On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:54:45 -0500, Confucio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
(snips)

> You, like many other persons,  are absolutly unable
> to realize that an increase in residual nitrogen doesn't depend on
> air consumption per se.

I'm delighted that you are so intimately aware of my knowledge, or
otherwise, of this subject. :->

However, how does your above comment relate to your earlier comment:

> > In every case if your breathing rate is increasing you are
> > doing an increasing physical activity no matter the
> > cause of it. It has as a conseguence an increase in nitrogen
> > accumulation in the tissues, an increase in the microbubble
> > formation,etc. so that the diver is more exposed to be bent.

Anyway:

Am I to take it, then, that the Air X (or whatever) routinely ignores
N2 uptake at the normal breathing rate of the diver as calculated at
the beginning of the dive? Surely it must do since it simply doesn't
know the _volume_ of air ingested with each "normal" breath? How can
it be otherwise?

So it then, sort of, perhaps, maybe, takes a stab at increased N2
uptake if the breathing rate of the diver quickens during the dive? I
mean, it must do, since it still doesn't know the amount of N2 ingested.

That's a pretty imprecise way of "computing" I would have thought.
Leave alone:

> Fortunately the AI computer take this into account and
> doing the proper calculation, beats the bends.

1) HOW does it take this into account? It has no specific date.
2) HOW does it do the proper calculation? It has no specific data.
3) No computer made, not even the ones betweeen our ears, beats the
bends. Not now and probably not in my lifetime.

> Yes Christian, computer aren't stupid.

Computers are EXACTLY as stupid as the humans that programmed them ... EXACTLY.

> Human beings instead.....;-)))

Human beings are fallible, that also makes computers fallible.

Christian