Does anyone have instruction for downloading dives from the Citizen's aqualand nx to computer via ir? I have a friend who I am trying to help, and can't seem to find a user's manual online.
Dive Computers/Watches
- Thread starter Sharkgrl
- 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
ReefGuy:
Try this link http://citizen.jp/cyber-nx/guide_eng/irww.htm
Seems to be what you want.
http://citizen.jp/cyber-nx/guide_eng/d710.htm
Is the main page for the manual
Hope this helps
Sharkgrl:Hey Everyone! I am interested in getting a new dive computer that I can also wear as an everyday watch. I have seen the article in Sport Diver Magazine (May 2006 p.33) and I was wondering what everyone used. I would love to hear what you use and love, as well as some watches that I should stay away from. Thanks guys!
How much do you want to spend?
The Sunto D9 is a sweet unit but not cheap
I love my Atom but its not very stylish
Everyday wear I have a Casio Sea Pathfinder but its not a computer although it has depth, Temp, Pressure and Compass.
The Citizen's aqualand is what I would like as a backup but its more than I wanted
to spend and I already have a VT Pro as a backup.
Scooter
RICoder
Contributor
aHeavyD:
Yep, I tried one out in Hawai'i in November, I found it to be a bit on the large size to be wearing out to a dinner party. I'm probably the biggest Suunto proponent on the planet (ok, that's an exageration), and I love the D9, but I'm not sure I'd wear it any other time than diving.
In fact, and maybe a little off topic, I'm considering dumping my Cobra in favor of a D9, and putting the smallest possible air guage I can find on that hose and clipping it along my left side during dives so as to improve my trim even more. Of course, that may mean I'll be removing my Hyper Aqualand as a backup as well.
Doug Krause
Contributor
Algorithms - my favorite topic. In my 13 years with Oceanic, I have been on two very different sides of this debate. Some creative marketing as well as biased reporting as in the Diver article previously mentioned imply that the Oceanic algorithm is outdated - and as it provides more dive time than others under various circumstances is dangerous or "alarming" to use a quote from the Diver article.
The interesting thing is that just five years ago, some more creative and heavily funded marketing as well as biased reporting implied that Oceanic computers were too conservative, and not appropriate for serious divers.
So, what has changed? The Oceanic algorithm is based on the same model today as it was then.
In 1987 a unique series of experiments were conducted by Diving Science and Technology (DSAT). Commissioned by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), these Doppler ultrasound monitored human experiments
by Dr. Michael Powell produced the most comprehensive data set that exists for recreational divers to this day. These data were used to validate the PADI Recreational Dive Planner and are the basis of the algorithm used in all Oceanic Dive Computers.
Let me also explain at this point that we are not just talking about the Oceanic algorithm, it would be better described as the Pelagic Pressure Systems algorithm - our sister company and OEM supplier of instrumentation.
simonc - to make a long story short and respond to your concerns - Pelagic has produced hundreds of thousands of dive computers under various brand names utilizing this model since 1988. Stating that millions of dives have been conducted on these products would not be an exaggeration -- and all with a perfect safety record.
I find it difficult to understand the arguments for "safer" dive computers with more conservative dive times as compared to the Oceanic computers now deemed "liberal". As a diver myself, I would much rather start with a product that allows maximum bottom time within proven limits, and back it off myself. Oceanic dive computers have been developed with this in mind. If you wish to be more conservative, as a rule or for a specific circumstance there are numerous ways in which to do so with our products. It seems to me that a good comparison would be an auto manufacturer marketing a product with a maximum speed of 25 mph - it could be argued that it would be safer. I'd rather have the flexibility to do what I wanted to do, and if that is to never drive faster than 25 mph - I can make that decision myself.
Anyway, I'm sure this as other similar threads will open it up for a great debate - but wanted to chime in and at the very least help simonc make his decision on some facts.
Doug
The interesting thing is that just five years ago, some more creative and heavily funded marketing as well as biased reporting implied that Oceanic computers were too conservative, and not appropriate for serious divers.
So, what has changed? The Oceanic algorithm is based on the same model today as it was then.
In 1987 a unique series of experiments were conducted by Diving Science and Technology (DSAT). Commissioned by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), these Doppler ultrasound monitored human experiments
by Dr. Michael Powell produced the most comprehensive data set that exists for recreational divers to this day. These data were used to validate the PADI Recreational Dive Planner and are the basis of the algorithm used in all Oceanic Dive Computers.
Let me also explain at this point that we are not just talking about the Oceanic algorithm, it would be better described as the Pelagic Pressure Systems algorithm - our sister company and OEM supplier of instrumentation.
simonc - to make a long story short and respond to your concerns - Pelagic has produced hundreds of thousands of dive computers under various brand names utilizing this model since 1988. Stating that millions of dives have been conducted on these products would not be an exaggeration -- and all with a perfect safety record.
I find it difficult to understand the arguments for "safer" dive computers with more conservative dive times as compared to the Oceanic computers now deemed "liberal". As a diver myself, I would much rather start with a product that allows maximum bottom time within proven limits, and back it off myself. Oceanic dive computers have been developed with this in mind. If you wish to be more conservative, as a rule or for a specific circumstance there are numerous ways in which to do so with our products. It seems to me that a good comparison would be an auto manufacturer marketing a product with a maximum speed of 25 mph - it could be argued that it would be safer. I'd rather have the flexibility to do what I wanted to do, and if that is to never drive faster than 25 mph - I can make that decision myself.
Anyway, I'm sure this as other similar threads will open it up for a great debate - but wanted to chime in and at the very least help simonc make his decision on some facts.
Doug
simonc:
simonc:
Personally If I were doing "repeat DECO dives" I would not trust any DC or set of tables that were designed for Non DECO diving. Deco mode in most Recreational Computers is an emergency contingency and not, to my knowledge, part of the model.
I would use a software program similar to vPlanner and plan very carefully all my dives and profiles and rely on software or tables designed to allow repeated Deco Dives.
I know there are Dive Computers designed for Deco Dives such as the Delta P Technology VR3 but those are not what is being discussed here.
Any small wrist type computer is going to be primarily recreational and use an algorithm designed for non-deco diving.
I like my atom and feel it gives me all the flexibility to dive how I want. It does have a conservative mode which, to my understanding, adjusts the tables to 1000 feet altitude. I never use it because it makes no sense to me. I just dive smart and do 50% stops on the way up after any dive over 60 feet and never ascend at a rate > 30 FPM.
The key is to know your computer and whether it’s conservative or liberal and then dive according to your physical condition. I would hate to have an ultra conservative model force me into a DECO stop when everyone else is headed for the surface. I have a friend with an Uwatec that is always running out of dive time on me way before everyone else in the group. She occasionally ignores it and once got locked out because she ignored the DECO stop. Everyone else in the group enjoyed the next dive while she sat on the boat. Her profile was no different than anyone else on the boat. Last I heard she was buying a new VT-Pro.
Scooter
hmm.... isn't it a safer bet to go for the more conservative computer?
Well, to get back to the original question, I have a Mares Nemo (titanium) and it is pretty good to dive with so far, plus it is not bad looking as a watch at all.
Well, to get back to the original question, I have a Mares Nemo (titanium) and it is pretty good to dive with so far, plus it is not bad looking as a watch at all.
ArcticDiver
Contributor
Fastmarc:
This isn't a new issue. In fact not too long ago there was a similar thread. And I suppose in the future there will be repeats of this thread's subject.
One of the problems is that no one knows precisely what causes DCS in any specific individual. Certainly the basic principles are well understood. But how they are applied to any specific individual is not. So, scuba at present is an art using scientific principles.
Another factor is that as far as we in the public are aware there doesn't seem to be any significant difference in DCS between the different algorithms. If any particular algorithm were more dangerous than any other certainly that would be apparent. There are opinions that one algorithm is better, or worse, than another for a variety of reasons. But available statistics don't support their qualitative assertions.
So, how can a person say that one algorithm is more "conservative" or more "aggressive" than another when safe dives are routinely conducted with all the commercially available algorithms? The answer is that they can't. In short, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have no meaning in this context.
So, pick a computer for the features that appeal to you, like large numerals, and follow it.
Fastmarc:
Interesting question and one for another thread but I believe the answer is no, Not really. They are all built on theoretical models and stem from the same model. Statistically the differences are non existent. And statistics work great with theory. Thretically, all the algorithms work just fine.
This "which computer" question comes up fairly regularly and as always there are many answers. Here's my .02. I have been diving computers for 20 years (I still have my Edge) My favorite by far is my Suunto Stinger. On trips I leave my watches at home and the Stinger stays on my wrist 24/7. If it's too big I haven't noticed.
I also dive with a Atom. Now I have had numerous problems with the Atoms and I wasn't too happy with Oceanic but after several go arounds I have another unit. I don't and won't trust it anywhere near the way I trust the Stinger. The Stinger has never failed, I've had NUMEROUS failures with the Atom and my wife gave hers back and opted for something else. When wearing both the Stinger and the Atom there is an obvious difference in the math, I just wait until both are happy before getting out of the water.
If I were to get another computer I'd probably go for a D9 so that I had a match to my Stinger, but more than anything I'd trust the D9 over the Atom.
I also dive with a Atom. Now I have had numerous problems with the Atoms and I wasn't too happy with Oceanic but after several go arounds I have another unit. I don't and won't trust it anywhere near the way I trust the Stinger. The Stinger has never failed, I've had NUMEROUS failures with the Atom and my wife gave hers back and opted for something else. When wearing both the Stinger and the Atom there is an obvious difference in the math, I just wait until both are happy before getting out of the water.
If I were to get another computer I'd probably go for a D9 so that I had a match to my Stinger, but more than anything I'd trust the D9 over the Atom.
