On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:02:06PM +0100, Robert Helling wrote: > Thomas, > > of course I agree (otherwise we would’t propose that project) and many of our > users ask for such a thing (as other deco software offers it). > > As far as practical use is concerned, however, I doubt that it would make so > much of a difference: I believe that Buehlmann with gradient factors offers > already pretty much all of the flexibility (in its two parameters) to fit > pretty much any deco model even for the types of dives the usual tec diver > does within the error bars of physiological uncertainty. I.e. you can already > tune your gradient factors to make it mimic any reasonable bubble based deco > schedule within the appropriate uncertainty. > > Let me once more point out my pamphlet (in German) about this: > http://euve10195.vserver.de/~robert/dekotheorie.pdf > <http://euve10195.vserver.de/~robert/dekotheorie.pdf>
One of the things that crack me up about the implementations of bubble algorithms that I have seen so far is that they all have these unexplained constants that are thrown in - and those constants have been carefully chosen to make the profiles generated by the bubble algorithms match the Buehlmann profiles... Yay progress :-) /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
