RTC'83
Contributor
witch one is more conservative Buhlmann ZHL-16c based PZ+, or DSAT based, algorithm.
New OW, One to pick the right one to start
New OW, One to pick the right one to start
Algorithm
- Thread starter RTC'83
- 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
cmrangel
Contributor
The below link shows some actual results from tests for these two along with some others.
A sense of algorithm
A sense of algorithm
bergersau
Contributor
I'm guessing you have an oceanic dual algorithm computer?
From what little I claim to know the two algorithms are optimized for different situations.
This link my help you choose what is right for your situation : Oceanic Dual Algorithm | Simply Scuba Blog
Either way, you can normally add conservatism by either setting the computer for a more conservative mode or by simply staying away from the NDL (eg: Choosing to ascend at least 5 minutes from the displayed NDL).
From what little I claim to know the two algorithms are optimized for different situations.
This link my help you choose what is right for your situation : Oceanic Dual Algorithm | Simply Scuba Blog
Either way, you can normally add conservatism by either setting the computer for a more conservative mode or by simply staying away from the NDL (eg: Choosing to ascend at least 5 minutes from the displayed NDL).
I have the impression that in a recreational context there are no really dangerous computers out there. It's obviously important to know what your computer is doing but I personally wouldn't look at the algorithm so much as the ease of use of the computer for rec diving.
In a technical context the algorithm does become very important for safety. At this point in time almost all technical divers are using Buhlmann ZHL16c with gradient factors.
R..
DevonDiver
N/A
In what context?
Single dive? Repetitive dive? Multi-day dive? Length of Surface interval? Typical dive profiles?
Context is very important...
An algorithm can be more conservative in one context, or more aggressive in a different context.
A rookie error that's often made is to only consider algorithm performance in a isolated, single dive.
In reality, few divers do a single dive (not repetitive or multi-day).
The assessment of algorithm performance has to be relevant and related to how the diver would utilise the algorithm in reality.
Last edited:
Hi RTC'83. If you give a little more information about yourself and what you think makes one algorithm more "right" for you verses another we might be able to give you better advice.
If you have health risks or just feel better diving a "conservative" computer algorithm then the PZ+ is the one you want. DSAT is consider one of the most liberal.
If you have health risks or just feel better diving a "conservative" computer algorithm then the PZ+ is the one you want. DSAT is consider one of the most liberal.
Context is very important, and sort of outlines the fallacy of conservatism in recreational dive computers. If you get bent within the confines of your NDL, then it doesn't matter how conservative your computer is, it's clearly not conservative enough. All conservatism really does is set a limit on pissing your computer off. That's the nature of using a mathematical algorithm to estimate real world physiology.
Ultimately what you need to do is determine your own personal type of diving, and the level of risk you are willing to take, and decide on the steps to mitigate that risk. The algorithm the computer uses to calculate inert gas loading is a small portion of that decision. Purchasing a more "liberal" computer doesn't allow you to do anything other that spend more time before your computer doesn't like what you're doing. It doesn't change how your body is actually on-gassing or off-gassing inert gas, and it doesn't change how your body will react under individual circumstances.
Ultimately what you need to do is determine your own personal type of diving, and the level of risk you are willing to take, and decide on the steps to mitigate that risk. The algorithm the computer uses to calculate inert gas loading is a small portion of that decision. Purchasing a more "liberal" computer doesn't allow you to do anything other that spend more time before your computer doesn't like what you're doing. It doesn't change how your body is actually on-gassing or off-gassing inert gas, and it doesn't change how your body will react under individual circumstances.
DevonDiver
N/A
I truly believe there's no such thing as an undeserved bend.
Staying within a no-stop limit doesn't ensure safety from DCS if your dive and surfacing behaviour is otherwise imprudent and/or there are physiological DCS pre-disposing factors being ignored.
When I've talked to DCS victims who got "undeserved" hits on no-stop dives, I've always noted probable causal factors.
Of course, probable isn't the same as proven. It's very hard to prove which factor would cause a DCS hit.
Setting your computer conservative makes your dive more forgiving of mistakes... but it's not the end-point in potential measures that'd improve safety.
Long safety stops make a big difference.
Controlled ascents at an optimal speed make a difference.
Good buoyancy control, no saw-tooth profiles make a big difference.
Long surface intervals make a big difference..
Staying within a no-stop limit doesn't ensure safety from DCS if your dive and surfacing behaviour is otherwise imprudent and/or there are physiological DCS pre-disposing factors being ignored.
When I've talked to DCS victims who got "undeserved" hits on no-stop dives, I've always noted probable causal factors.
Of course, probable isn't the same as proven. It's very hard to prove which factor would cause a DCS hit.
Setting your computer conservative makes your dive more forgiving of mistakes... but it's not the end-point in potential measures that'd improve safety.
Long safety stops make a big difference.
Controlled ascents at an optimal speed make a difference.
Good buoyancy control, no saw-tooth profiles make a big difference.
Long surface intervals make a big difference..
Similar threads
