VR3 BUH or VPM

Drmike

Ross you keep saying this and I keep saying that the basis behind the methods commonly used (except vpm) IS man tested and thats the difference. I have answered this argument from you in the same way each time yet each time you give the same flawed response instead of arguing that point. Do you expect people to just to consider all the man tested validation and all the work done to date to validate those algos are worthless just because some dc manufacturers add extra conservation and just because some divers do the same? That is illogical.
nope, it 'may give peace of mind' to know the model has been man tested OR that the basis of the model has been man tested.

no thats not what I said. I infered its BETTER (because the basis was man tested) than a non man tested basis. You may be right, I never argued that point BUT the same can be said for any VPM dive. The difference is that a vpm dive and a reshaped resized vpm dive DIDNT start out as a man tested one. So has even less support. What we DO have in the case of vpm (and I hope you take the time to consider this point carefully) is an increasing number of non control data points for vpm dives where (as they were non control) many of the times they were reshaped resized by the diver. So we are in the same boat.

here here - but I suggest that accurate dive reporting is in the meantime very very important. I am not anti deep stop, I do them. Trust me when you chose to do a deep stop sub 150m depth then you have to be a fan to actuall do it!

a) as there is very little validation for such dives we have to cling to whatever single data point we can. All deep divers look closely at the few deep dives that are done to glean info that can be useful. I agree not much validation, but better than nothig at all. B) If theres no value to that data point why do you mention them on your website?

exactly. Look Ross your getting confused. IM the one who said exactly that earlier in the thread re: valididty of vpm dive list on your site. I dont believe they should be seen as vpm validation dives (as the schedules are often padded or changed. when I said that I got told to shut up. its ok for you to say it though

I wasnt tossed off any dive and you will not find anyone saying or any refference to suggest I was. I dont know if you are being confused or deliberately dishonest about this point.

if by fussing you mean the request for correct info then yes im fussing. for all the reasons given above. when we dont have man testing and all we have is anecdotal info we should strive to make than info as accurate as possible!
I challenge anyone to read how you have/had worded that webpage and not draw the conclusion you are using marketing talk and wording to give false impressions. Its worded in such a way to not make the real meaning clear. who gives a f_ how deep the sea bed is - the dive was to 176m. This is just marketting.
In the same way as your earlier inferance that the guys on recent princess of orient dive used vplanner live/ x1 when in fact (according to them [im diving with them at the moment) they followed square profile VPMB+3 tables and 'extended the shallow stops' because 'felt they were too short' I believe you are aware of this seeing as you were there (on the boat) my point here is to illustrate the danger of relying soley on anecodotal evidence/dive reporting to validate an algo (as the people who are saying man testing is unecessary for vpm as its being used a lot) as you are aware people pad - and as you infered any alteration away from the basic algo may invalidate it

well then clearly im an idiot. I guess im the only one who sees uneccessary ambiguity in your wording. I dont have you or your friend CVs slipoery marketing tounge when it comes to creative writing

__________________
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

Drmike

it apears, reading through your replies to my posts, that you never reply and argue points raised. instead you just brush over them with irelevancies such as this

I find it highly amusing that after all your rudeness (telling me to shut up) and all your waffling on you agree fully with my original comment that started all this!






anypoo this thread is getting boring and there are hobbits in Dumaguete in desperate need of a bit of lovin So good night and god bless

__________________
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

Lancer4545

It's obvious by the number of posts and the number of people who have added to this discussion that this is one subject which I will categorize as "EXPERIMENTAL" and still under review. Every piece of literature I have read on decompression diving has a note somewhere saying it is not an accurate science and you should always add a certain level of conservatism. I never really knew how to take that statement until now.

The majority of us have undergone the training and gone out and bought a really nice deco computer (or 3 ) and jumped in and dived with it not fully knowing what it is doing......Ascend to 46m and stop for 2 mins and we do it and each further command that pops up on the screen until it tells you it's safe to ascend to the surface.....But is it really???

There has not been a single reply to this thread which I can see that has put forward a convincing case for either BUH or VPM as being a reliable basis which we can safely rely on specially for deepish mixed gas decompression diving. There have been some very good comments made and a lot of very good information has been written for us to decide how we should conduct our decompression.

It seems to me that as we learn from the experience gained from those who are prepared to take the risk and push themselves or push the limits that the original algorithms will evolve to make diving them safer. This to me is a good thing.

Looking back I now feel I have been doing the right thing for the way I dive. Follow the "Most Conservative Computer" which has been the VR3VPM stopping me deeper for small stops working my way up to 6m and clearing that computer. Then finish the deco remaining on the VR3BUH computer until it's also clear. In time I will cut the time back slightly until I am happy with the minimum additional deco I am prepared to do.

There is no better feeling than completing a big dive and sitting on the boat with friends chatting about what a great dive we just had and looking forward to the next dive. It's no fun trying to laugh and smile about the dive when there are one or more divers lying on their back in pain sucking O2 wondering if they will be alright or can make the chamber in time to avoid any perminent damage to them selves. The other consideration is that of calling the whole trip and having to steam back to the nearest chamber and ruining everyones trip.

I think it would make an interesting poll to see just how we all manage our deco. Another topic could be what minimum depth we finish our deco at....6m, 4.5m or 3m

Interesting stuff......

Regards,

Lance

*Polls Added Tonight*

__________________
You can run but you can't hide!

ISC Appointed Megalodon Dealer for East Australia
http://www.closedcircuitdivers.com.au
info@closedcircuitdivers.com.au

rossh

Matt Reed, Mike Taylor, Roger Ingebo, Paul Neilson dive to 110-120m on the Princess of Orient, outside Manila Bay, Philippines (7 dives total). All divers used VPM-B and Mike used a Liquivision X1 with V-Planner Live.

That is what is has always said!! Same post as in 3 forums too. All 4 divers used VPM-B and one had an X1 with V-Planner Live.

Maybe I should make a special page, just for you Mike. I'll use pictures and stick drawings and one syllable words instead?



No one else is concerned about the web page Mike - only you. So yes, I have to agree, you are being an idiot over this.

And your comment above, tells me you are still pissed about Cedric.
.

__________________
Regards, Ross Hemingway

www.v-planner.com

AM

It's not about one person versus another, it's about personal experience of having seen people bent using VPM. Hell, I called the chopper for a few of them and drove others to the chamber myself! Strangely, the model was revised a few times, suggesting earlier versions were insufficient!!

You seem to have a large interest in defending a model that we know from personal experience, is unfit for deep diving. Validating it in a shallow or mid range and using incorrect statistics proves nothing.

I'm not in commercial competition with Kevin Gurr so I suggest you take it up with him. I don't see all the data for VPM being released either, so why not divulge that instead?

Right. I'll be interested when you've used VPM for a 150m dive without any padding and got out without DCI. Padding it is just Buhlmann-esque variant, not actual VPM.

Yeah, you don't want to be the guinea pig, leave that for countless others who trust in the product based on false marketing spin and erroneous use of statistics to create the impression of validation.

My point is that VPM is still grossly short of being an acceptable algorithm for use in deep diving. The hour difference between it and Buh is there for a reason!

__________________

AM

Where have I made any assertions about an algorithm? Linked to commercial interests? I made the point that VPM is inadequate compared to Buhlmann and that the statisticus for VPM have been misrepresented. The sheer amount of bends using VPM and the subsequent revisions of VPM are data enough to indicate that the model is inadequate for DEEP diving. If you want to collate all the DCI stats for sub 100m dives, go ahead, but I believe Tom Mount was already looking into this. I won't be - I know already that the model isn't up to the job of deep diving.

I have seen the ZPlanner profile used by Ben in Sra Keow yet his dive is reported as a dive done with VPM.

Oh, please, open your eyes. The model has been through several revisions and is still grossly short of acceptable. Was that just done for fun?

__________________

AM

Chambers don't collect data regarding the actual models used in every DCI incident, there is NO central repository indicating model against DCI incidence. Furthermore, I know divers who have encountered DCI and not gone near a chamber so they wouldn't be captured in any such data sweep anyway! Nice spin Ross but like I said, everyone I know that has used VPM beyond 100m has been bent. Strangely, they don't get bent on Buhlmann. I haven't spoken to a single hyperbaric doctor who has indicated that statistics relating to models are collected, indeed most people I know that have been potted are only asked depth and time. If you have chamber figures showing every DCI incident against model, since the inception of VPM, please publish the data. In fact we should see a trend of DCI against VPM decreasing, in line with all your revisions!

Show me a list of every sub 100m dive undertaken on VPM since it's inception and then tell me there is no DCI against the model.

Ha, nice marketing spin - changes for maths and physics. I think not. Changes were made several times following reports of multiple DCIs and it became apparent that the model fell grossly short of an acceptable deco algorithm. Speak to any diver that has dived VPM to beyond 100m and done bottom time, not pissing about in mid-range diving, they won't be using VPM, I can guarantee you that! In fact, I'd like to hear from a diver that has done, say 20 minutes at 120m with no padding on VPM. They are probably too incapacitated to come and share it!

Incorrect, since most of them dived first variants of VPM and then also got bent on subsequent variants as they are still too aggressive.

Ross, the only person telling fibs is your self. You have been through this with so many different people yet you refuse to publish accurate data and misrepresent the data you do publish, positioning the VPM algorithm as something it is not. Marketing spin and politician like maneouvreing might fool the masses but any deep diver whom has used VPM and knows the history, knows that I speak the truth.

I do not see one single credible deep diver offering support for the use of VPM on deep/long dives. There is a reason for that, they have all been bent on either earlier incarnations of VPM, know the model is totally inadequate or noted that the model is being revised based on DCI reports and completely ditched it.

Any algorithm that shows you a differential of 1 hour in decompression on a relatively shallow dive should be ringing alarm bells in respect of being considered suitable for deep diving. Even with padding, VPM is still grossly inadequate for deep diving. Padding it out massively might render it useable but also renders it Buhlmann-esque.

We don't call it the Vast Pain Maker for nothing!!

__________________

AM

Oh yes they are. It is obvious that you are "positioning" incorrect data to further your commercial agenda. That is not acceptable. If a dive was not conducted on VPM (Variable Pain Model) then it should be removed from your product advertising and a failure to do so is just gross misrepresentation.

You might get away with brainwashing the masses who won't challenge this BS, but the rest of us know the real deal. Unfortunately those masses who know no better will continue getting bent and encountering untold pain and suffering, which will constitute your data point for further revision of the model.

Strangely, everyone that makes this point appears to be becoming systematically removed from the discussion, that wouldn't be anything to do with commercial agendas would it! I thought safety was a more noble objective than commercial gain.

__________________

rossh

.
Last weekend on the Princess of Orient with VPM-B (110 to 120m) - 4 divers and 7 dives between them over two days.

Like I said Anne Marie - your stories are just made up BULL!

__________________
Regards, Ross Hemingway

www.v-planner.com

AM

Rubbish and you know it Ross. Unlike you, I have nothing to gain from peddling waffle to the masses. Where are the profiles from these dives? What settings? Where are the divers that conducted these dives, since we know you have a propensity for, shall we say, manipulating the real facts. I'd like to hear from the divers and see the profiles, since the dives will no doubt end up being reported on your website as some deeply mistaken "validation exercise" for the model.

In any case, what do you think a few bounce dives prove (other than brainwashing the masses)? That a massive amount of padding *might* get you out unbent? That all your revisions are now only just adequate for a few bounce dives?

Instead of repeating the same tired lines, prove me wrong by providing all the data I and many others requested. Also, I note that you haven't changed your website and are still reporting the dive made by Ben Reymenants as a VPM dive, when it was clearly Z-Planner. I suggest it's you talking bull, not me, or the many others making the same points.

__________________