Questions for Respironics regarding their APAPs.

Believe me folks this was NOT done as a prank. I in NO way modified the data, however I have gone back and looked at this closer and found that the data from Pro shows the first two days were with CPAP and they display fine. The next day the min and max were ok but the auto was below the min. The next two days were as you saw. The last two days showed the auto only. I don't have this machine here at the moment so I cannot verify any additional data. I did redownload the smart card to get the data for the post, but I don't see why that would affect just this graph. When I get the machine back I will look at it further.

AGAIN, this was not done on purpose!

Bob

Bob... wrote:Believe me folks this was NOT done as a prank.

OH NO!

Tell me it's not so, Bob . . . Here we go again . . . Wait, I think I know a way to short-circuit things . . .

OK, this will only hurt for a little bit, Bob. Are you ready . . .

It's all your fault! Respironics algorithms don't do things like that . . . It's the way you're breathing then . . . Nobody else ever had this problem, Bob . . . Are you sure the power cord was connected . . . Were you using a Respironics mask . . . Maybe you need to connect a UPS . . . How come nobody else has reported this, Bob . . . Are you sure the air hose was hooked up properly . . .

Explain yourself, Bob!

Now that wasn't so bad was it? Just answer all this stuff correctly in your very next post before somebody else comes along proving that your machine can't possibly be doing this, and things will go just fine for you. Just one more post from you and this will all be settled.

Regards,
Bill

My inclination is to take Bob at his word, no pranks. He has given us the formula for replicating the phenom, I'd be surprised if someone here is not already doing that experiment. Being cynical, I suspect a "mere" software problem. Errr...uhhh.. limitation. The reference lines are probably the least important information on the graph. If that proves to be the case I will CHEERFULLY re-vindicate my original declaration of vindication, or at least undisvindicate my previous disvindication. Thanks Titrator for your straightforward explanation that started this flurry of point/counterpoint. Thanks DME_guy (who is probably rolling his eyes, smacking his forehead "WHAT DID I START?"). And all.

DUMB COMPUTER !

Logged me off.

that last post was ME in case you didn't guess.

Guest wrote:This thread, through natural progression, has evolved into something else and it would be shame for your original offering to be missed by anyone.

Guest, am I to presume then that questioning Respironics about anomalies in their algorithms is not considered a reasonable or prudent thing to do?

Guest wrote:That way this thread can remain concentrated on NightHawkeye's vacuities.

There are currently 61 posts to this thread, of which I have contributed about 10%, and all but one of mine were responses to questions posed by others, or stated concerns of others about the way I'd collected my data. And I'm a distant third in total number of posts here too. If you look at the individual posters you will see that there are six posters in this thread all having roughly 10% of the posts each, and all having somewhat differing opinions.

Since, by mutual consensus in this thread, folks have agreed that this is a fact based forum, I thought you'd appreciate those few facts as well.

Attack me if you will, but remember that in doing so you are attacking yourself and many others. You, too, Guest, are among the heavy posters to this thread.

Regards,
Bill

Anonymous wrote:DME_Guy,

Just wanted to suggest you might need to start a new thread with that same request. This thread, through natural progression, has evolved into something else and it would be shame for your original offering to be missed by anyone. That way this thread can remain concentrated on NightHawkeye's vacuities.

NightHawkeye wrote:Attack me if you will, but remember that in doing so you are attacking yourself and many others.

Attack? Relax, son. No one has attacked you. I viewed it as a worthwhile suggestion to DME_Guy so his kind gesture to the entire forum wouldn't get lost in the shuffle as we all concentrate on your specific problem. Everyone is trying to help figure this out and it has been, for the most part, an informative, unemotional discussion of the data you presented. It serves us all well to take the high road and leave the sarcasm and criticism behind. We are discussing your problem, not you.

Ric, I join you in thanking Titrator for his accurate and straightforward explanation; and in thanking DME_Guy for allowing us to pose questions of this nature to Respironics.