Talk:Decompression theory

B-class rating
The article was split from an excessively large B-class article, and there was no immediately obvious reason not to rate it as B-class, as it comprises a fairly comprehensive section which is suitable for a stand-alone article after providing a suitable lead section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pyle
Through an AfC submission, it's come to my attention this particular term is a non-notable neologism. Of the 3 references used, 2 are written by Pyle himself, and one is a broken URL. If nobody opposes this, I'll go ahead and delete the subsection as unencyclopaedic. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The term is used fairly frequently by technical divers, and the procedure is followed in practice by some technical divers. Divers may reasonably expect to find it mentioned and explained in an encyclopedia. I don't think it is given undue coverage, and I doubt that anyone with some knowledge of the recent history of decompression practice would consider the description in any way controversial. Please do not remove. I will look for a better reference. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The references written by Pyle describe the method he uses, which is an acceptable use of primary sources. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the section, with more references, more complete example, possibly better balance. Any comments? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still worried about the sources used. I agree with your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and do not object to the new text, however I do not see evidence this is notable, as the only references provided are very specific manuals and his own work. Do you agree, however, that the subsection is enough and we do not need an entire article about this? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for a complete article only about Pyle stops, They are relevant in an article on Decompression theory or practice, and on the history of decompression, but probably not notable as a stand-alone. I do think that Richard Pyle may be sufficiently notable for a biographical article, but that is a totally different issue. In that case a section on his development of the deep stops which bear his name would probably be appropriate, but I don't do biographies as a rule. Notability is not the same thing as fame. A scientist may be notable without the same news coverage as an entertainer, politician or criminal, or one of the 'celebrities' who are famous mainly for being famous. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is he this Pyle? If so, he probably scrapes past WP:PROF. I'll let the AfC submitter know and direct him/her here for comments. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same. He has published quite a bit on Pomacanthidae, including descriptions, some of which he discovered and collected himself on the dives which led to the development of Pyle stops. If you take a look at his CV linked from the rejected draft you will find he has published quite a few papers, both technical and popular. I have not read most of them, but you will see that he is not unknown. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede intro sect too long
Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should be max four (4) paragraphs.

This one is eleven (11) paragraphs.

That's a bit long.

Could cause symptoms of TL;DR.

Strongly suggest trimming it down to size of four, succinct paragraphs, of four or five sentences each.

Good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Solubility table
The table addressing the solubility of gases in fluids (water, lipid) is largely meaningless without units. mol per liter? liter gas per liter fluid?.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.206.17 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Solubility of gases table
Taking a step back from the request to add units to the table, is the table being used well? Duecker uses the table to make the point that nitrogen's fat solubility is higher than that of hydrogen, neon, or helium. Since nitrogen has, of the four, the closest fat solubility to that of anesthetics, he says one would expect from the Myer-Overton theory of anesthesia that nitrogen could cause intoxication at depth. None of that is communicated by the section of this article that contains the table. Solubility of the different gases comes up much later when nitrox and trimix are discussed, but neither the table nor the specific values in it are referred to explicitly. Something to think about before putting too much effort into tracking down Duecker's sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're referring to, lipid solubility and the Meyer-Overton hypothesis, are discussed in Nitrogen narcosis. The narcotic effect of gases is not relevant to decompression theory and shouldn't be part of this article. I agree that the whole table isn't particularly relevant; the only entries of any real importance to decompression theory are the solubilities of nitrogen and helium (and arguably hydrogen) in serum and lipids, because those are the only gases likely to be involved in decompression. They need units if anyone is going to actually model gas absorption dynamics in body tissues, but otherwise it's just the relative solubility of helium and nitrogen in serum that is pertinent to the mechanism of isobaric counterdiffusion. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is correct, I would be happy to hear your recommendations. I would be quite happy to cut all the table except the relative solubilities of gases with decompression involvement. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the columns without referenced units as irrelevant, and also the metabolically active gases. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk):
 * This is correct, I would be happy to hear your recommendations. I would be quite happy to cut all the table except the relative solubilities of gases with decompression involvement. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the columns without referenced units as irrelevant, and also the metabolically active gases. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk):

Proposed split
In order to address some of the GA review objections to this article I intend to split out much of the material into two subsidiary articles: Physiology of decompression, and Decompression modelling, and summarise the contents of those parts of the existing article. As I am not expecting this to be controversial, I intend to just go ahead and do it some time soon. If anyone has useful suggestions for the split, please feel welcome to comment here. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind about the second split and made it a redirect to this article. Keeping the option open for a separate article if it becomes necessary. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Things to do
Update with some of the work that has been done on comparison of efficiency of stop depth distribution, referencing Simon Mitchell's video on "What is optimal decompression" May 2020 on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIO9qI5XODw including: &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * integral of total supersaturation over time and
 * heat maps as a graphic representation of decompression stress distribution over Buhlmann tissues and time for comparative decompression schedules following various models starting as an interpretation of the results of the NEDU experimental decompression series comparing a bubble model (deep stops) with a dissolved gas model (shallow stops) which showed better results for shallow stops.
 * evidence regarding the usefulness of deep stops. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * also Doolette DJ, Mitchell SJ. Recreational technical diving part 2: decompression from deep technical dives. Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine. 2013 June;43(2):96-104. https://www.eubs.org/documents/DHM%20vol43%20no2.pdf &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * More resources:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYIux8KbUKo Deco theory with Prof. Simon Mitchell, part 1/3: Contributing factors to decompression stress
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicUyu4WGA0 Deco theory with Prof. Simon Mitchell, part 2/3: Gas density and CO2 retention
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28_wM9CXXQ8 Deco theory with Prof. Simon Mitchell, part 3/3: Deep Stops, the good the bad and the how we changed