Palm Software

>
> I installed JPlan yesterday and it's interface is pretty similar (and in
> concept almost identical) to DPlan from GUI. I haven't seen DecoWeenies
> latest GUI but I agree that JPlan's is nice & very easy to use (even
without
> a manual!).
>
So JPlan may have been 'inspired' by the DPlan documentation (I have yet to
use the DPlan but I hear the 'range' and bailout options are quite easy to
use)

I recommend reading a mixture of DDPlan and DPlan documentation, as apart
from the 'context/on line help' I do not think I will ever write any
documentation !

I won't make any comments on Al's bend , except to say JPlan does say it is
not intended to be used for planning dives

Tony

> I've not run any profiles with it yet as I'm waiting for a key code.
>
> BTW, am I correct in assuming that the cut schedule from JPlan was correct
> (i.e. compared to DDPlan) when Al got bent (that's to say it was bad luck
> not bad programming)?
>
> Cheers
> Matt.
>

> > BTW, am I correct in assuming that the cut schedule from JPlan was
correct
> > (i.e. compared to DDPlan) when Al got bent (that's to say it was bad
luck
> > not bad programming)?
>
> ISTR he was doing a longer runtime than others on the same dive.
> Let's see, my logbook says 55m / 25 mins for a total 68 mins
> on 21/35, 50 and 100. Hmm, where did I get 68 mins from? Jplan
> says 58 mins on 20-85GF!

I need to make alot of assumptions, but here we go:

OC, 21/35 backgas to 21m
OC, EAN50 @21m
OC, O2 @6m
Last Stop 6m
Immediate Descent
Ascent Rate 10m/min
Descent Rate 30m/min

Using Decoplanner (Buhlmann ZHL16B considering alveoli ppH2O) & GF's as you
say (L20/H85) I get a total time of 60 minutes.

I don't have the key for JPlan yet, but I'd dive the DecoPlanner plan at
20/85 (I normally dive 30/85 which for this dive changes the shape slightly
but not the run time).

Is that the real dive Al got bent on?

Cheers
Matt.

In article <bte08p$60erd$1@ID-203763.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Imorital <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>BTW, am I correct in assuming that the cut schedule from JPlan was correct
>(i.e. compared to DDPlan) when Al got bent (that's to say it was bad luck
>not bad programming)?

What makes you think DDPLAN is correct?

Gordon

> >BTW, am I correct in assuming that the cut schedule from JPlan was
correct
> >(i.e. compared to DDPlan) when Al got bent (that's to say it was bad luck
> >not bad programming)?
>
> What makes you think DDPLAN is correct?

It may not be correct. That's not important. What is important is that the
plans I dive (which are either VR3/DDPlan/DPlan/DecoPlanner or my own
software) don't bend me. I usually try setting them the same and they
usually give me the same times (where same is pretty wishy-washy).
Therefore if JPlan gives a similar (same) schedule to any of the ones I've
extensively dived then it's likely to be correct & bad-luck rather than
bad-programming.

Cheers
Matt.

Tony Jay wrote:
> I won't make any comments on Al's bend , except to say JPlan does say it is
> not intended to be used for planning dives

JPlan gave me a longer and more conservative profile than some people on
the boat were doing for the same dive, it was far more to do with me
being dehydrated and over tired than the schedule I was running.

Al.

"Gordon Henderson" <gordon@unicorn.drogon.net> wrote in message
news:bteeuf$85a$1@unicorn.drogon.net

> What makes you think DDPLAN is correct?

*Now* he tells us... *grin*

Vic.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:04:39 +0000, Keith S. wrote:

> ISTR he was doing a longer runtime than others on the same dive.
> Let's see, my logbook says 55m / 25 mins for a total 68 mins
> on 21/35, 50 and 100. Hmm, where did I get 68 mins from? Jplan
> says 58 mins on 20-85GF!

I seem to recall we planned for 60m with 20/95GF plus an extra 5 mins from
6m to the surface and just went with the original plan when it was a bit
shallower. And I think Al did about 5 minutes more stops than us.

Jason

--
See http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ to view UK dive spaces or add your own.

Jason wrote:

> I seem to recall we planned for 60m with 20/95GF plus an extra 5 mins from
> 6m to the surface and just went with the original plan when it was a bit
> shallower. And I think Al did about 5 minutes more stops than us.

Ah that would explain it then.

- Keith

"Keith S." <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PYDKb.18584$FN.10202@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> Jason wrote:
>
> > I seem to recall we planned for 60m with 20/95GF plus an extra 5 mins
from
> > 6m to the surface and just went with the original plan when it was a bit
> > shallower. And I think Al did about 5 minutes more stops than us.
>
> Ah that would explain it then.
>
> - Keith
>



Face it, hes a bender ;)

/Z

> ISTR he was doing a longer runtime than others on the same dive.
> Let's see, my logbook says 55m / 25 mins for a total 68 mins
> on 21/35, 50 and 100. Hmm, where did I get 68 mins from? Jplan
> says 58 mins on 20-85GF!

Running JPlan with the same assumptions as my last post I get a RT of 60
minutes which is entirely consistent with every other plan I've seen.

Bad luck not bad programming.

Cheers
Matt.