Search results

Not quite. See for instance the O2 cells from the rebreathers. But plenty of (most?) sensors can have annoying failure modes. Edit: Add to that that you can semi-fry microcontrollers, and yeah, no, definitely not a clear case of "it's doing ****".

I doubt there's much if any SIL cert here. It likely falls under consumer electronics and a very loose regulation. At best, one should read the euro norm to which they certify. Does en250 cover dive computers?

Regulators from dive system? Didn't know they made that. It looks like yet another similar design to Apeks. eg HOG, tecline, etc etc etc.

So you're saying that Baker used "1.35" because he was scared one would put in "135" microns? Seriously? You think he thought "Hey, I'll put the limit at 1.00 for the algorithm, but I'll let the user input 1.34 if he wants to, because why not, that'll teach them to read my code!". Really?

What would the issue be with "6.2", except it not being Ross approved?

Well you're the one saying there's "an algorithm" behind it that is perfectly valid. I ask which is it? So far, I've heard something around 5/70 in a profile given here (was rather benign) and kevrumbo suggested something around 15/70 *on that specific dive*...

So what algorithm is "plugged into" UTD RD, since it doesn't follow any conventional schedule?

You realize that "accelerate off gassing" is litterally the opposite of "low stress", right?

I'm confused. Did the oxygen window just make a comeback?

It's not a matter of believing one or the other. Both have arguments, some of questionable validity, it is up to us to understand what seems possible and what isn't. I don't think that one should (nor do I think that is what Simon would want) blindly trust one or the other. That being said...

Thanks. I guess it is then a matter of what people call close :)

So make the actual comparison vetween RD 2.0 and buhlmann, showing they're similar ascents, instead of saying they are similar? Unless you expect us to take training just for the sake of getting 3 mathematical rules which are, so far, not likely to be the best available...

Well no, it's also a set of (questionable) rules that give an ascent. At best it then tells you to "oh just guess your deco you'll be fine", but it's not like it actually has value in adjustment that other algorithms wouldn't have in terms of how to shape your ascent.

But can you play snake on it?

Why do you think (or at least, suggest) you cannot do more deco than what a computer says? Why would using a science based algorithm mean you don't understand how it will work, from experience one can know that too. Guess what you're doing when using the "ascent strategy"? You're actually...

Very much feasible, but so is banging your head against walls. That said, if you can think a bit and have no issue spending 10-15 dives (AFTER having done a lot of reading) on tuning everything, yes it can be done. A good instructor just turns those 15 dives and hours of reading in 3 days of...

Actually, with different half-times for He and N2, you could get an explanation for being able to use the same times for 25/25 and 32. I believe playing with this fact has been used on very long dives (24hours) by Laurent Ballesta. Not saying what's right or wrong, just saying that it could...

A more pragmatic approach than whatever rubbish you are trying to present is to simply use the algorithm that works.

Find an underwater camera. Alternatively a large mirror. And then correct from there. Unless your gear is absolutely ducked up, it is usually a matter of perception and correcting rather than moving stuff around on your gear.

I take it you are not familiar with science?