VR3 BUH or VPM

Lancer4545

I had a chuckle when I read this and then remembered you have been with these guys before!!!!

That makes good sense as you have already fulfilled the VR3VPM obligations.

Funny how you hang there for hours only think of these things after you have finished the dive. I had already set the nuisence "Screensaver" on the VR3VPM to get an idea of the TTS but didn't think to switch the VR3BUH screensaver on.....when in reality I should have!!

Not to worry there will be plenty of time to try it out on the MV Empress next Month!!!

So you coming to Coron? I could do with a guide to show me the "NightLife"

Lance

__________________
You can run but you can't hide!

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

carcharodon1957

Hello to all of you!

DR mike: your crusade boring me, you're out of topics

PLease hang-up your phone, call Ross, make a appointment and get him fight if its help you to live!

Please, go back to the aim of this topic and if you haven't got factual answer, shut-up and let the question open to others science men!

Remember, even if lot of people read your message as bible sentences, that your just human, not god, and giving opinion is enough! not killing others!

It's not really helpfull for the community
I don't want to go against your odds but Anyway, VR3 are based on a rgbm deco and to extend their market they made another algorythm based on VPM! They are softwares both!

Show me the list of scientifcs who valided the VR3? All navy of the world, any pro offshore diver or hyperbaric working doc?

So please again do not fight and bring technical points and not personal feeling!

Thanks

Bernard

Drmike

I love it when in the middle of some potentially heated debate we get someone we never hear from suddenly apear - this usually suggests their a sock puppet or someone with a bias or agenda.

Im sorry your bored - may i suggest you go do something else or read another thread?. I would think a discussion on vpm is on topic in a thread about vpm? I have given lance some advise re his original question - how have you helped him?

God invented phones so 2 people can discuss topics. Saint Stuart invented Rebreather World forum so many people can simultaneously share in and read discussions. This forum is for people to discuss debate and yes at times argue. I dont see that anything so far in this thread is outside that remit or any reason why it shouldnt be discussed
childish and rather rude comment - especially seeing as i have tried to offer lance some advice - which is more than you have.
i have no idea what this means - but i expect its irrelevant
I disagree - its very helpful

Ross referenced his 'dive list' as validaton of VPMB. I have simply shown that not all those dives are VPMB or to the depths described. That is a fact. Now you may not appreciate how such inaccurate or false referances are potentially dangerous, but i can assure you they can be. People (myself included) do look at such lists to some extent as support of a model that you may end up staking your life (or the ability to sustain an erection) on. Ive furnished him with correct info that (if he wishes) he can easily verify by - as you say - just picking up the phone (or by reading dive reports of people concerned)

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.

This is not true re: RGBM, but it wouldnt surprise me if your second point was true
discussion was about how much validation VPM has not VR3.

I have only argued technical points, no personal feeling at all. You are the one who sounds like they wish to fight!


I have no idea why you are so angry - why get personal? If you think VPMB has seen as much validation as buh, if you think Ross dive list is accurate, then why dont you argue those points instead of telling people to shut up?

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

divingtoors

Hi

Very interresting topic. Good info from all the parties
I am an IANTD sport instructor, and what is written on the V-planner website was quite interresting and has some relation to Dr Mike's comments regarding accuracy..
HSS Software website:

"2003

February: V-Planner with VPM-B released at the NAUI Deep Stop conference.

IANTD includes VPM-B tables into all new training courses.

........"

Here is an extract from the IANTD.com website, regarding the use of deco tables:
"...Currently, all IANTD courses use the Bühlmann ZH-L16 model for determining decompression obligation. These Bühlmann-based tables are among the most widely used dive tables in the world and the ZH-L16 system is used to calculate both staged and continuous decompression and is programmed into many of today’s dive computers..."

VPMB/x seems not to be the decompression table of choice as advertised or reported on the V-planner website.

Regards

Johan

__________________
Trust the advise of a man that does not fully trust his own, as the man that fully trusts his own, only knows one side of the problem… - CJ Langenhoven (Translated)

diverklondike

Couple comments here...

1) I would suggest that part of the issue here is that IANTD is very poor at keeping their web site and other marketing materials up to date with a consistant message reguardless of what it is. I simple review of the rest of their material support that...

2) With out a doubt as you start looking at ANY deco algo, it's accuracy starts to go to s$#)(& at more extreme depths. (over 100m) This is partially because we are still arguing on how to treat "He" and Buhlmann is a perfect example of that.

3) The whole VR3 BUH and VR3 VPM thing has sent many of us into a tailspin with the exact situation that has been mentioned here. When diving the two computers together you get spanked by the VR3 BUH for doing what we all (or most anyway) think is a good thing... deeper stops slower accent to prevent the development of bubbles.... So now your f#*&)(& and you have Kevin Gurr has your money for both computers.. and he won't publicly state what he has done with the VPM algo that makes it "VPM"...

4) So what can we take from all of this.... Do the smart stuff.... Hydrate like crazy before you dive and do all of that stuff that should help prevent an issue. Swag, pad etc with your stops and tables as always... know in most cases as long as you have not done anything stupid to start with, shaving a little time off your shallow stops if it has been an uneventful dive or adding a couple minutes will probably not make a big difference unless your doing some of the crazy s*)(#& that a select few on this list do....

Dive Safe.... and back to the entertainment!

M

Meng_Tze

Because we can not seem to get a straight answer and the fact that 'VR3VPM' keeps you in the water soo long, I sold my VR3 and moved on. Heck on one dive I reverted to precut tables and came out fine nearly 25 minutes earlier than 'VR3VPM' would allow me to.

On the other hand, the straight forward Vplanner live seems very aggressive. It could be that this is because I got used to VR3VPM and Buh GF settings over time. I run the Vplanner live at +3 and it comes closer to my comfort level. My RT is still a lot faster than my buddy's, but no ill effects to date.

Vplanner Live works for me, VR3VPM didn't.

__________________
Homo Bonae Voluntatis

aainslie

Ignoring Mike's debate for the sake of debate (and an OLD one he's hashed out elsewhere with no reall added info here), the simple fact is that whatever is in the VR3, it's NOT VPM/B. There are several reasons that this must be true - 1) that computer doesn't have the computing power to do the necessary coaculations, and 2) Ross, I and others have repeatedly pointed out (on TDS) that VR3's implementation is a load of bollocks, with NO response from Delta P.

Talk about "marketing spin"! Delta P charge an upgraded price for whatever the hell this thing is that theyv'e implemented, tell half-truths about the underlying algorithm, and you claim that Ross is "spinning" things?

For that mattter Mike, how can you possibly call whatever teh abortion that VR3 uses in it's weird Buhlmannesque algorithm Buhlmann? And on Buhlmann - isn't that also a modification of Haldane, subsequently remodified by adding GF's - because each of THESE tended in earlier versions to bend people?

This bizarre psuedo-Luddite attack of yours on Ross just makes no sense.

And on the offchance you want to call me a sock puppet - my name is Andrew Ainslie - google it. I'm the one at UCLA. You'll find a phone number if that's your preferred mode of communication - but wait, you didn't choose that with Ross, did you? And I've met you before, back when you and Cedric were buddies - but you were so utterly taken by your own brilliance that you didn't really notice my - or anyone else's - presence during your trip.

Man, you have a serious ego!

Ross's software is beyond outstanding. And the VR3 is miles behind, both in terms of computing power and disclosure about the underlying algorithms, the X1. And the VR3's "VPM based" (their wording) algorithm is anything but VPM. I suspect it's a Buhlmann GF model tweaked to give square profiles similar to VPM/B, but I'm guessing there.

__________________
Andrew Ainslie

Drmike

as I just said:-
oh look another one.: rolleyes:

Read my posts. Argue my facts, argue my logic add your opinion but we can do without all this BS crap about peoples egos and the rest of that shite - it has nothing to do with the thread.

I simply made a comment about vpmb that ross doesnt agree with - big woopie and I corrected some mistakes he has made with his list of dives - thats it.

Now either show me Im wrong I am not bothered if you do as I would honestly want to know or if you cant do that or have no intention to do that kindy keep the kind of childishness to yourself

Now I suppose I had better read your post:-






I have never before debated VPMB. I have never before debated the fact Ben didnt use VPMB or that the Yamashiro dive wasnt to 190m (a fact that as far as I know CV has never claimed - Just Ross's typo I suspect) or that VPM isnt well validated or that its sucessive tweaks have resulted in something better and more useful. I have debated just one point before (CV dive in sra keow III) which is the ONE point that you clearly have fixated upon and rather simple mindedly tried to turn the whole debate into a focus on that when it isnt and wasnt my intention at all.

I dont disagee, neither does Ross or anyone else as far as I can see. Its no secret that VR3VPM is not true VPM - who in this thread said it was??

Your getting all confused. I never accused Ross of spinning anything about VR3VPM. where did you get that from? I did quote Ross's website where he says VR3 is using vpm like model - so even Ross agrees its VPM like. I think your confused. As for DeltaP telling half truths they told me it wasnt true VPM when I spoke to them. They said it was VPM like. which is exactly the same as what Ross says on his site (about the VR3vpm) so I dont see that they me Ross or jimmy hoffa are saying anything different. So I have no idea where you got that idea or this amount of anger from.
It doesnt make sense to correct that bens dive wasnt as listed on ross website a vpm dive?, or that yamashiro dive wasnt to 190m but 176m?, it doesnt make sense to correct these dive lists? why not? I didnt just attack Ross - Read the thread. i made a comment that he and me debated over (re: validation of vpm and revision of vpm) and i gave him some corrections for his dive list - thats it- no personal attack. In fact the only personal attack in this thread came from you.....and Im the one with the ego??

Wow - are you ok?. Oh ok I see your one of those. Ok look I am sorry if I dont remember you - I meet a lot of people. But what does me not remembering you got to do with this discussion? I dont understand what point your trying to make here perhaps you can elaborate? What has my ego or me not remembering you got to do with anything? does my ego change the degree of validation of vpmb? does me not remembering you make Bens Zplanner dive a VPM one? I dont get why you bring my personality, ego or having met you into the discussion.

You see this is what amazes me about some people who write posts just like yours. I make some factual comments or opinionn that somepeople for some reason dont like, now some people choose to argue my facts and propose other opinions - good on them! thats what this forum is about - yet others like you just preffer to NOT argue facts or propose opinion but instead rant on about personalities and egos and who met who and other such irelevancies

Why cant people like you stick to debating facts instead of resorting to childishness like this?


I agree - i mentioned the fact I use it (vpmbe) for planning for which its very useful indeed!. The only reason I dont use it for dives is as i stated because on deep dives comp are more accurate. In this thread I simply stated that it has never been fully validated (and Ross latter agreed) and corrected some mistakes he had on his dive list that he referenced in this thread. you may be right about the algo - but again I dont see anyone arguing that point either way

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

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.

b) You don't like VPM because it hasn't been empirically tested as much as Buhlmann. Is mere superiority of volume of empirical testing enough? Ross's software gets used a lot with no evidence of an unusually high level of bends and little evidence of ANY bends. It may not be as much as the data behind Buhlmann, but don't you think it's suffficient? Both have a remarkably low incidence of DCS hits.

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.

I'm not going to go into your endless debates about who did what dive to what depth on what algorithm - your fixation on that is not really of much interest to me or most of the rest of us.

Oh - and you DO have a serious ego. However since I'm occasionally accused of the same I should probably tread lightly there...

__________________
Andrew Ainslie

mempilot

Lance,

I dive a VR3 with VPM turned on. My buddy dives his VR3 with BUH. We cut tables in VPlanner.

Interesting enough, on shallow dives, say less than 150, his VR3 gives him a couple of short deep stops at around 120 and 110. On these dives, my VPM VR3 does not, but I stop with him anyway. The midwater deco is usually pretty close, but his shallow stops are always longer by several minutes. They would probably be even longer if I didn't stop with him on the deep stops.

Yesterday, I did a dive to 190 with a chap using a VR3/BUH. Again, my first stop wasn't scheduled until 100 feet, but he had one stop much deeper than that. Again, in the midwater, his stops were about the same, but on his shallow stops, his time was almost double mine. This added over 20 minutes to his decompression.

I run zero conservatism shallower than 200 fsw, and I cut tables with zero conservatism. I always dive dry and well hydrated, and I feel these two points are very important. My body fat percentage is about 10% with a good lean muscle mass number. My cardio is better than average as well.

For dives deeper than 200, I would put some conservatism back in. Back when I was using GF's, I cut my tables on DecoPlanner using 15/85.

While I have never been bent, I knock on wood, because I am always out of the water faster than everyone around me. I have been thinking about running a +1, and I would imagine it would act very similiar to a VR3/BUH and force a couple of deeper stops.

The reason I don't use BUH is not that I don't like the deep stops (I think they are very beneficial to have just above the level where offgassing starts to get rid of the bubbles while they are small), but because I don't like the really long shallow stop that seems to be way overkill.

I've been thinking about the Shearwater with GFs for this reason.

I would imagine that cave, wreck, and reef profiles would all play a huge part in how to set up the computer and which algorithm to use. While wrecks are for the most part square profiles, caves can tend to have a lot of ups and downs. I'm just getting into thinking about caves, so this is why my interest is peaked on this discussion. I hear more cases of divers coming out of relatively shallow caves bent than I do of wreck divers going to 200 fsw and getting bent when all has gone as planned.

When it's all said and done, I still think there is a lot a unanswered questions about decompression theory. We can document successful dives all day long and say this worked and this didn't, but I still don't think anyone has a definitive answer to the science.

__________________
MEM "Da Pilot"

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

"If at first you don't succeed, don't dive silent."

"Would you mind not shooting at the thermo-nuclear weapons." ~ Vic Deakins

"Donkey's kill more people annually than plane crashes."