BSAC'88 Tables [Archive] - BSAC Scuba Diving Forums

Tom Hennessy

18-11-2004, 23:40

Can someone please post a new message on the 'In Depth' Forum so as to shove the topic, 88 Tables - Slab tables down a bit, preferably into oblivion?

It has been sitting at the top of the forum for over 6 weeks and, for me, it is now well past its read by date given that, in my opinion, it is mostly mega-muddled, apart from a few wise contributions.

You may wonder why I am breaking my self-imposed silence on decompression table/theory matters after 16 years since the BSAC'88 Tables appeared?.

Well, we now have deep (Pyle) stops (well-known by the RN deep Trials team of the 1950-60s, which they called defizzing stops, but the procedure was not adopted because of practical (mine-disposal) reasons at that time), super-slow ascents (considered, but deemed impractical in open water and untethered dives) and there was always the risk of Poxtox and Noxtox (my coined words for pulmonary and neurological oxygen toxicity). Now, we have special interest forums which abound with decometer user-experts, who have become addicted to a decometer programmer's (usually nerdish) software code!

And some of you want to know why I do not approve of using EAD principles on any tabulated tables, including the 88'Tables .... Watch this space....

Perhaps it is time to tap the collective wisdom of those divers who did either deep saturation or non-saturation diving (now called technical diving) in a commercial or military environment a few decades ago. They now have their pensions and have nothing to lose if they could be persuaded to contribute their experiences, along with those of the very few individuals who designed their trial tables!

Tom Hennessy BSAC'88 Tables designer

David Applin

19-11-2004, 00:37

Wow !

so nothings new in diving then?

Ps - just trying to get rid of the thread to :-)

Can someone please post a new message on the 'In Depth' Forum so as to shove the topic, 88 Tables - Slab tables down a bit, preferably into oblivion?

It has been sitting at the top of the forum for over 6 weeks and, for me, it is now well past its read by date given that, in my opinion, it is mostly mega-muddled, apart from a few wise contributions.

You may wonder why I am breaking my self-imposed silence on decompression table/theory matters after 16 years since the BSAC'88 Tables appeared?.

Well, we now have deep (Pyle) stops (well-known by the RN deep Trials team of the 1950-60s, which they called defizzing stops, but the procedure was not adopted because of practical (mine-disposal) reasons at that time), super-slow ascents (considered, but deemed impractical in open water and untethered dives) and there was always the risk of Poxtox and Noxtox (my coined words for pulmonary and neurological oxygen toxicity). Now, we have special interest forums which abound with decometer user-experts, who have become addicted to a decometer programmer's (usually nerdish) software code!

And some of you want to know why I do not approve of using EAD principles on any tabulated tables, including the 88'Tables .... Watch this space....

Perhaps it is time to tap the collective wisdom of those divers who did either deep saturation or non-saturation diving (now called technical diving) in a commercial or military environment a few decades ago. They now have their pensions and have nothing to lose if they could be persuaded to contribute their experiences, along with those of the very few individuals who designed their trial tables!

Tom Hennessy BSAC'88 Tables designer

janos

19-11-2004, 08:05

Can someone please post a new message on the 'In Depth' Forum so as to shove the topic, 88 Tables - Slab tables down a bit, preferably into oblivion?

So... Anyone going diving this weekend?

Laters,
Janos

Theone

19-11-2004, 12:09

Hum.... I think the creator is feeling a bit defensive!!

Tom

Open decussion about the tables is bound to happen and should be actually encouraged. I think people wanting to know more about the tables they are using, can only be a good thing.

I realise that as it is your work that is being challenged you will want to offer a defense but labeling people "Nerdish" is unecessary.

I thought this forum was for open and honest debate, catorgorising people in an unflattering maner, is not in my opinion, in the sprit of the forum.

Theone

Tony Jay

19-11-2004, 13:30

Theone

Tom appeared to write " ..programmer's (usually nerdish) software code! "

this is not the same as

" labeling people "Nerdish" " (in my opinion)

Tony

(nerdish decompression software author for the Palm Pilot ;-) )

Tom Hennessy

19-11-2004, 17:22

Theone,
Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.

Tom Hennessy

David Walker

19-11-2004, 18:38

Tom Hennessy BSAC'88 Tables designer

I have this strange urge to ask a very intelligent question... I just can't think of any :O(

Oh, actually, the "watch this space...." bit - does that mean there's an(other) new deco theory on its way? Or some clever new tables even? Or am I reading far too much into this... :o\

David

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

19-11-2004, 21:55

Theone,
Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.

That's a great pity IMHO Tom as you have an awful lot to offer divers, such as me, who have "lost faith" somewhat with the BSAC-88 tables. The silence only fuels the doubt, if reasons are not justified then the doubt persists.

Ignore Theone for what it is, forum noise. I did look at it carefully but decided that freedom-of-speech prevailed on this occasion and there was nothing that warranted the deletion of the post, certainly no more than would have caused me to remove the potentially offensive remark in your original post.

So please feel free to post away Tom, I never let these forums degenerate into a slanging match or insults, there are an awful lot of people who would like to hear your expert views on this.

Regards

Keith L
BSAC Anorak In Chief
Programming Nerd (not deco software)

Andy Wade

19-11-2004, 21:57

Theone,
Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.

I read your first post with great interest Tom.
Personally I'd really like to hear lots more about what you've posted, especially the "watch this space" bit.

Please, please, please, people.
Can we try not to turn this into a huge nit picking exercise about the meaning of each and every flipping word posted?
Tom posts for the first time ever on the forum and gets slagged off for one phrase, which I didn't read as particularly offensive anyway.
Nice one, thats the way to encourage free and open debate....
Not.

We now have the perfect chance to find out the answers to all those questions that have been raised about BSAC 88 tables over the years, now Tom is probably considering another 16 year break.

I agree with you Tom, most of the deep deco stuff is indeed pretty nerdy - certainly to the average diver anyway.

I just use tables and attempt to understand the parts that I think may apply to me.
So far I haven't been killed or bent (as far as I know), so I must be doing something right.

.

Andrew Elliott

21-11-2004, 00:55

Tom 16 years is far too long to impose a self-restriction on yourself. It is important that people know how and why they can dive safe thanks to you and others in your field and why this is possible, all the info that can be passed along should be in order to keep people safe. Instead of the bickering and sniping we, as divers should support what is being done to make our diving safe.

I agree with Andy this is the first time that Tom has posted and gets slated for it, shame on you?

I for one think that we need contributions that help make a difference not find ways of putting down those with something valid to say.

Andy

Mike Rowley

21-11-2004, 13:29

Tom
I for one would be most interested in your reasons for not approving of EAD with tabulated tables.

I am not interested in casting abuse in your direction not do I feel the presumption to put up arguments in a subject that you have undoubted expertise. However, it would be very informative to those of us who do not have your experience and knowledge to have the benefit of your reasoning.

Mike

And some of you want to know why I do not approve of using EAD principles on any tabulated tables, including the 88'Tables .... Watch this space....

Khaled Alwassia

22-11-2004, 07:38

Dear Mr. Hennessy,
Thank you for posting a reply on the subjet. I accept that most posts to my original question have been missing the point and that the topic has dragged on far to long.

Unfortuneately I am a corius person, when it come to scuba diving, but i have not had the benefit of attending an university. Due to that lack of understanding advanced Mathematics and Physics i have problems understanding the scientific explanations found in most of the references, especially the books.

Without wanting to bother you to much could you be so kind to let me know a reference which would exlaing what a slab table is and if in fact the BSAC 88 table is a slab table.

I have recieved several contradicting messages here on the forum as well as in face to face discussions with the NI which brought up the term in the first place.

I appologize for the people which have posted replys missing the point.

Hoping that you could either post a reply on this board or contact me via email at <a href="mailto:kalwassia@hha.com.sa">kalwassia@hha.com.sa</a>

Many thanks for your time.

Respectfully

Khaled Alwassia

jens hucke

22-11-2004, 10:43

...as a related query, I am guessing that at the time of the release of the tables, presentations were made at DOC, and that some articles were published in the NDC bulletin as to how to increase safety with regards to table use, as well as how to apply multi level dive profile planning to the tables, and apparently how to deal with bodged ascends, or repetitive ascends ( as in training drills for lifts etc...)

As many of us weren't around to read this if and when they came out, or weren't eligible for DOC or the Bulletin, these snippets of info ( should they exist) have developped an oral tradition of their own( which is bound to lead to mistakes, missunderstandings and myths).
Could we not have an official BSAC web page with all the official information ever published on the tables, as well as a short history and background of their development?

From an Instructional point of view with regards to the tables we have the Must Know ( which is in the lectures) the Should Know ( which is verbal and mostely uncertain and ignored because we rely on computers instead) and the Could Know ( which is where most of the missinformation and myths abound). All the information surely must be available somewhere, but maybe needs to be collected in one easy to find and access section. What do you think?

If this info exists, maybe a volunteer could spend a day at HQ collecting all past publications on the subject and edit a web page? ( glups, always scary to ask for volunteers!?)

regards
jens

Vic

22-11-2004, 11:36

I'm not Tom Hennessy, but I can answer at least one of your points...

> Without wanting to bother you to much could you be so kind to
> let me know a reference which would exlaing what a slab table

There's a great explanation of slab tables in Lippmann's "Deeper into Diving". Despite its age and at least one significant error, this book is really very good, and I recommend a read.

> is and if in fact the BSAC 88 table is a slab table.

The BSAC '88 tables are *not* based on a slab model.

This is Lippmann's big cockup; he thought (assumed?) that the BSAC '88s were a derivative of the RNPL tables that preceded them. He was wrong.

Unfortunately, many people have read Lippmann, and the work is generally quite authoritative, so the misinformation has spread (I used to spread it myself - until Tom Hennessy corrected me).

> I have recieved several contradicting messages here on the
> forum as well as in face to face discussions with the NI which
> brought up the term in the first place.

If this NI is insisting that the '88 tables are based on a slab model, then he's repeating Lippmann's mistake. But it is a mistake.

HTH

Vic.

webmaster

24-11-2004, 08:59

I don't know why I kept out of this discussion so long, but here are my thoughts.

...as a related query, I am guessing that at the time of the release of the tables, presentations were made at DOC,

I had the job of presenting the BSAC'88 Tables to the Diving Officers of the BSAC at the DOC after working with Tom and other members of the Working Party on their format, rules for use etc. These tables were revolutionary at the time as they were the first ever Sport Diving decompression tables, taking into account how and why sport divers went diving. Everything that went before was a military table or a pretty straight derivative. This was also the first time a table had given a really easy way to look up the requirements for consecutive dives without the need for calculations.
Another major advantage was that people could be taught how to use them, with a reasonable degree of success. No other dive training agency (or club) in the world had their own tables, designed for their specific needs. We could never have done it without Tom.

and that some articles were published in the NDC bulletin as to how to increase safety with regards to table use, as well as how to apply multi level dive profile planning to the tables, and apparently how to deal with bodged ascends, or repetitive ascends ( as in training drills for lifts etc...)

As many of us weren't around to read this if and when they came out, or weren't eligible for DOC or the Bulletin, these snippets of info ( should they exist) have developped an oral tradition of their own( which is bound to lead to mistakes, missunderstandings and myths).

The myths department is somebody else's responsibility. Surely the BSAC's Diving Manuals are the reference point for information and instructions on how to use these tables. These instructions still apply and should be followed by those divers using the tables. Dive computer users seem willing to put their faith in the models adopted by the computer designers with far less soul searching. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they are wrong in doing so, but if we can accept that both computers and tables have their place in the diving community then perhaps we should level the playing field.

Could we not have an official BSAC web page with all the official information ever published on the tables, as well as a short history and background of their development?

From an Instructional point of view with regards to the tables we have the Must Know ( which is in the lectures) the Should Know ( which is verbal and mostely uncertain and ignored because we rely on computers instead) and the Could Know ( which is where most of the missinformation and myths abound). All the information surely must be available somewhere, but maybe needs to be collected in one easy to find and access section. What do you think?

The '88 Tables were first mentioned at DOC'85, with a report on the project appearing in the January 1986 NDC Bulletin. Tom has presented papers on his work on several occasions. I wonder if he would like to offer these items for web access?

Mike
NI1

If this info exists, maybe a volunteer could spend a day at HQ collecting all past publications on the subject and edit a web page? ( glups, always scary to ask for volunteers!?)

regards
jens

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

24-11-2004, 09:39

The '88 Tables were first mentioned at DOC'85, with a report on the project appearing in the January 1986 NDC Bulletin. Tom has presented papers on his work on several occasions. I wonder if he would like to offer these items for web access?

Thanks for the background Mike - and yes please, if Tom wouldn't mind those papers being published we would love to have them on the web site!

Keith L

gordon henderson

25-11-2004, 09:05

Well, we now have deep (Pyle) stops (well-known by the RN deep Trials team of the 1950-60s, which they called defizzing stops, but the procedure was not adopted because of practical (mine-disposal) reasons at that time), super-slow ascents (considered, but deemed impractical in open water and untethered dives) and there was always the risk of Poxtox and Noxtox (my coined words for pulmonary and neurological oxygen toxicity). Now, we have special interest forums which abound with decometer user-experts, who have become addicted to a decometer programmer's (usually nerdish) software code!

Hey - I resemble that remark!

Actually, I'd rather be called a geek than a nerd, but whatever :)

And some of you want to know why I do not approve of using EAD principles on any tabulated tables, including the 88'Tables .... Watch this space....

Watching...

Perhaps it is time to tap the collective wisdom of those divers who did either deep saturation or non-saturation diving (now called technical diving) in a commercial or military environment a few decades ago. They now have their pensions and have nothing to lose if they could be persuaded to contribute their experiences, along with those of the very few individuals who designed their trial tables!

Great idea.

One of the things I do like about printed tables (and the '88's in particular) is their ease of use for repetitive dives. It's one thing I've struggled with in DDPLAN - unless you sit down and basically do it by hand, there isn't a good way to produce repetitive tables. Single profile dives and repeats, yes, (as long as you assume the maths won't kill you), but tables are another matter. The 88 tables (and to a lesser extent the published IANTD Buhlmann ones) have a mechanism to let you work out your profile for the 2nd (and more dives) with relative ease.

The table addition was the first major change that the early DDPLAN users asked for, so in some respects, tables are still in-fashion!

Anyway, as someone once said: Diving tables are like dining tables. Go too close to the edge and you'll fall off...

Gordon (Not a scientist, just a geek programmer)

David Walker

25-11-2004, 09:34

but tables are another matter. The 88 tables (and to a lesser extent the published IANTD Buhlmann ones) have a mechanism to let you work out your profile for the 2nd (and more dives) with relative ease.

But the BSAC tables do say that they shouldn't be used for I think more than 2 dives per day (going from memory, don't have any tables to hand...) and so although you may be able to work out the dives on the tables, it doesn't necessarily follow that they will be 'safe' (in which case why use tables anyway?)

I'd have to find some tables to check that, but fairly sure it says something like that.

David

iainmsmith

25-11-2004, 10:30

:=but tables are another matter. The 88 tables (and to a lesser extent the published IANTD Buhlmann ones) have a mechanism to let you work out your profile for the 2nd (and more dives) with relative ease.

But the BSAC tables do say that they shouldn't be used for I think more than 2 dives per day (going from memory, don't have any tables to hand...) and so although you may be able to work out the dives on the tables, it doesn't necessarily follow that they will be 'safe' (in which case why use tables anyway?)

I'd have to find some tables to check that, but fairly sure it says something like that.

There's a recommended maximum of three dives per day.

Iain

alunharford

27-11-2004, 03:38

Theone,
Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.

This reaction may have something to do with your accusation that people are writing safety-critical code in a "nerdish" manner - ie. poorly documented with little prospect of anybody else being able to understand what it does - ie. dangerous code that is likely to get people killed.

Alun Harford
"Nerdish" Computer Scientist

iainmsmith

28-11-2004, 19:22

:=Theone,
:=Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.

This reaction may have something to do with your accusation that people are writing safety-critical code in a "nerdish" manner - ie. poorly documented with little prospect of anybody else being able to understand what it does - ie. dangerous code that is likely to get people killed.

Alun Harford
"Nerdish" Computer Scientist

Well done, Alun. That's just how to encourage the '88 Table's creator to give out more information as to the thinking behind them. Not.

Everything you said had already been said and commented on. What need was there for you to add your comments?

You keep doing this on a variety of fora - if you've nothing constructive to add, then keep quiet! We might learn something if you do. So might you.

Iain

Andy Wade

28-11-2004, 19:36

:=:=Theone,
:=:=Your reaction to my post demonstrates all too well the reason why I have not posted to this forum hitherto. Thanks, Tony Jay.
:=
:=This reaction may have something to do with your accusation that people are writing safety-critical code in a "nerdish" manner - ie. poorly documented with little prospect of anybody else being able to understand what it does - ie. dangerous code that is likely to get people killed.
:=
:=Alun Harford
:="Nerdish" Computer Scientist

Well done, Alun. That's just how to encourage the '88 Table's creator to give out more information as to the thinking behind them. Not.

Everything you said had already been said and commented on. What need was there for you to add your comments?

You keep doing this on a variety of fora - if you've nothing constructive to add, then keep quiet! We might learn something if you do. So might you.

Iain, you beat me to it.
Well said.

.

Mike Rowley

29-11-2004, 14:05

iainmsmith

29-11-2004, 14:07

Even I find myself in agreement with you on this Iain.

Mike

Is that a first? :-)

Iain

Mike Rowley

29-11-2004, 15:57

Probably but I'm making up for it elsewhere!

Mike

:=Even I find myself in agreement with you on this Iain.
:=
:=Mike

Is that a first? :-)

Iain

david lisk

03-12-2004, 10:15

Mike Rowley

07-12-2004, 10:47

And some of you want to know why I do not approve of using EAD principles on any tabulated tables, including the 88'Tables .... Watch this space....

Tom,

I, and I am sure others have been watching this space. Over to you Tom.

We could be watching this space for another 16 years by the look of things.

Maybe its like a London Bus, you wait 16 years and then a really angry red one comes along!

Mike

Steve Walker

08-12-2004, 18:15

Tom (if you can bear to still be looking in on the thread)
First rule of internet forums "don't feed the Trolls!" A troll being someone who likes to be contentious just for the sake of being contentious.

1) Look at "Theone"s profile, one post and it's contentious

2) Put "Theone" into Google and what is top of the list?
A Russian website which is something to do with "nerdy" computer stuff <a href="http://www.theone.ru/" >http://www.theone.ru/</a>

3) The possible reason for our Troll's odd name? insert a space and you get "The One" which any sci-fi film fan will tell you is the name of a "nerdy" computer programmer self-styled anarchist/messiah aka Neo aka Mr Anderson from the film "The Matrix"

Conclusion - our Troll is a nerdy computery person objecting to being labelled a nerd

Tom, don't be churlishly discouraged by one troll, there's plenty of folk interested in what you have to say

Regards
Steve W (full time science nerd/geek/whatever/sticks & stones)

Philip Smith

08-12-2004, 19:06

1) Look at "Theone"s profile, one post and it's contentious

Judging by the other responses, I hold a minority view on this, but I thought Theone's post was a fairly polite and reasonable request for constructive and open discussion.

Phil S

Andy Wade

08-12-2004, 20:17

:=1) Look at "Theone"s profile, one post and it's contentious

Judging by the other responses, I hold a minority view on this, but I thought Theone's post was a fairly polite and reasonable request for constructive and open discussion.

Well I think we would have got that anyway from Tom, had we just asked a sensible question. Theone could have just asked Tom about EAD instead of having a go, however lightly it was intended.
Look at the result. A lot of people are now very disappointed at not being able to have a discussion with Tom Hennessy, myself included. Then Alun Harford (whoever he is) opens his big gob and puts the final nail in the coffin of the potential discussion.
My Grandmother used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." She was right.

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

08-12-2004, 21:42

Another explanation could be that is is an excuse rather than a reason Andy. Detailed explanations of the BSAC-88 tables have been sadly lacking for far too long (see Mike's post), I certainly will not be blaming forums members if this silence continues.

As the forum moderator I let all of these post go, I saw no reason to do otherwise. Please note that it was Tom himself who made the original reference to nerdish programmers. To take umbrage when somebody picked him up on it is rather tenuous to say the least.

On behalf of our members I once again request that Tom shares with us the benefits of his immense knowledge as he indicated that he would.

Keith L

Andy Wade

09-12-2004, 00:26

Mike Rowley

09-12-2004, 14:59

On behalf of our members I once again request that Tom shares with us the benefits of his immense knowledge as he indicated that he would.

Keith L

I would very much echo that Keith.

Mike

alunharford

09-12-2004, 17:52

Then Alun Harford (whoever he is) opens his big gob and puts the final nail in the coffin of the potential discussion.
My Grandmother used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." She was right.

Well I'm sorry, but when some **** comes along and starts describing safety-critical code as nerdish (ie. dangerous) without the slightest understanding of computer science, and presumably never having looked at the code, then said **** is likely to get a hostile response.
The way for the BSAC to get more information about its tables is to switch tables to a set where the information is avaliable.

Alun Harford

(Reluctantly self-obliterated some words to make this more... family-friendly)

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

09-12-2004, 18:48

Your are VERY close to the limit there Alun. It stops here. I hope that I have made myslef clear. To others - please do not feed the trolls.

K

Andy Wade

09-12-2004, 18:59

:=Then Alun Harford (whoever he is) opens his big gob and puts the final nail in the coffin of the potential discussion.
:=My Grandmother used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." She was right.

Well I'm sorry, but when some **** comes along and starts describing safety-critical code as nerdish (ie. dangerous) without the slightest understanding of computer science, and presumably never having looked at the code, then said **** is likely to get a hostile response.
The way for the BSAC to get more information about its tables is to switch tables to a set where the information is avaliable.

Alun Harford

(Reluctantly self-obliterated some words to make this more... family-friendly)

Alun, if you look up the term 'nerd', it doesn't mean that the person described is an idiot, quite the reverse. It actually describes someone who is so very accomplished in their technical or scientific field, that it results in them having little or no social skills, ie a 'Billy no mates', it doesn't suggest that they're likely to write dangerous code. In fact I'd expect the reverse from a 'nerd'. But my sister wouldn't want to go out with them.... ;-)

Geek; Dweeb; Square; Nerd: A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

I'd just like us all to encourage Tom to enlighten us, and maybe we'd get the answers about BSAC 88 tables that some of us have been wanting for some years.

Andy Wade

09-12-2004, 19:03

Your are VERY close to the limit there Alun. It stops here. I hope that I have made myslef clear. To others - please do not feed the trolls.

Sorry Keith, I'd already written and posted an answer to Alun before I saw your post. I've now edited it to be less adversarial.

alunharford

09-12-2004, 19:14

:=:=Then Alun Harford (whoever he is) opens his big gob and puts the final nail in the coffin of the potential discussion.
:=:=My Grandmother used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." She was right.
:=
:=Well I'm sorry, but when some **** comes along and starts describing safety-critical code as nerdish (ie. dangerous) without the slightest understanding of computer science, and presumably never having looked at the code, then said **** is likely to get a hostile response.
:=The way for the BSAC to get more information about its tables is to switch tables to a set where the information is avaliable.
:=
:=Alun Harford
:=
:=(Reluctantly self-obliterated some words to make this more... family-friendly)

Alun, if you look up the term 'nerd', it doesn't mean that the person described is an idiot, quite the reverse. It actually describes someone who is so very accomplished in their technical or scientific field, that it results in them having little or no social skills, ie a 'Billy no mates', it doesn't suggest that they're likely to write dangerous code. In fact I'd expect the reverse from a 'nerd'. But my sister wouldn't want to go out with them.... ;-)

Geek; Dweeb; Square; Nerd: A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

Nerdish code is code written with no respect for the fact that somebody else may need to look at the code and see what it does, usually using lots of nasty hacks all over the place - which makes analysis by anybody else next to impossible. In the case of safety-critical systems, that's dangerous.

alunharford

09-12-2004, 19:18

Your are VERY close to the limit there Alun. It stops here. I hope that I have made myslef clear. To others - please do not feed the trolls.
Probably about 50 posts here, and about 350 on UKRS, so you should have probably guessed that I'm not trolling.

Mike Rowley

09-12-2004, 19:50

:=Then Alun Harford (whoever he is) opens his big gob and puts the final nail in the coffin of the potential discussion.
:=My Grandmother used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." She was right.

Well I'm sorry, but when some **** comes along and starts describing safety-critical code as nerdish (ie. dangerous) without the slightest understanding of computer science, and presumably never having looked at the code, then said **** is likely to get a hostile response.
The way for the BSAC to get more information about its tables is to switch tables to a set where the information is avaliable.

Alun Harford

(Reluctantly self-obliterated some words to make this more... family-friendly)

Alun, this is not helpful. I would be very interested in the reasons that EAD may not be used on the 88 tables and I suspect many others would. When writing the BSAC rebreather courses we have been forced to abandon the 88 tables because thay are not constant PO2 tables and EAD is not allowed. I for one would be very interested to have an understanding of this.

Just hold onto your righteous indignation in the hope of a bit of enlightenment please.

Cheers

Mike