This is very nearly 100% different from what you were writing a few pages ago.
Feedback on recent two-tank and dive limits
- Thread starter lizzzzz
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Blackcrusader
Contributor
old frogman:
Conclusion, Erik Baker did not have recreational diving in mind when he developed gradient factors.
Wasn't OF opining that using GF was not suitable for new divers let alone recreational diving?
old frogman
Contributor
I am not confused. I operate a fully loaded VR3 which is far more challenging to use. My point is with the new recreational diver just starting out. It appears from the original question that the diver was confused with the information displayed on his computer (resulting in some anxiety) and I have seen similar threads elsewhere where divers are confused with what is presented on their computer. Some believe that they need to do a safety stop on top of decompression stops. It may be that the computer manuals may need to be reviewed to meet the needs of the new recreational diver, in particular with dive computers that cross over from NDL with safety stop diving to decompression stop diving.
Orthogonal issues - is that like another issue (for the benefit of other readers)?
old frogman
Contributor
Not really. Associated issues.
Blackcrusader
Contributor
The OP was not in Deco so there is no confusion about that. What the OP did not understand was that his Peregrine was set to adaptive stops. What this meant was that if he dove deeper than 30m 100ft or had less than 5 mins NDL left he would be shown a safety stop of 5 minutes over the 3 minutes for shallower dives with 5 mins or less of NDL not being exceeded.
OP had some anxiety as he wanted to make sure his dives were safe which they were. OP also has to learn about Surf GF as this lets divers know when they can ascend as safety stops are not mandatory.
He was also diving on preset settings which he then advised us what is shown for the GF factors.
Which dive computers do not have Deco and NDL functions? They all do. So it is for a user of the dive computer to RTFM which in this case the user had not done. He is doing so now so that he understands what his Peregrine is doing. So yes he has to learn about adaptive stops and what those settings mean, also how to use/ change NDL alert settings. These are simple tasks and covered in the user manuals. No matter what dive computer one buys divers when they do not read the user manual to understand what their DC is telling them can become confused when alarms go off.
Now as for divers doing safety stops after clearing DECO obligations, that can depend on the dive.
If I do a Deco dive where I go to the Ceiling and complete my stops I may simply end the dive.
If I do a Deco dive where I clear Deco but then continue on with a multilevel NDL dive I will do an additional safety stop at my own choosing. I might do 3 minutes at 5m and then another 3 Minutes at 3m depth and then take another minute to get to the surface.
I believe you are over complicating what is a simple request from the OP about his dives. RGBM or GF makes no difference it was him not fully understanding his DC and the fact he got distracted and wasn't paying attention to depth or NDL.
Here is what you are saying now:
My issue is not with the computer, the algorithm or the GFs. My issue is with the acclimatization of a new diver at basic level scuba diving with transition to dive computers. A dive computer with a simpler algorithm interface is going to be easier for the diver, in particular if the diver is just interested in NDL recreational diving.
A few pages ago you were saying that the reason you opposed Buhlmann with GFs is that divers who used it could be required to do multiple decompression stops, starting at 21 meters, on a NDL dive.old frogman
Contributor
Nevertheless, it appears that his computer using the Buhlmann with GF algorithm gave him information which was overly conservative resulting in him becoming anxious about surfacing under the directions of his guide. This clearly suggests to me that this particular computer and algorithm is superfluous for basic level recreational diving applications.
I have no problems with his computer and algorithm being used for entry level technical diving.
old frogman
Contributor
I have said many things. However, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" - Aristotle (Greek Philosopher). Consequently, let's look at the whole from the context/perspective of the basic level recreational diver.
The issues:
-Gradient Factors (GF) were originally conceived for technical diving, not recreational diving.
-GFs concept is complex and abstract, in particular for the basic level recreational diver.
-GFs are confusing for the basic level diver and are a source of distraction.
-The computer incorporating GFs even at the entry level has too many options for the basic level diver.
-The set up of the user manual may not be catering for the new basic level diver in its arrangement of the narrative, its vocabulary.
Basic level diver transitioning into the dive computer:
-The new basic level recreational diver is still coming to grips with the new world of scuba diving. His human factors (in relation to awareness and knowledge assimilation) for diving are still developing.
-Complex and abstract concept such as GFs may not be assimilated properly in this situation.
Relative Benefit of GFs:
GFs may be beneficial for the advanced recreational diver or technical diver doing decompression dives however superfluous for the basic level diver doing mainly no decompression shallow diving (0-60ft) and the occasional 100ft dive.
Alternative dive computers:
-There already exist dive computers from Oceanic which use the DSAT algorithm which complements the PADI RDP tables which most recreational divers are familiar with, and which represents a more gradual and smoother transition to the dive computer.
- I acknowledge that Oceanic offers dual algorithm dive computers with DSAT and modified Buhlman algorithms.
- There are also computers from Scubapro which use variations of the Buhlmann algorithm with simple microbubble control conservative levels which do not confuse the diver.
Possible improvement of user manual for entry level technical dive computers using Buhlman with GF, if also recommended for basic level recreational diving:
- Divide the user manual into two parts. Part 1 - specifically written for the new basic level recreational divers doing no decompression dives. Part 2 - specifically written for entry level technical divers doing staged decompression dives.
"Slow is smooth and smooth is fast" - old SEAL Team saying.
Blackcrusader
Contributor
Nonsense. Now you are just making BS claims such as the DC setting is overly conservative. The computer gave him information exactly as it was meant to do which he nearly ignored. All you have shown with your posts is that you make summations based on your feelings of what you don't like not based on reality. Nobody cares about your feelings that DC's using GF should only be used for entry level technical diving. It's none of your business what DC a diver chooses to use.
The OP asked for advice on NDL and why his DC gave him a 5 minute safety stop is all.
He did not understand the adaptive stop setting was on and never exceeded NDL and did not realize his Surface Interval was only 35 minutes instead of an hour. The other issue is the diver should not be depending on his guide and should pay attention to his own DC.
It matters not what DC a diver is using when they don't know what settings it is on or why the alarm went off. Has nothing to do with GF being used. RGBM dive computer would have given him the same information and warnings.
Your claim using GF is not for recreational diving is just wrong.
PS New divers nowadays are not using PADI RDP tables they are not taught anymore.
Today, dive tables are rarely taught in OW classes because they are tedious to use, and give considerably less information than your dive computer.
- the feature you complain is NOT related to Buehlmann with GF.
- overly conservative is a value judgment. We lack the information needed, and I lack the hyperbaric medicine background, to agree or not.
- confusion with computer display occurs, especially the first time we met some behavior in real live. Having read the manual and general experience help but aren't a sure way to avoid it. Being warned that it will happen and then being put in the triggering circumstances under supervision of an experienced person, ideally an instructor, is the best way. Obviously the way information is presented is also a factor, but in the present example, I don't think it is the case.
Similar threads
