Deco calculation for repetitive dive - strange effect
sfuchs at gmx.de
Tue Feb 7 10:53:30 PST 2017
Am 07.02.2017 um 09:09 schrieb Rick Walsh:
>> On 06 Feb 2017, at 19:30, Robert Helling <helling at atdotde.de
>> <mailto:helling at atdotde.de>> wrote:
>> a no progress report: I guessed it’s the max_ambient_pressure but
>> now I know, it is not. Tonight, I will not have further time to
>> look into this (we have visitors), so if someone else wants to
>> give it a try: There are a few other state variables of VPM-B,
>> all defined as global variables in deco.c. I would next try
>> max_crushing pressure (by resetting this between dives and see if
>> this makes the deco almost independent of the day. In Buehlmann,
>> one can see, that the difference in saturation is only minimal).
> I think I understand this now. This is a „feature“ of the VPM-B
> model. (For some background on this model see
> <http://euve10195.vserver.de/wp/?p=27> or the German
> version http://euve10195.vserver.de/wp/?p=46
> If you are doing repetitive diving, this is tracked between dives
> and since p_max (the maximal over pressure during the dives)
> enters the maximal depth encountered is relevant for the deco.
> Your first dive has a depth of 60m so it sets this variable also
> for the second dive which is only 40m. Thus, according to these
> formulas, it allows for a bigger gradient which means it is more
> liberal with respect to over pressure in the tissues which results
> in shorter deco.
> And no, I don’t think this makes sense. But it is the model. It is
> not the first oddity of this model we come across.
> That quirk is indeed odd. I can see how it could have this unexpected
> effect, but are you sure that's the entire cause? I found no change
> at all when the surface interval was in the range 10min to 47hr.
> Surely there ought to be some variation with surface interval, even if
> the smaller "crushing radius" remains.
I'm still here listening (reading) carefully ;-)
I understand that we don't want to tweak the VPM-B implementation to
make the results look nicer w/o knowing if this is then still in line
with the ideas of "the real model" and I fully agree to this. But maybe
based on Linus finding there is until now really a misunderstanding
regarding the implementation for this specific detail?
There is not much I can contribute to the discussion beside one idea:
Can s.o. once check exactly the same dive scenario in another VPM-B
based tool? I heard there is another tool on the market... ;-)
I unfortunately don't have a license. But I also could ask a friend of
mine. But I'm 100% sure one of you has a license.
E-Mail: sfuchs at gmx.de <mailto:sfuchs at gmx.de>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the subsurface