Dive Computer or Underwater Camera???

[Firebrand]

Wow, this debate is getting pretty hot. Obviously, UP seems to have some "trust" issues with computers, RDTodd relies on the creation of his own dive tables, and the majority of others (including myself) prefer to have information presented to us by the computer, which frequently updates the calculation through-out the dive. What everyone is failing to see is that we are ALL dependent on SOMEONE ELSE'S algorithm. Nobody in this forum has actually taken the time, as H2Andy said, to "kill some goats" in a compression chamber, study the results based on the variables, and provide an equation that is the SUPREME MAXIMALIOSO of all algorithms that encompases all possible gas blends, depth, deco requirements, temperature, work load, brain usage, and all the other variables. So what we find is not a matter of, "is a computer good or bad?" type argument, it's now, "What is your PERSONAL prefered method of getting your information?" type of argument. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. Live and let dive!

 

[RTodd]

Wow, this debate is getting pretty hot. Obviously, UP seems to have some "trust" issues with computers, RDTodd relies on the creation of his own dive tables, and the majority of others (including myself) prefer to have information presented to us by the computer, which frequently updates the calculation through-out the dive. What everyone is failing to see is that we are ALL dependent on SOMEONE ELSE'S algorithm. Nobody in this forum has actually taken the time, as H2Andy said, to "kill some goats" in a compression chamber, study the results based on the variables, and provide an equation that is the SUPREME MAXIMALIOSO of all algorithms that encompases all possible gas blends, depth, deco requirements, temperature, work load, brain usage, and all the other variables. So what we find is not a matter of, "is a computer good or bad?" type argument, it's now, "What is your PERSONAL prefered method of getting your information?" type of argument. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. Live and let dive!

That is incorrect. And, while I really don't mean this in an offensive way, someone with fewer than 15 dives is in no position to discuss decompression models.

Most computers have a low risk of failure and most divers use them. That is fine. But, they aren't providing you with a meaningful update of "real-time" information.

 

[Firebrand]

All I'm saying is that we are all using someone else's algorithm. Who cares HOW we use that algorighm (computer, tables, pencil & paper)? NO diver should EVER ditch their brain for a computer. I'm an Army officer and planning is everything to me. I plan my dives as if I didn't have a computer, meaning I always check what my NDL is with my tables before the dive. I believe in redundancy, and if you leave your brain on the boat and are dependent on a computer, you shouldn't get in the water in the first place. A computer is a nice luxury that provides information. What is done with that information is up to the diver.

 

[Firebrand]

Also, the number of logged dives doesn't indicate how much a person has researched the subject matter.

 

[Ian T]

well...geeesh..get both...

 

[menemsha43]

I've forgotten what its like to dive without a computer. I view the computer as, well.....a computer. And the dive tables are a typewriter. Car, horse & buggy - that type of thing. Bottom line, I would bet for the average diver that the computer increases bottom time. Unless you have memorized tables and have a calculator in your head, which most divers don't, then it would be tough to comfortably do a multi-level dive. Unless you've done significant planning at the surface which most aren't inclined to do these days (for better or for worse).

 

[tkrock]

Idea!!! I get 10% if anyone goes through with the project. Why not make a Dive computer with a built in digital camera!!!! Just like the cell phones of today!! Low resolution yes, but the answer to problem!!! Read your NDL one sec. and snap a picture of the lovely fish the next sec!!! I like it!

 

[RP Diver]

Learn more about the models before you try to argue this. Dive computers use 16C, most people using the table generation software choose to use 16B. And, while they may start with the a very similar buhlman base models, the Uwatec computers do have some conservatism built into them. In general, all computers add extra conservatism for repetitive dives.

And this added conservatism is bad, why??? I would bet that at least half of all recreational divers have something that physically adds to their DCS risk factors on any given dive. I would be inclined to feel that an added degree of safety built in to their computers is a good thing. In fact, I find it somewhat irresponsible to suggest that it's ok to push your profile all the way to the limits unless you are trained for and have planned a deco dive. I certainly have no intention of ever intentionally doing a deco dive, but I'm darned glad that my computer can give me a hand with it if the unthinkable happens.

It's one thing to want to maximize your bottom time... it's another to suggest that it's ok to push the limits every dive. Especially with as many newer divers as read this board. :06:

 

[Mandy3206]

NDL does not really exist ~ NDL is a construct.

Every dive is a decompression dive.

Gas in... ... ... gas out.

Gas in... ... gas out.

Gas in... gas out.

Gas in gas out.

Get camera.

Take pics.

Exactly what gas are you talking about, I know some people who let out gas even if they didn't dive!!!

 

[Charlie99]

Yes, the dive computers would show omitted decompression.

Clearly, one can choose how agressive they want to dive.

Since decompression is a probabalistic event, one can "get away" with exceeding table limits by a large margin, most of the time.

It sounds like you have chosen to routinely exceed the limits of some commonly accepted models.

I hope that lady luck continues to join you on your dives.

Charlie