Reliability of Hoseless Computers?

[fppf]

I think you need to look at each mfgr rather than lump them all up as "hoseless"

Each mfgr uses a little different methoid of transmitting and encoding data. Some are much better than ohters. I did a lot of research before buying a wireless computer. After you buy your computer you must read the manual. The mfgr will suggest the best way to locate the transmitter and computer, FOLLOW THESE. For some reason people always think they are smarter than the mfgr that designed the device.

In my opinion, Suunto has the weakest system of all. There system opens the door to reading the wrong tank. You must "sync" your computer with the transmitter EVERY time you pressurize the transmitter. If your close to other transmitters you could sync the wrong tank. I also read more complaints about loosing pressure data on the boards.

In my opinion, Oceanic has the best system of all. When you get your computer you enter the serial number of your transmitter into the computer. Every transmitter has a different serial number. There is NO chance you will read the wrong tank. Also, I have had almost ZERO problems with pressure data. More importantly, if it does drop out it will not give inaccurate readings, it works or it don't. In 150 dives and 72 hours of dive time, I have only lost the link twice. And those two times where so short I did not even get the chance to call the dive before it picked back up. I'm also have the transmitter and computer located in the worse case spots, just the way it landed. If I moved the transmitter to the same side as I wear the computer I'm sure I would have zero problems.

In short, I feel this system is not anymore or less reliable than an SPG. I work in aerospace and I have seen my fair share of SPG's fail, so they are not bullet proof like people think. All SPG's, computers, and depth gauges should be calibrated at least once a year. This is something no one in the dive industry does to my knowledge. I take it upon myself to verify the calibration on all my gear every year.

 

[RAWalker]

I think you need to look at each mfgr rather than lump them all up as "hoseless"

In my opinion, Oceanic has the best system of all.

I feel this system is not anymore or less reliable than an SPG.
they are not bullet proof like people think.

All SPG's, computers, and depth gauges should be calibrated at least once a year.

Couldn't agree more!
That's why I own 2 of Oceanic's current crop. An Atom 2.0 and a VT3.
I've eliminated the SPG and it's hose.
In all the dives with them I've lost sync twice for short enough intervals that I didn't know about it until I saw it in the log.

 

[RJP]

I'm not following your logic. I, you and every other diver gets feedback from other divers. To say that not reporting "went diving yesterday and my computer didn't fail", doesn't folow any logic. I'm not concerned about the non-failures, that's not the issue. It's the failures.

If my brand new wetsuit dives perfect for 49 dives and on the 50th dive it splits open, am I happy I got 49 dives without failure?

The absolute NUMBER of failures is important: if a product fails, it fails.

It's the proportion of "problems" vs "no problems" that's mis-statederstated, to the point of the original poster, where the perception is "the majority of the stories I hear a hoseless computers involve problems." That's the proportion of stories YOU HEAR. But you DON'T HEAR about the times where the computer doesn't fail, because a computer NOT FAILING is not a very interesting story. So you don't have any real idea about the overall incidence of problems, since you have nothing to compare it to.

How many planes DID NOT crash yesterday?

How many schools DID NOT have a shooting this week?

How many tanker trucks DID NOT burst into flames during today's rush hour?

How many buildings DID NOT collapse in mid-town Manhattan this morning?

You haven't heard any info about that. But if just ONE had, you would hear about it.

 

[peterbj7]

Okay. On around 30% of the dives I lead someone in the group has a computer that beeps because it's lost its signal. I can't give you the numbers of divers with/without wireless integrated computers, but the total number of divers in the group never exceeded 8.

 

[fppf]

How do you know its beeping because it lost its signal? Do you go over and check there computer everytime it beeps? There are many alarms that cause a computer to beep, all user settable. What is the mfgr of the computers?

 

[eponym]

I know many divers are apprehensive about going hoseless because of reliability issues. Too many "was diving when my computer went blank" stories. Please share your good/bad experiences with hoseless (transmitter type) omputers.

I've been very happy with the perfomance of my Suunto Vyper. It's my second Suunto. I've used its air-integration feature in perhaps 150 dives, and I also use it (in gauge mode) for decompression diving. I usually wear it when teaching, as it reduces the time I need to be looking at anything other than my students. I have it on a DeepSeaSupply bungee mount on my wrist.

But I do also hang a small spg (not the button size, but you'd be surprised how small a gauge is once you've removed the superfluous rubber/plasting casing) on an HP hose and clip it down at my hip. Just in case. If the transmitter battery gets low I'm not sure there would be any warning. I could not get the Vyper to sync up one weekend, and it turned out to be low battery in the transmitter.

Best practices always,
Bryan

PS When running bungee into your DSS mounts, cross the two loops instead of making them parallel. That way they will self-adjust and you won't find one loop tighter or looser than the other on your wrist or forearm.

 

[runway1]

The absolute NUMBER of failures is important: if a product fails, it fails.

It's the proportion of "problems" vs "no problems" that's mis-statederstated, to the point of the original poster, where the perception is "the majority of the stories I hear a hoseless computers involve problems." That's the proportion of stories YOU HEAR. But you DON'T HEAR about the times where the computer doesn't fail, because a computer NOT FAILING is not a very interesting story. So you don't have any real idea about the overall incidence of problems, since you have nothing to compare it to.

How many planes DID NOT crash yesterday?

How many schools DID NOT have a shooting this week?

How many tanker trucks DID NOT burst into flames during today's rush hour?

How many buildings DID NOT collapse in mid-town Manhattan this morning?

You haven't heard any info about that. But if just ONE had, you would hear about it.

I think everybody understands this concept clear enough. Point is, with all the failures just reported on this thread alone, unless there's 1/2 billion divers there's obviously an issue.

I work in systems verification of hardware on large aerospace programs. I understand instrumentation, hardware reliability and failure probabilities pretty well - they pay me good for it. And, although I don't have the baseline data for successful events, there's enough failures to be a significant concern. Either that, or there are 500 million hoseless units on this board!

So to compare to planes, schools or tanker trucks is not nearly the same scale or numbers. Those numbers are 10^6 (millions). Dives are 10^3. You're talking a 10^3 order of magnitude difference.

 

[fppf]

runway1
I'm also an aerospace guy, there is no way you can come to the conclusion of a "significant concern" based on this thread, or this forum. Most of the people here are the wireless bashers that have NO first hand data. It is almost ALL hearsay. Its all "yeah everyone on my boat has wireless and they all suck and none work" or "everyone in my group thumbed a dive because they lost there pressure"

The majority of people that have them have not had issues. The people that do have issues, either had a computer from the 90's or has not supplied enough data to come to conclusion of true failers, operator error, or bad design.

 

[mruseless]

In my opinion, Suunto has the weakest system of all. There system opens the door to reading the wrong tank. You must "sync" your computer with the transmitter EVERY time you pressurize the transmitter. If your close to other transmitters you could sync the wrong tank. I also read more complaints about loosing pressure data on the boards.

No disrespect intended, I don't think that's quite the way the Suunto system works. I've only done a couple dives with my D9, but the transmitter always send the same code unless you purposely change it by depressurizing and repressurizing within 10 seconds. The wrist unit keeps the code in memory for 2 hours. So when changing tanks, as soon as you repressurize the transmitter, the wrist unit links.

I agree that if there are other D9's around you have to be more careful than with the Oceanic system, but I don't think the Suunto system is that easy to accidentally read the wrong tank, as long as you make sure you are not using the same code as someone else nearby.

 

[peterbj7]

Why must this forum be plagued with people with unfounded opinions? I have owned and used several wireless integrated computers, Uwatec & Suunto. I have sold probably 30-odd in the past few years. I dive with guests regularly who use them. I do have an idea what I'm talking about. Just because my view doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean I'm guessing or it's all hearsay. My view is based on solid experience of many such devices - how about yours?

And to answer your earlier question, I know because either I saw for myself at the time or I asked them afterwards. Not because I "assumed".

And in case you jump on me for generalising from the specifics that i have observed, I am not doing that. Others may have made general statements, I'm merely reporting my experiences. And my conclusion from those experiences is that I would not choose to use one, though friends of mine do. IMO it's yet another example of a solution in search of a problem. My SPG occupies my attention maybe 6 or 7 times during the average dive, for just a few seconds each time. I reckon I can manage that.