Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 3:50 pm
Hopefully, there'll be another reincarnation.
Page 7 of 13
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 3:59 pm
But what is a SAG character?
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:19 pm
Lots of acronyms being used, can you tell me what the following acronyms mean:
NFI as in your " I have NFI what you're talking about".
MF as in your "you're too MF lazy to get it.."
SAG as in your "once any SAG character hits 1000"
thank you (trying to follow the discussion)
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:29 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:48 pm
I get all of it except "SAG character." I did look that up but couldn't find anything that made a lot of sense: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SAG
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:26 pm
My guess is that as actor Jared Leto received a SAG (Screen Actors Guild) award for his role in “House of Gucci” and over 1,000 Razzie (Golden Raspberry) votes for his role with the same abysmal performance, and that his next role was as “Morbius” in the movie with the same name, he effectively disappeared with the awards cancelling out. If it is what was meant it is really quite witty.Miss Emerita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:48 pmI get all of it except "SAG character." I did look that up but couldn't find anything that made a lot of sense: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SAG
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 6:30 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 6:58 pm
Oh! Complicated and interesting -- thanks!Jlfinkels wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:26 pmMy guess is that as actor Jared Leto received a SAG (Screen Actors Guild) award for his role in “House of Gucci” and over 1,000 Razzie (Golden Raspberry) votes for his role with the same abysmal performance, and that his next role was as “Morbius” in the movie with the same name, he effectively disappeared with the awards cancelling out. If it is what was meant it is really quite witty.Miss Emerita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 4:48 pmI get all of it except "SAG character." I did look that up but couldn't find anything that made a lot of sense: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SAG
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:13 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:42 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 10:11 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 10:44 pm
Can you guys get on topic please?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 10:57 pm
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2022 11:36 pm
Thanks to Morbius we have seen, PR and your coterie/posse (lacking at least one), an "eloquent" "elucidation" (tks PR) of how I am to reach my target audience and edify readers with clinically useful information: that as I struggle to present at least some actionable information here or there for we mere PAP users. Perhaps I was his entire target audience, nothing of his intended for reader-bystander gains.
I'll add Morbiius' following acronyms for JPB, or lexicographical experts in his field, to elucidate so we might all benefit more from Morbius' analyses here:
DPW
FRC
AAMOF
SWS (I may know, but not sure of its meaning)
compSAS
Undeterred, by the "obvious'" two-step TV drop from FL in post no. 1, PR went on to repeatedly declare, there is no connection between FL and TV drop. Morbius deftly avoided that nonsense, preferring I expect, to avoid being called out by some reader of equally certified stature. He wrote, "Because in actuality I didn't say palerider was right, nor did I say he was wrong."
Had PR posted that PAP-treated or PAP and duty-cycle suppressed flow limitation maintains tidal volume without drops, I probably would not have posted in this thread, would have read it for what I could learn.
Now a bit of the "humblebrag" Morbius hates, my appropriate use of "bumbling novice". Referring to my notes below the 7-hour graphic, Morbius helpfully indicated that all after my "Post-OARR&TV" in column 2 of 4 was wrong. Looking again at that, I, this bumbling novice, did get one idea in one sentence wrong, I owe that finding to Morbius who only and simply wrote all was wrong . Contrary to that sentence, the respiratory rate undulations over time could not have arisen from my presumably constant dead space volume of 150 ml. Perhaps he had more in mind but, man of few words, chose not to explain. Whatever caused the RR undulations caused (Ti+Te) to change in formulas RR=60 sec/(Ti+Te) and duty cycle dC=Ti/(Ti+Te) so the combined effect was rise and fall of TV profile/envelope in two, maybe three cycles.
The the list of tidal volume drops at FL I promised is below. I note the obvious again: one cannot prove that there is always a reduction of TV at FL, especially under PAP treatment and/or with our usual duty cycle and/or RR defense against flow limitation. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, I went through a puzzled stage thinking I saw phantom FL--flagging only because of wave shape--because PAP treatment and duty cycle had minimized or eliminated TV drop that would otherwise have been seen.
To his credit, PR eventually indicated there might be at times some relationship between flow limitation and tidal volume drop.
PR, banish angst regarding your hope for Morbius' reincarnation, I expect he'll grace this thread again soon or take another line--perhaps without an allusion to Jesus Christ linked with Satan.
Acknowledging and apologizing for my bumbling, dissonant opacity and obviousness
you "non-tl:dr" readers have suffered from me this far,
Captain Obvious (ASB)
I'll add Morbiius' following acronyms for JPB, or lexicographical experts in his field, to elucidate so we might all benefit more from Morbius' analyses here:
DPW
FRC
AAMOF
SWS (I may know, but not sure of its meaning)
compSAS
Undeterred, by the "obvious'" two-step TV drop from FL in post no. 1, PR went on to repeatedly declare, there is no connection between FL and TV drop. Morbius deftly avoided that nonsense, preferring I expect, to avoid being called out by some reader of equally certified stature. He wrote, "Because in actuality I didn't say palerider was right, nor did I say he was wrong."
Had PR posted that PAP-treated or PAP and duty-cycle suppressed flow limitation maintains tidal volume without drops, I probably would not have posted in this thread, would have read it for what I could learn.
Now a bit of the "humblebrag" Morbius hates, my appropriate use of "bumbling novice". Referring to my notes below the 7-hour graphic, Morbius helpfully indicated that all after my "Post-OARR&TV" in column 2 of 4 was wrong. Looking again at that, I, this bumbling novice, did get one idea in one sentence wrong, I owe that finding to Morbius who only and simply wrote all was wrong . Contrary to that sentence, the respiratory rate undulations over time could not have arisen from my presumably constant dead space volume of 150 ml. Perhaps he had more in mind but, man of few words, chose not to explain. Whatever caused the RR undulations caused (Ti+Te) to change in formulas RR=60 sec/(Ti+Te) and duty cycle dC=Ti/(Ti+Te) so the combined effect was rise and fall of TV profile/envelope in two, maybe three cycles.
The the list of tidal volume drops at FL I promised is below. I note the obvious again: one cannot prove that there is always a reduction of TV at FL, especially under PAP treatment and/or with our usual duty cycle and/or RR defense against flow limitation. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, I went through a puzzled stage thinking I saw phantom FL--flagging only because of wave shape--because PAP treatment and duty cycle had minimized or eliminated TV drop that would otherwise have been seen.
To his credit, PR eventually indicated there might be at times some relationship between flow limitation and tidal volume drop.
- TVd-at-FL.GIF (27.05 KiB) Viewed 1029 times
Acknowledging and apologizing for my bumbling, dissonant opacity and obviousness
you "non-tl:dr" readers have suffered from me this far,Captain Obvious (ASB)
Re: Tidal volume and Flow limitations
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 10:06 am
It is axiomatic that the path to better understanding is strewn with "bumbles". No apology needed.
When I began this thread, I honestly wanted to explore the relationship between reported flow limitations and reported tidal volumes. Your investigation has been enlightening and informative and exactly what I intended to provoke - a deeper look into that potential relationship.
Thank you for your contributions.