New firmware 2.28beta

[Clownfish]

I agree with scubatinoo.

[Vortax]

scubatinoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guys, please. You came up with arguments like
> inefficient off-gasing... A safety stop is a
> safety stop and it doesn't harm anyone and all
> others can switch it off.
>
> The majority wants to have the stop between 6 and
> 3m so make them happy and end this discussions.
>
> Don't try to prevent people doing stupid things -
> they do it anyway. (:P)

"It's impossible to make anything stupid-proof, beacuse stupids are so ingenious"

[fishwithlungs]

So,not having time for couple of weeks to visit here,and i see the discussion is still going on.
And it is getting interesting,big THUMBS UP for JeanDo.
Tinoo,now we are getting to the idea of this forum,discussing deco theory and NOT what color should be this or that,why would you end this topic then?
Yes,the microbubbles...well to reduce formation of microbubbles we do deep stops,same for safety stop.BUT it IS about offgasing,because to stop bubbles from forming it is necessary to reduce available gas that "feeds" the bubble in any given tissue,so there is no such thing as bubble model or dissolved gas being the correct one,it is their combination.Prof.Buhlmann and E.Baker saw it as function of dissolved gas,but at the same time using GF reduces the microbubbles as well.Some ten years ago i was using and advocating VPM for its "novelty" and reduced shallow stops,only to be in permanent state of subclinical DCS (meaning f...ing tired all the time).Honestly,using GF 10/80,sometimes 10/70 keeps me in water longer,but my only concern now is possibility of O2 induced myopia,and not as before thinking twice whether i really want to bike back home 15 km from the dive center.

Cheers,

Richard

[JeanDo]

@DiverM

Thanks for your insights.

[quote]DAN and the USN have several papers. But if you want to read up more, wikipedia offers plenty references.[/quote]

Can you be more specific ?
* Wikipedia cites a single master thesis from 84: Uguccioni, DM (1984). Doppler Detection of Silent Venous Gas Emboli in Non-Decompression Diving Involving Safety Stops. University of North Carolina at Wilmington..
* Any references from DAN or USN ?
* Anything newer ?

Regards,

[xymanuel]

Hi all,
the only written Text about safty stops, i directly know is in the Book "Deco for Divers" from Mark Powell.
In Chapter 2. "Decompression Principles" they are talking about safety stops.
Quote:
"As the dives in question are considered to be no-stop dive then traditionally the safety stop has been considered as good practice but not essential. However, recent research using Doppler bubble detection to measure the amount of bubbling experienced on no-stop dives shows the benefits of these 'optional' stops."

As source for this information the book says "AAS", but sadly there is no reference to the study in the "references & further readings" chapter. I also not found the original study by google. Maybe anyone has more luck?

I try to quote the book in my own words:
The study tested divers to dive 30m for 25mins and then either direct ascend, or 2min at 3m, or 1min at 6m, 4min at 3m.
All divers had no signs or symptoms of DCI.
The doppler detection shows, that the direct ascend divers had the highest bubble scores for over 2h after surfaced.
The 2min at 3m, got much less bubblescores, but the bubbles also resides for over 2h.
The 1min at 6m and 4min at 3m group showed the lowest bubble score, and no more bubble reading after 45mins.
Now think about repetive dives.

A little off the topic, but here are some, doing research in decompression.
http://www.diving-concepts.at, they wrote a nice article in the actual "wetnotes" about decompression for tecnical divers. They also collected some studys:
http://www.diving-concepts.at/diving_concepts/Download_files/interessante%20papers.pdf

Kind regards
Manuel

[swissdiving]

Actually there is an exceedingly interesting article in the 8th. edition of Wetnotes by Dr. Andrea Köhler and Dr. Frank Hartig which adds a twist to the whole bubble discussion.
Unfortunatly the article is only in german.

For example having been bound to the bed for a period or high intensity training prior to diving can lead to a large number of bubbles. Even with ideal hydration and gas mix. Also the smoothness of the endothelium (cells lining the arteries and veins) appear to have a big impact on the prevalence of bubbles.

Additionally the postion in which deco stops take place seem to have an impact on the formation of bubbles. Doing deco stops in a horizontal position seem to generate smaller numbers of bubbles than in a vertical position...

[adrian-bluescuba]

@fishwithlungs

quote!
perfectly said. its about offgasing. reducing micro bubbles mainly means talking about deep stops or different deco models as VPM, ratiodeco...
10/70 ? could be quite cold

@DiverM
what ecxactly are you after ?

a discussion about a safety stop feature and complaints like 5m or 6m and 3min or 5min is - let me say it like that - really essential
why not going for a second hand gecko?

cheers
adrian

[nakatomi]

adrian-bluescuba Wrote:

> a discussion about a safety stop feature and complaints like 5m or 6m and 3min or > 5min is - let me say it like that - really essential
> why not going for a second hand gecko?

Actually there are people who will laugh right into your face simply for using a dive computer in the first place, when runtimes, tables and maybe a bottom timer can do the job (and in their opinion much better).
So, this is just the same as you laughing at people who want a proper (and maybe even configurable) safety stop.
Frankly, to each his own, but IMHO a little tolerance for people with different views is sometimes very helpful.

Oliver

[scubatinoo]

@Oliver: (tu)

[adrian-bluescuba]

@nakatomi
you are right,
but you got me wrong, cause bimbling around at 5m or 6m for 3min or 5min after a ndl dive is anyway a proper not even mandatory safety stop.
iam just grinning about the seriousness how this discussion is running.
as already a couple of guys said, use the stopwatch or switch cf 38. would be fine, but no.
now you got the safety stop feature cf 65. should be perfect, but still not.
HW offers one of the best computers on the market. and this is definetly a computer for advanced diving with its features - agree ?
so, my opinion is (besides bying the frog) mk2 buyers/users should be able to manage a safety stop within 5-6m and 3-5min especially with having cf65
this is what makes me smile.

cheers
adrian

[Smiler1968]

adrian-bluescuba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @nakatomi
> you are right,
> but you got me wrong, cause bimbling around at 5m
> or 6m for 3min or 5min after a ndl dive is anyway
> a proper not even mandatory safety stop.
> iam just grinning about the seriousness how this
> discussion is running.
> as already a couple of guys said, use the
> stopwatch or switch cf 38. would be fine, but no.
>
> now you got the safety stop feature cf 65. should
> be perfect, but still not.
> HW offers one of the best computers on the market.
> and this is definetly a computer for advanced
> diving with its features - agree ?
> so, my opinion is (besides bying the frog) mk2
> buyers/users should be able to manage a safety
> stop within 5-6m and 3-5min especially with having
> cf65
> this is what makes me smile.
>
> cheers
> adrian

I'm glad you're amused. Advanced divers should be able to work out which is their next gas without the computer flashing to let them know.

Of course they do and I'm not suggesting anyone on here can't, but there is still an option for those that do want it to flash. If you don't want a safety stop that's fine, turn it off. What I don't understand is the fierce anti safety stop lobby.

[swissdiving]

Is the Safety Stop now to everyone's satisfaction implemented!?

[smcmullan]

Yeah I've noticed some folks here getting pretty animated i.e. the "fierce anti-whatever lobby" . I think they are a bit deluded as to how much influence they have over actual feature implementation or conduct on this forum for that matter. It may be an open source product but it still seems to me that feature implementation is very tightly controlled by HW so it doesn't really matter how fierce people get.

For my part I have no need for a lot of features. For example:

CF41: Gas mix icons -> OFF
CF42: Show better gas -> OFF
CF49: Show altimeter -> OFF
CF50: Show log-marker -> OFF
CF51: Show stopwatch -> OFF
CF52: Show tissue graph -> OFF
CF53: Show leading tissue -> OFF
CF61: Show pSCR ppO2 -> OFF
CF65: Show safety stop -> OFF
CF66: Show gradient factor in NDL -> OFF

I have no problem with them being there however (very mild concerns about feature bloat like I've seen in many software products) and am happy to comment if I think the feature can be better implemented even though I do not use it.

[Smiler1968]

smcmullan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I've noticed some folks here getting pretty
> animated i.e. the "fierce anti-whatever lobby"
> . I think they are a bit deluded as to how much
> influence they have over actual feature
> implementation or conduct on this forum for that
> matter. It may be an open source product but it
> still seems to me that feature implementation is
> very tightly controlled by HW so it doesn't really
> matter how fierce people get.
>
> For my part I have no need for a lot of features.
> For example:
>
> CF41: Gas mix icons -> OFF
> CF42: Show better gas -> OFF
> CF49: Show altimeter -> OFF
> CF50: Show log-marker -> OFF
> CF51: Show stopwatch -> OFF
> CF52: Show tissue graph -> OFF
> CF53: Show leading tissue -> OFF
> CF61: Show pSCR ppO2 -> OFF
> CF65: Show safety stop -> OFF
> CF66: Show gradient factor in NDL -> OFF
>
> I have no problem with them being there however
> (very mild concerns about feature bloat like I've
> seen in many software products) and am happy to
> comment if I think the feature can be better
> implemented even though I do not use it.


I didn't mean to come across as over animated or deluded. I don't mind admitting it but I am one of those who was quite keen to have a safety stop option. My point was that if you don't want it turn it off. I don't want many of the CCR functions but I don't go onto those threads and ask that they are not implemented. I will just turn them off. I also would like to see the depth run from 3 to 6 metres and so do many others. That I think is why the debate is still ongoing. I have learnt how to change the settings myself so I am very happy.

[scubatinoo]

smcmullan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It may be an open source product but it
> still seems to me that feature implementation is
> very tightly controlled by HW so it doesn't really
> matter how fierce people get.

That's the point. Although the Software is Open Source it still belongs to HW. They decide what happens with the software - at least with the official firmware. And they are responsible for their work.

Open Source doesn't mean that everything can be asked and therefore must be added to the software. Open Source means that we can have a look at HW's work. Not more and not less. If someone is able to programming and compile the firmware - that's possible too due to Open Source. But then this has nothing to do with HW.

So all we can do is discussing and sharing ideas, wishes, likes and dislikes... And this can become endless, as we can see... So please come back to more important topics.

[smcmullan]

@Smiler1968: no, I wasn't thinking of you being animated/deluded. I was agreeing with your comment "What I don't understand is the fierce anti safety stop lobby."

@scubatinoo: almost totally agree but no problem letting people talk about whatever. I skip over 99% of stuff on diving forums ...blah blah blah...its harmless

[swissdiving]

I pose my question again. Has the Safety Stop now been implemented to everyones satisfaction?

[Smiler1968]

swissdiving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I pose my question again. Has the Safety Stop now
> been implemented to everyones satisfaction?



No. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fabulous that HW have listened and implemented it. I think it could be tweaked and stop this debate/thread.

[heinrichsweikamp]

scubatinoo Wrote:
> Open Source doesn't mean that everything can be
> asked and therefore must be added to the software.
> Open Source means that we can have a look at HW's
> work. Not more and not less.

That a quite good description of our approach. Obviously, we don't fulfill any feature request but the feedback (Especially from a bigger group of users) is very important for us. The OSTC already is one of the most versatile computers for technical divers but we try to focus on technical diving features for future.

To keep this forum on topic (This is all about the OSTC dive computer) we'll carefully moderate the threads in the future and will close discussions if there is no real process to the topic.

Examples of allowed non-OSTC topics:
- decompression theory (including safety or "Pyle" stops)
- dive computer hard- and software (including PC-based planing or logging software)

regards,
Matthias

[nakatomi]

swissdiving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I pose my question again. Has the Safety Stop now
> been implemented to everyones satisfaction?

Actually I am extremely happy and very thankful the feature got implemented in the first place. While it is not 100% to my liking "out-of-the-box", I am now once again able to compile my own working images and that´s what I´ll do in the future for a custom and perfect (for me) 3-6m version.

Oliver

[DiverM]

swissdiving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I pose my question again. Has the Safety Stop now
> been implemented to everyones satisfaction?


No.

But that's why I adjusted the stop to start @6m depth and subsequently compiled my own.

Still need to read in on the assembler code to make a 5minute stop possible though... the time value seems to be a 8bit unsigned value, thus limiting the stop timer to 4 minutes 16 seconds.

The latter will be something for the coming winter, too busy diving at the moment B)-

[Smiler1968]

DiverM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> swissdiving Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I pose my question again. Has the Safety Stop
> now
> > been implemented to everyones satisfaction?
>
>
> No.
>
> But that's why I adjusted the stop to start @6m
> depth and subsequently compiled my own.
>
> Still need to read in on the assembler code to
> make a 5minute stop possible though... the time
> value seems to be a 8bit unsigned value, thus
> limiting the stop timer to 4 minutes 16 seconds.
>
> The latter will be something for the coming
> winter, too busy diving at the moment B)-

If you work it out I'd love to pick your brains.

[milkyway]

Hello!

And I have to ask DiverM once more for a compiled modified file with a stop between 6m and 3m (in the German version).

It's only a small thing, but with it the new 2.50 would be perfect.

DiverM: Thanks in advance

CU Oliver

[adrian-bluescuba]

@Matthias

(tu)

best regards
adrian

[DiverM]

milkyway Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello!
>
> And I have to ask DiverM once more for a compiled
> modified file with a stop between 6m and 3m (in
> the German version).
>
> It's only a small thing, but with it the new 2.50
> would be perfect.
>
> DiverM: Thanks in advance
>
> CU Oliver


Can be found here.