On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:03:22 -0500, Confucio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
(snips)

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:34:17 +1100, Christian Gerzner
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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?

> The volume of air ingested has nothing, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G to
> do with DCS. If you ignore this simple but basilar fact it's perfectly
> useless continue in this discussion.

<http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0103&L=scuba-se&F=&S=&P=620>

There you say:

> > > 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.

> Have you ever heard of persons bent during jogging owing to the
> high volume of air they ingested?

I think its called "ambient pressure"? Mind, I'll happily bow to your
superior knowledge.

As an alternative I'd say that your argument has no validity.

> Again the amount of N2 ingested has nothing, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G
> to do with DCS. DCS is caused by the pressure, I repeat by the
> P-R-E-S-S-S-U-R-E, of Nitrogen in the tissues. Pressure and volume
> are quite different things!!!!!! If the amount (volume) of air you have
> ingested is say, double than that of a child in the same dive profile,
> this doesn't means that you are at higher risk. It simply means
> your lungs are bigger. Instead if the pressure, P-R-E-S-S-S-U-R-E,
> of the N2 in your tissues are higher you are more at risk to be bent.
> Computers measure pressure in a very precise way and are
> absolutely,A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y careless about volume.

<http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0103&L=scuba-se&F=&S=&P=620>

There you say:

> > > 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.

>That's a pretty imprecise way of "computing" I would have thought.

> That is a pretty precise way to show that you know nothing
> about decompression theory etc.

http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0103&L=scuba-se&F=&S=&P=620

There you say:

> > > 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.

>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 data.
>2) HOW does it do the proper calculation? It has no specific data.

No comment on my #(3) comment?

> > 3) No computer made, not even the ones between our ears, beats
> > the bends. Not now and probably not in my lifetime.

> I have explained it a zillion times: a diver whose breathing rate
> increases is at risk to be bent owing to the greater vasodilatation,
> owing to the increased heartbeat rate (greater perfusion, greated
> blood pressure), owing to the increased amount of CO2, owing to
> the lost water etc. etc. So the computer knowing, K-N-O-W-I-N-G,
> your breathrate has increased, will decrease the M-values
> (you surely have never heard of them) thus introducing a greater
> safety margin.

<http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0103&L=scuba-se&F=&S=&P=620>

There you say:

> > > 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.

Hmmmmm, you seem to have changed your tune rather suddenly haven't
you? So which version are we supposed to believe?

> >Human beings are fallible, that also makes computers fallible.
>
> Human beings are slow on the uptake (not of Nitrogen ;-)) and
> you are a hopeless case.

Seems like there's no need for me to make snide remarks. You do pretty
well for the both of us.

Care to explain your apparent anomaly? Notice, I give you the benefit
of the doubt, I don't gratuitiously make derogatory comments about the
people I am jousting with. Some, particularly including yourself,
could be well advised to do the same.

Christian