Gue deco model changed?

[robimi]

Hi Friends,
in the last Standards and procedures (Publicly published) GUE have changed their training limits going from VPM+2 or ZHL20/85 to ZHL20/85 only.
I got an answer that this is due to the organisations decision to go from deep to shallow stops.
But...
20/85 is longer then Vpm+2 on the deep stops as well as longer on the shallow ones..so "going from deep to shallow" is apparently half the explanation for the change.

Is anyone have better explanation?
Any other organisations going officially that path? (I heard general talks about ditching deep stops, but 20/85 still has plenty, Im TDI trimix and didn't get any Memo..)

[Benderr]

[nakatomi]

I'm sure Ross Hemingway can clear this misunderstanding up...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Nitrogenius]

I'm sure Ross Hemingway can clear this misunderstanding up...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

nice

[bamafan]

[rossh]

@robimi

As you point out, it's an illogical explanation. The 20/x part is deeper than any form of a VPM-B plan would make. Typically, VPM-B will start at around 66-68% of max depth.

While, the GF 20/x will be a lot more varied (deeper), because the simplistic linear add hoc method of GF cannot provide consistency. It also why GF has such an exaggerated and unnecessary extended shallow end time.

[robimi]

@robimi

As you point out, it's an illogical explanation. The 20/x part is deeper than any form of a VPM-B plan would make. Typically, VPM-B will start at around 66-68% of max depth.

While, the GF 20/x will be a lot more varied (deeper), because the simplistic linear add hoc method of GF cannot provide consistency. It also why GF has such an exaggerated and unnecessary extended shallow end time.

Thanx Ross,
So i guess we still need a better explenation fir tge change...

[TimTimer]

Hi everybody,


this YouTube Video should answer all your questions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY61E49lyos


regards from Germany


Tim

[rossh]

Hi everybody,


this YouTube Video should answer all your questions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY61E49lyos


regards from Germany


Tim

He uses a fake model concept, plainly wrong descriptions of on/off gassing, and implies changes and differences that simply do not occur. If he used real math, real models and real numbers, his arguments fall apart.....

And in the end, his proposal is to use something that is still deep (much deeper than original ZHL), and has all the same slow on gas conditions.

Most hypocritical of all, the suggested 50/70 is heading directly towards the failed A2 Nedu profile that started this whole phony and anti VPM-B argument.

[data2]

Can we not get the whole Mitchell/rossh debate here as well as every other forum? I am more interested in the gue reasoning. (I think a few more than expected got bent on coming, but I don't know numbers)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk