forum.heinrichsweikamp.com

Hi Ralph,


thanks for the explanations and for the attempt to bring some reasoning based on deco theory into the discussion.I think it's being very instructive and it makes sense.

Imagine a square dive with its maximums established: max. depth, max. bottom time and turn press. This is the pre-dive plan A. Additionally, you carry a contingency plan B,usually +3' bottom time and +3 m. depth.

If nothing happens, you dive the pre-dive plan A.

If for any reason, you can not follow the plan A established, you can follow the plan that the computer is recalculating every couple of seconds.

If, in addition, the computer also fails, you have the contingency plan B.


Anyway, I still do not see the relationship that it has with the subject beginning of the topic "gas change suggestion".

BR

Hi mobu,

thanks for the very good summery on the suggested plan & computer use. As the computer will be in the role of continiously providing a valid backup plan in case the dive runs other than planned, in my optinion the calculated backup plan should be conservative on resources, i.e. total time to surface which stands in close relation with gas needs. As such, it shut not place stops at depth where stops are not required as of Bühlmann and GF settings, when the computer claims to be Bühlmann + GF driven.

Sure, even if in computer-controlled mode due to diversion from plan A, but still within the frame of plan B, one can take extra turns in adding further and/or longer than indicated stops, as the OSTC will constantly update the deco calculations and warn in case such extras will start to take more resources than carried later in the dive. It's quite a freedom that's given when the computer keeps one to know the score throughout the whole dive in this way.

BR
Ralph