Talk:Ratio decompression

I would like to mention the article http://gps-tsc.upc.es/comm/jriba/personal_data_archivos/ratiodeco_riba_en.pdf

which I think can be of utility for reference.

Regards,

Jaume —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.51.187 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, Jaume. I see there's more of your scuba-related information at:

Riba, Jaume. "Personal works about diving". University of Catalunya. Retrieved 2009-01-27.

Have you considered registering an account with Wikipedia? If you were willing to share your writing with the rest of the world, there are a lot of articles here that would benefit from your input. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yor suggestion, I appreciate, and I will try to do my best. Regards. Enhanho (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edits of 11 March 2010[edit]

I've restored the version prior to the six edits made today because many of them are problematic:

"shaped" instead of "calculated" - ratio decompression is a calculation.
Methodology is not the appropriate section to discuss its use as a replacement for dive tables.
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so addressing the reader – e.g. "Remember ratio deco is ...", "Do not conduct.." – is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Removing the mention of safety record loses some of the context of Limitations.
It is dubious to claim that "many divers now choose to use it as tool ... to replace a dive computer or printed tables".
"This means that a diver should have the skills and capacity required for technical diving. This can only be acquired through training. It also requires that gas mixtures giving a narcotic depth beyond 30m be used" is both inaccurate and denies the ability of divers to acquire skills and capability through experience.
All dives are decompression dives, so replacing deep diving with decompresion diving is mistaken, as well as poor spelling.

Several other changes of emphasis or meaning were made with no reason given. Although some of these may be useful additions, they should not be made at the expense of other information previously present. The uncertainty is due to the lack of sources for much of the article and finding good sources should be the first priority in improving this article. --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are number of elements of this article that are incorrect, outdated and unsafe. Please remove the Team Fox turd link as we do not wish be associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.5.145 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to remove an external link to a blog as Wikipedia normally discourages such links. You must understand that this is a Wikipedia article and "we" don't own it, so there's no question of "you" being associated with any link or content.

As for your assertion that elements are incorrect, outdated and unsafe, please feel free to discuss them. Editors here are quite happy to discuss the accuracy or relevance of any information in the article.

Again, I have issues with your last edits:

"all diving algorithms are just models" is an over-simplification; a number of tables used by USN are probabilistic and don't model anything - they simply use profiles that have an empirical rate of DCS which USN finds acceptable.
"While Ratio Decompression is not a complete decompression model, its most resemble those of Bühlmann alogrithm, and the Varying Permeability Model algorithm, with emphasis on the use of deep stops and gradient factors." (1) ratio decompression is a means of estimating decompression obligation, not a model; (2) there seems to be a word missing after "its"; (3) there is no emphasis in ratio deco on gradient factors - it relies simply on making the first stop at 80% of maximum experienced pressure.
"ratio deco will allow a diver dynamically take a total decompression obligation for a given dive and create a profile which makes better use the most effective parts of the decompression profile and comparatively less time at the less effective stops" (1) I assume the word "to" is missing from before "dynamically"; (2) "dynamically" is the sort of fluff used in advertising and isn't needed here; (3) "better use of the most effective parts" - better than what? and most effective for what? if you want to most effectively minimise bubble formation, than VPM does a better job; if you want to maximise off-gassing then Bühlmann maximises the oxygen window. Different algorithms provide a different trade-off between minimising bubbles and maximising off-gassing, and ratio deco is a coarse approximation to either.

You seem to know about ratio deco, and I'd prefer to work with you to improve the article, but it would be helpful if you can cite some sources, particularly when there is an area of disagreement. I haven't bothered to revert the errors above, since I'm hoping we can agree on a better wording in each case. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem, It would be nice to get a nice 'clean' definition, well as far as it is possible. I will keep any amendments on this page over the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.106.213 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just chipping in: I wrote the original article. I don't pretend to be an expert of ratio deco, but I tried to summarise the basic tenets as best I could. I'd certainly welcome some more informed expertise. It would also be very nice if someone had access to UTD/GUE manuals to put some reliable citations in (I have some of their manuals, but none which explain RD). --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active UTD technical/trimix instructor who teaches Ratio Deco Techniques as part of my instructional curriculum. I would be happy, with some assistance to help solidify this article. It contains some misconceptions and some incomplete information, through no fault of the original author as the available public information is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure George, I'll offer any assistance I can. I understand ratio deco, but can't find the reliable sources to make any headway with the article here. Any sources you may have access to would be great to use. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speak to Andrew about placing select portions of the materials in the public domain to make them easily to reference. I am in FL next week and can ask a couple of the WKPP guys if they are willing to share any referenceable development history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks George. A couple of thoughts occur to me:

We don't have to have materials placed in the public domain. Have a look at the CC-BY-SA licence that we use on Wikipedia. The author retains copyright, but allows others to re-use the material, on the condition that they attribute it.
My wiki-friend Gene Hobbs is part of the Rubicon Foundation and has worked with the WKPP/GUE folks to create archives. We could possibly impose on him to host relevant material as well as development history there, as the Rubicon Research Repository is acknowledged as meeting our requirements for reliability.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --RexxS (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

Ratio Deco as defined by GUE only works up to a specific maximum deco time. After that it becomes too aggressive. This is clearly stated in the course materials I have, but I have no other reference for it. For Tech1 type deco, that is with the set point of 45m, a maximum decompression time of 45 minutes is mentioned.--Data2 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ratio decompression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081024053903/http://www.iantd.com/rebreather/phys.html to http://www.iantd.com/rebreather/phys.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]