PresentationPDF Available

On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part VII: Altitude Test

Authors:

Abstract

Here, in Part VII, we performed an altitude test, i.e. the simulation of diving in a mountain lake. During the previous parts I to VI ([1] to [6] and all the references therein), we observed by some of the dive computer manufacturers deviations from documented algorithms/decompression models with simulated dives on sea-level (SL), whereas Part VII covers a test at reduced ambient pressure of ca. 0.8 Bar, i.e. a mountain lake at a ca. altitude of 2.000 m above SL.
1
On the reliability of
dive computer generated run-times
01.07.2022, Part VII:
Altitude Test
Miri Rosenblat, TAU
Nurit Vered, Technion Haifa
Yael Eisenstein & Albi Salm,
SubMarineConsulting
DOI: t.b.d.
2
On the reliability of dive computer
generated run-times, Part VII:
Altitude Test
Abstract:
Here, in Part VII, we performed an altitude test, i.e. the simulation of diving
in a mountain lake.
During the previous parts I to VI ([1] to [6] and all the references therein), we
observed by some of the dive computer manufacturers deviations from
documented algorithms/decompression models with simulated dives on sea-
level (SL), whereas Part VII covers a test at reduced ambient pressure of ca.
0.8 Bar, i.e. a mountain lake at a ca. altitude of 2.000 m above SL.
Introduction: slides # 3 & 4
Methods: slides # 5 7
Results: slides # 8 14
Discussion & Conclusion: slides # 15 & 16
References: slides # 17 19
Attachment: Historical Perspective, slides # 20 22.
3
Introduction (1):
Scuba diving at altitude, i.e. at reduced ambient pressure,
requires adapted diving-procedures and tables. These procedures & tables
are regularly derived from those at sea-level (SL), that is, at an altitude of
ca. 0 m above SL.
There are many of those procedures available: these differ in the methods of
extrapolation of the maximal allowed or tolerated compartment (tissue-)
inertgas partialpressure from SL, i.e. at Pamb (ambient pressure) of ca. 1 Bar,
to the reduced Pamb at altitude.
The outcome is usually a reduced NDL in comparison to SL procedures resp.
longer stop-times at the various stop-depths and, depending on Pamb, a shift
of the last 2 deco-stop depths from 6 & 3 m to 4 & 2 m, respectively.
One such method is called the „Linear Extrapolation Method” (LEM), used
by Bühlmann, Hahn, and others and is usually implemented in the ZH-L16
type of dive computers.
4
Introduction (2):
However, the most prominent one is the so-called
“Cross Correction“ named after Ellis Royal Cross (1913 2000). It is a
Constant Ratio Translation (CRT), and implemented in the USN, DCIEM
and NOAA diving manuals.
As there are not enough reliable and
reproducible data available, we can presently
not decide which procedure is better / safer.
Thus we decided to compare only the outcomes
from the dive computers with the respective
procedure / table to check, how reliable
these are implemented.
So this is no decision / recommendation
in favor of one method or another.
5
Methods (1):
We simulated our notorious test-profile (42 m bottom depth,
25 min bottom time) at the reduced ambient pressure in the passengers
cabin during various intercontinental flights from Zürich to Tel Aviv with
commercial, civilian air-planes. The measured cabin-pressures were read
by the dive computers after ca. 1.5 h into the flight, that is ca. 60 min after
reaching the final, cruising height of ca. 32.000 feet:
The readings for this topical test were ca. 781 +/- 5 mbar, equivalent to an
approximate altitude of ca. 2.100 to 2.500 m above SL.
6
Methods (2):
The used dive computers were, from left to right:
Scubapro (UWATEC) Galileo „G2“, Hardware: 0.0, Software Version: 1.6
RATIO (Dive System) iX3M DEEP, Software Version: 4.0.81.1 / 016
SHEARWATER PERDIX, Firmware v87 / BT10, Hardware: SA-02A,
Deco Model: DCIEM
Scubapro (UWATEC) ALADIN TEC 2G, Software Version: 40 20 72 73 25
7
Methods (3):
The profile of the simulated test dive was 42 m bottom depth,
25 min bottom time with air as breathing gas and water density set to:
Fresh“. No user adjustable conservativism factors have been used.
These parameters have been fed into the planning mode /
dive simulation interfaces of the computers, with the results
on slides # 8 14.
The results were then compared to the appropriate dive tables
for mountain-lake / altitude diving resp. the procedures for diving
at reduced ambient pressure.
For the Scubapro / UWATEC type of computers and the RATIO
products this is the mountain-lake table ZH-86 from
A. A. Bühlmann [65], pp. 229 235.
For the Shearwater computers with the DCIEM software-option
the procedures are described in the DCIEM Diving Manual [28],
pp.1-29 1-32 and table 5 on p. 1B-59.
8
Results (1):
The displayed pressures / calculated altitudes
(pls. cf. slide # 5) are well within the limited precision of the dive
computers pressure (piezo-)sensors, the daily variations and the
cabin-pressures, announced from the cockpit;
pls. cf. Ref. [7], slides # 2 & 4.
With these readings, the following tables / procedures have to be
used for comparison:
[65], Table 32 for 701 2.500 m above SL on p. 230, with an
adaption of 60 min. + required.
This table yields the following run-times:
stop depth [m] / stop times [min.] TTS [min]
12 9 6 4 2
42 m / 24 min -- 4 4 7 18 36
42 m / 27 min 1 5 5 9 21 44
9
Results (2):
The DCIEM procedures from [28], table 5, 1B-59 require
for the target altitude of 2.100 2.399 m above SL
a depth correction of + 12 m for the planned,
actual diving depth of 42 m @ SL.
Thus the altitude corrected DCIEM run-time yields for
42 + 12 = 54 m on page 1B-16:
stop depth [m] / stop times [min.] TTS [min]
15 12 9 6 3
54 m / 25 min 5 5 7 9 39 65 + 4 =
ca. 70
For this target altitude group (2.100 2.399 m) the stop depths
have to be corrected accordingly, i.e:
15 12 ; 12 9.5 ; 9 7 ; 6 5 ; 3 2.5!
10
Results (3):
DCIEM table: stop depth [m] / stop times [min.] TTS
15 12 9 6 3
54 m / 25 min 5 5 7 9 39 65 + 4
Shearwater PERDIX:
11
Results (4):
ZH-86 table:
stop depth [m] / stop times [min.] TTS [min]
12 9 6 4 2
42 m / 24 min -- 4 4 7 18 36
42 m / 27 min 1 5 5 9 21 44
12
Results (5):
ZH-86 table:
stop depth [m] / stop times [min.] TTS [min]
12 9 6 4 2
42 m / 24 min -- 4 4 7 18 36
42 m / 27 min 1 5 5 9 21 44
RATIO iX3M - 3 5 8 20
13
Results (6):
The DCIEM altitude procedures could be used as well for
creating an NDL („no decompression limit“) table for the target altitude of
2.100 2.399 m above SL. For each planned, actual depth, there is then
the depth correction:
The corrected tables NDL could then
be compared with the NDL planner
tool from the Shearwater Perdix
computer
actual depth [m] depth correction
[m] corrected
depth [m] corrected
NDL [min]
12 + 6 18 50
15 + 6 21 35
18 + 6 24 25
21 + 9 30 15
14
Results (7):
actual depth [m] depth correction
[m] corrected
depth [m] corrected
NDL [min]
24 + 9 33 12
27 + 9 36 10
30 + 9 39 8
33 + 12 45 7
36 + 12 48 6
39 + 12 51 6
42 + 12 54 5
45 + 15 60 5
15
Discussion / Conclusion (1):
Synopsis of results for 42 m / 25 min @ 2.100 2.399 m above SL:
RATIO iX3M DEEP TTS = 20 min (*)
ZH-86 table 42 m / 24‘ TTS = 36 min
ZH-86 table 42 m / 27‘ TTS = 44 min
Scubapro ALADIN TEC 2G @ MB Level = 0: TTS = 48 min
Scubapro Galileo „G2“@ MB Level = 0: TTS = 53 min
PERDIX with DCIEM option TTS = 60 min
DCIEM table 54 m / 25‘ TTS = 70 min
MB Level (= Micro Bubble Level) are proprietary modifications of the
tolerated compartment inertgaspressures, here they are set = 0. This
implies that the original ZH-L16 C values should be used.
(*): despite the used Gradientfaktors, default: GF Hi = GF Lo = 0.93
16
Discussion / Conclusion (2):
The deviation of the Scubapro/ UWATEC computers
using the ZH-L16 C system from the ZH-86 table with proprietary,
undocumented factors are yielding increased TTS than the original tables, for
altitude and as well for SL diving [1]. So both of the computers err, but on the
conservative side.
The Shearwater DCIEM option is close to the original procedure, but with an
error of a slightly decreased TTS. This is reflected as well with the
NDL analysis (pls. cf. slides # 13 & 14), where the Perdix NDL are longer .
Within the limited precision of the dive computers depth sensors, the
agreement between the original tables / procedures is quite sensible. The
deviations fall quickly within the error margins of civilian / recreational
diver behaviour.
The RATIO iX3m DEEP fails completely: the TTS is too short!
The altitude TTS is even shorter than the TTS for the test-profile @ SL:
this is around ca. 30 min, pls.cf. [1]. As this computer constantly fails to
produce sound TTS / run-times, pls. cf. all the Refs. in [8] & Ref. [9],
its usage is strongly discouraged!
17
On the reliability of dive computer
generated run-times, Part VII
References (1):
[1] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (26.07.2021)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part I;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16260.65929
[2] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (11.01.2022)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part II;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11343.41126
[3] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (02.02.2022)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part III;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21973.50405
[4] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (22.02.2022)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part IV;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11469.72169
[5] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (07.02.2022)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part V;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18129.81763
18
On the reliability of dive computer
generated run-times, Part VII
References (2):
[6] Rosenblat M., Vered N., Eisenstein Y., Salm A. (23.02.2022)
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part VI;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36242.32969
[7] Salm, A. (2019) Altitude Diving, the 3rd.
https://www.divetable.info/skripte/Altitude_Diving_III.pdf
[8] Salm, A.: the SNAFU series from 2017 to 2022 @:
the little virtual dive computer museum
https://www.divetable.info/museum_e.htm
[9] https://www.divetable.info/kap16_e.htm
[10] Salm, A. (04/2020) Historical dive tables:
on overview on ca. 110 years of dive tables development
https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32813.03042
19
On the reliability of dive computer
generated run-times, Part VII
References (3):
[28] DCIEM Diving Manual, DCIEM No. 86-R-35 (1992): Part 1 Air Diving
Tables and Procedures; http://www.divetable.eu/p125936.pdf
[65] Albert A. Bühlmann, Ernst B. Völlm (Mitarbeiter), P. Nussberger
(2002) Tauchmedizin, Springer, ISBN 3-540-42979-4
http://www.divetable.eu/BOOKS/65.pdf
[248] Strauss, R.H. (ed.)(1976) Diving Medicine,
Grune & Stratton, Inc., N.Y., ISBN 0-8089-0699-2
20
On the reliability of dive computer
generated run-times, Part VII
Attachment: Historical Perspective
An overview of ca. „110 Years of dive tables developmentyou will find in [10]
@ Researchgate.
Here, we compare with a table for altitude diving, developed by Bühlmann et
al. in 1973, for eg. in [248], pp. 361. Back in these days, divers were divers
and men were still men: the attitude towards DCS has changed since; pls. cf.
the next 2 slides with the SL table and one for 2.001 2.500 m above SL.
As there is no entry for 42 m, we have to take the next deeper level, i.e.:
45 m / 25 min; TTS @ SL: 25 + 4 min
TTS @ altitude: 63 + 4 min
This could be contrasted with the table of TTS from slide # 15.
21
Source: [248], p. 361
22
Source: [248], p. 365
... An outline of these procedures, along with a comparison of published, printed altitude tables is described in [1]. ...
Presentation
Full-text available
Here, in Part IX, we performed an extended altitude test with the highly topical SCUBAPRO / Uwatec mix-gas dive computer Galileo 2 TEK / „G2 TEK“ along the Galileo G2 with new firmware and a SHEARWATER PERDIX with the DCIEM software-option. This extended test entails simulated dives at a ca. altitude of 2.200 m above SL during 10 min., 1 h and 2 h adaption phases to the reduced ambient pressures.
Presentation
Full-text available
Here, in Part X, we offer our conciliatory proposal of a performance benchmark for diver-carried computers, as these devices are usually sold as “black boxes”, i.e.: the end-user, that is: the diver, is kept completely in the dark concerning the safety/security performance of his/her equipment. This yields also for desktop decompression software. As well dive computers and decompression software offer deviations from proven algorithms/dive tables which go unnoticed by the divers resp. are undocumented from the side of the diving-equipment manufacturers.
Presentation
Full-text available
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part VIII: G2 TEK Abstract: Here, in Part VIII, we performed some basic comparisons with the highly topical SCUBAPRO / Uwatec mix-gas dive computer Galileo 2 TEK / G2 TEK along the SHEARWATER PERDIX. Both have been set to a standard perfusion model ZH-L 16 without and as well with gradient factors.
Presentation
Full-text available
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, Part VI: Error Propagation Abstract: Here, in Part VI, we only point out to the law of error propagation. During the previous 5 parts ([1] to [5] and all the references therein), we observed by some of the dive computer manufacturers deviations from documented algorithms/decompression models. Additionally to these software-driven variations are those, driven by hardware and the statistical errors by measuring ambient pressure, time, temperature and the inertgas contents of the breathed gas-mix.
Presentation
Full-text available
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times (22.02.2022) Part IV Here, in Part IV, we checked the DCIEM implementation of one SHEARWATER® dive computer with the original source, the air diving table from the DCIEM Diving Manual [1] along selected table entries. Conclusion: the manufacturers claims on using the DCIEM model could be verified only partially, since deviations with longer bottom times surfaced.
Presentation
Full-text available
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times: Part III Here, in Part III, we checked 3 simple run-times with bottom depth 18 m / 60 min, 33 m / 60 min & 51 m / 30 min bottom times on air with the RATIO iX3M DEEP from Dive System® in comparison with the original source, the ZH-86 from A.A. Bühlmann [2] and DIVE Version 3_11 [1] & [3]. Conclusion: the manufacturers claims on using the ZH-L16B set of coefficients with a certain set of pre-defined gradient factors could not be verified.
Presentation
Full-text available
On the reliability of dive computer generated run-times, 11.01.2022, Part II Abstract: Here, in Part II, we checked a simple run-time (bottom depth 45 m / bottom time 30 min on air) with the 3 different dive computers in comparison with the original source, the ZH-86 from A.A. Bühlmann and two free-ware desktop deco-programs. Results: there is substantial variation in the TTS: these variations could not be substantiated with the dive computer manufacturers claims. The original source claims to use a „safety sur-charge“: this as well could not be verified for the choosen particular dive schedule here.
Presentation
Full-text available
Abstract: in Part I we checked a simple run-time for a dive with: @bottom depth 42 m / bottom time 25 min. with 2 breathing gases (air & Trimix21/50) with the Scubapro/UWATEC G2 computer with various firmware releases from 2017 up to now (08 / 2021). Methods: pls. cf. slides # 3 to 11, and References [1], [2] & [4], [5] Results: there is variation in the TTS from 10 % up to 21 %, depending on breathing gas and user set conservativism Discussion / Recommendations: pls. cf. slide #12 & 13
Presentation
Full-text available
"Historical Divetables" gives an overview of ca. 110 years of dive tables development, tests and the results: the printed tables. There are copies & extracts of 24 tables and 2 procedures. "Historische Tauchtabellen" gibt einen Überblick über ca. 110 Jahre Entwicklung, Test und die Ergebnisse, die gedruckten Tabellen. Es gibt 24 Tabellen, komplett oder als Auszug sowie 2 historische Prozeduren.
Altitude Diving, the 3rd
  • A Salm
Salm, A. (2019) Altitude Diving, the 3rd. https://www.divetable.info/skripte/Altitude_Diving_III.pdf