DIR Class: The Truth Comes Out

[detroit diver]

DeepScuba once bubbled...
.......

I guess I should get off this thing and get into the water for a change......

You've couldn't have done that 2 days ago?

 

[SeaJay]

Man, there's a lot communicated here, without even saying a word.

So... Deep... When ya gonna take the DIR-F course with Mike so you can make him eat his words? I mean... You know... Ya gotta show him that you're 99% DIR and all...

Wouldn't it be cool to show your DIR buddies how to "really" do it? Bet you could teach them a thing or two...

Tell us what he says about "semi-solo" diving. I'd be real interested in being a "fly on the wall" for THAT conversation...

Thanks a lot, you guys, for keeping this so civil. ut:

 

[Ender]

DeepScuba once bubbled...

"OR at least won't admit it", NOR will they teach it!

Just as I had eluded to yesterday..........YUGOSLAVIAN DECO.

Hey, I didn't mean to imply that these guys were not aware of any tables at all. In fact, quite opposite. I wouldn't be suprised if they could quite few tables from memory.

But they know themselves well enough to adjust them for a particular dive.
None of them (that I know of) dives _less_ conservatively than rec divers on computers. Well, except maybe withing 45', but there for that here you'd generally do a shore dive anyway so it's sloped profile (both in and out).

Vlad

 

[DeepTechScuba]

I am surprised your DIR buddies like Mike Kane did not mention to you yet that smoking mixed with scuba diving are like russian roulette with several bullets in the gun.

It is normally at an individual instructor's discretion as to whether or not to certify a person who smokes. Even so, it is far from ideal for a diver to smoke.

Now you are playing with DIR, which is Jarrod Jablonski's own brain child of a perfect world on scuba, and you want to smoke as well as dive with these ultra-modern cutting edge divers?!

You are going to embarrass them. They are probably afraid to tell you about it to your face.

Lose the smoking habit, if you want to be a scuba diver. If you want to smoke, give up scuba.

 

[SeaJay]

Was that directed at me?

In the very beginning of this thread, I mentioned it. Other than that, I don't think it's been mentioned... So I'm assuming that you're talking to me about it.

I've quit smoking since I took my DIR-F course, and couldn't agree with you more.

In fact, "getting serious about diving" - which for me was really a decision I made as I exited the water after that solo dive - was what spurred me to quit. I knew I had to, but at that point I decided that meant "now."

...And yes, Mike Kane mentioned it. Many times. Politely. Often.

 

[dbulmer]

Seajay and Mike Kane,

Thank you both for your comments earlier in the thread - I now see the logic behind the computer issue as it currently stands which seems reasonable as explained by Mike Kane.

 

[SeaJay]

Glad it made a little sense. And without a flame war! Must be a new Scubaboard record.

Mike's got the knowlege... Anything I know I just picked up here and there. Maybe if we ask politely he'll share a little more of that knowlege...

Mike, I'm still gonna take you to the 'Doria one day. Mark my words.

 

[DeepScuba]

Detroit:

Good One.


SeaJay:

I probably wouldn't make Mike eat any of his words (With the exception of the fact that I'm making him re-think the computer thingy)

Beyond that, I think he'd be quite impressed how a non DIR diver could be so "DIR-like" without his instruction (AS I've said, I've gotten very similar training with my TDI guys).

I'd STILL like to flesh out this deco-on-the-fly thing. Maybe Mike could fill us in a bit.

Don't worry Mike, we're all big boys and none of us would do anything improper and sue you...besides, I'm Canadian I take responsibility for my own actions.....

Oooooh Burn...........to you Americans that is

Hahah I still LOVE "W" though. He's the best Pres since Regan.

I'm just jealous I'm not American.....

 

[SeaJay]

It's a free country. Make the arrangements and come on down.

DIR class would be a perfect excuse. Heck, I'll take it with you.

I think you'd impress MHK too. I know I did. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean good things. After all, the Three Stooges were impressive, too.

But heck, who is MHK anyway? I'm sure you could teach him a few things. ut: He really needs to learn about them new-fangled things called computers...

<snicker>

Just make sure to bring some of that delicious Canadian beer with you for relaxing after the dive. Oh, and leave your crappy hockey team at home. :lol:

 

[BigJetDriver]

MHK once bubbled...


There are a few considerations to recognize with respect to the understanding behind the computer issue. As you suggest a device, when operating, renders information that was plugged in by other humans. That being said, the only thing a computer does is calculate in real time, that which a programmer programmed it to calculate. Therein lies the very essence of the problem, notwithstanding the issue respecting to overreliance.

In short, most of the in-water computers, have Buhlman based algorithms [ there is a movement towards RGBM based models recently], but by-in-large most computers use a Buhlman algorithm with very conservative gradient factors set to allow for the lowest common denominator of the dive industry. In short, computers are promoted as a way to "increase" bottom times, but more realistically don't. Furthermore, GUE advocates the use of deep stops incorporated into the ascent profile. Buhlman based algorithms actually penalize you for doing deep stops, whereas we believe that deep stops benefit you. Furthermore, by lacking a computer you start to appreciate and understand ascent rates, shaping of deco curves and so forth. This is critical as you start to realize that a computer doesn't know your body the way you do.. In other words, how do you feel after a dive??? Are you in poor shape or great physical condition?? Are you older, obese, have a PFO, hydrated, etc. etc... The point being is that there is a wide range of variables that must be built into the gradient factor by the manufacturers, and our belief is that why pay $400 something dollars for a device that can fail, provides unreliable information and is produced for the lowest common denominator???

Hope that more clearly explains the concept, but it is important to distinguish between "recreational" diving and "decompression" diving. I understand why many want a computer in the recreational world, but I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would consider buying a computer in the technical environment..

Regards

Before we get into this discussion, I will categorically state two things. First, all divers who do decompression diving need to understand both decompression theory AND practice.

Second, any system can fail, including the human brain, i.e. mistakes in "headwork". If you do not provide back-ups to your system, you have changed things that could be a minor problem into major crises.

That having been said, I have to say that I cannot understand how MHK can argue against wet computers as he does, when his argument is deeply flawed from the start. He speaks of a "device (which) when operating, renders information that was plugged in by other humans." Are we then to asssume that it was some other race of creatures who programmed the calculators and computers that created the dive tables we use today? Are we to assume also that this human rendered information is MORE accurate if it is imprinted somehow on paper, or plastic, or dive slates, or stone tablets, and then transferred by another human, by hand, to yet another other form of representation?

As to his characterization of Buhlman-based recreational dive computers, I would have to simply point out that they work quite well, obviously, for the recreational dive market. As for what we do, I too am a fan of RGBM; perhaps more than most, since I have put an extreme amount of study into the subject before adopting it!

The use of deep stops IS an excellent idea, as well. As a footnote, they were not invented by GUE (...MHK did not say they were...), and many technical agencies and experts advocate them.

As for paying the sum MHK notes for a computer, I would have to say that if you do, you are using a recreational dive computer for decompression work! :nono:

Technical diving computers, such as the VR3 and the HydroSpace Explorer allow one to program all of the gases and conservation factors one might need. In the case of the Explorer, you have the use of the full-up utilization of RGBM! They are hardly "produced for the lowest common denominator", but they do, unfortunately, cost a tad more than "$400".

Finally, MHK says that he is "at a loss to understand why anyone would consider buying a computer in the technical environment." How about, in addition to the advantages noted above, real-time deco calculations based on changing positions in the water column, changing fractions of time at those varied levels, the changing fractions of gases (for CCR's), and independent PPO2 monitoring? No human can calculate this stuff as rapidly as a micro-processor. (If there is one such, he belongs in Professor Xavier's school.)

In summary, a computer is a tool. No more, no less than a bottom timer and a depth gauge. You can use it to enhance your capabilities, or misuse it. That will, in the end, be your choice.

As Mr. Natural used to say: "Get the right tool for the job, kids!" :grad: