrectly reported (Im sat next to Matt, was chatting with Ben last night, and CV never claimed 191m) - i gave Ross links to proof he has wrong data down but its still up on the site Mike, 1/ NO method of planning in common use today has been man tested. Normal practice now is that divers and computers have moved away from these tested designs, modify and expand on them further from their validated origin. They reshape and resize it to make look and feel and comply to the concepts of a deep stop and bubble model designs. Your body cannot distinguish between a "reshaped, resized, morphed to look like a de-facto bubble model plan", and an original deep stop / bubble plan. It may give peace of mind to know the morphed plan once resembled a man tested data set, but the mind does not control the deco mechanics. But Mike, you said before the the reshaped and resized plan started out as a man tested one, so then things are OK... That is badly flawed logic. The modified plan no longer resembles the original concept. It has abandoned the original test parameters and has been morphed into a different deco concept. All that counts is the numbers on the deco tablet, and if look and feel like a deep stop / bubble plan, then that is what is being used. 2/ I look forward to the academic side of diving catching up to today's diving practices. Deep stop approaches with mixed gas are in common use now, and included in many of the technical dive computers purchased today. Many of these computers have data and detailed logging and can submit reports to DAN for its research. In the coming months and years, the recorded data base of anecdotal information will grow. Mike, you seem to think that these extra deep exploration and record break dives some how add validation?? That's nonsense... Very deep and short dives have no data worthy of validation, regardless of the dive plan origin. No diver makes these dives to test or probe for the thresholds of deco. The dive typically has large amounts of extra time added and padded on all over the plan, because that is the prudent thing to do on a really deep dive. It's OK for you to add extra time margin on these dives Mike, and you don't need to feel guilty about it. But, if we sent you on that same deep dive every weekend, then I think you would quickly reduce the deco to a more realistic numbers. 3/ Are your still pissed about Cedric, and that you were tossed off that dive Mike? All this fussing over web page language and Cedric's dives? Read the page again... The Yamashiro IS at 190m, and the page makes no mentions of Cedric's depth but instead it refers to a trip report. In the Sra Keow dive, the web page describes that Cedric used a rebreather and a deco model, but does NOT mention what deco model Ben used. This agrees with all the information you have asserted Mike. So kindly stop implying there is anything dishonest here. The only errors are your interpretation of the language Mike. . __________________ Regards, Ross Hemingway V-Planner Live for the X1 V-Planner VPM-B Nitrox Trimix CCR Deco planning for Technical Divers www.v-planner.com Last edited by rossh : 16th April 2008 at 06:04. Reason: typo, refinements
(Online)

16th April 2008, 03:42	#139 (permalink)
aainslie So Cal Tech Diver Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: LA Posts: 163	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) i have no agenda against ... cedric ... THAT is just plain funny! OK, I'm done. The 6 year old playground is all yours. __________________ Andrew Ainslie
(Offline)

16th April 2008, 04:05	#140 (permalink)
rossh Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 111	Re: VR3 BUH or VPM Quote: (Originally Posted by am) Practically every deep diver I know in the UK who used early versions of VPlanner was bent beyond 100m (and a lot shallower/shorter in some cases) and accordingly the model was revised. The model therefore at that stage, was not revised according to a scientific subset of principles (relating to the mechanics of the algorithm) but according to the physiological experiences of a group of divers......Every diver that I know that has used VPM to any reasonable depth has been bent. AnneMarie . What a load of BULL! Where did these imaginary people go for treatment? They never appear in any of the yearly statistics issued by the various hyperbaric organizations. The VPM model revision work started in mid 2002, and was completed by years end. It was done by two of the principal authors of the VPM, and changes were based on reasons of math and physics. VPM-B was made available in Jan-Feb 2003. All this occurred long before your made up friends ever heard of VPM. We have been through these facts many times AnneMarrie, but you choose to ignore this, and instead persist on telling whopping great fibs? . __________________ Regards, Ross Hemingway V-Planner Live for the X1 V-Planner VPM-B Nitrox Trimix CCR Deco planning for Technical Divers www.v-planner.com
(Online)

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