Diving with just a watch

[jeckyll]

Exactly, thats very little evidence to make such a wide claim on. How many times has it worked?

You know, I ran across this post today and couldn't help but laugh.



http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/co.../195116-beware-suunto-computers-d9-vytec.html

 

[Eris Lucan7*]

Watsh yes but timetabel no.

E.L.7*

 

[Cave Diver]

Aloha sailMike:
Look at what a computer is....it is a timing device connected to a depth gauge, in essence.
Also, it is a sensitive instrument subjected to extremes of heat, cold and pressure. It is battery powered, electrical and spends its functional time soaking in salt water. That computer will not last forever; it will die someday. When that occurs, and you happen to be on your lifetime-dream month-long round-the-world liveaboard cruise, wouldn't it be great if you knew and were comfy using tables?

As opposed to a dive watch being a sensitive instrument used for telling time that will be exposed to heat, cold and pressure, quite possibly battery powered and electrical and spends a lot of time on your wrist getting beat around in everyday life.

I'm not sure the argument to use tables and a watch or bottom timer vs. computers is is valid in this respect. Regardless of which timing device is used, (watch or computer) there is always the possibility of flooding. If your once-in-a-lifetime dive trip is occurring in some remote location, it may be just as hard to find a replacement dive watch as it is to borrow a computer.

That being said, it's my personal belief that divers should be comfortable using tables, have a good working knowledge of NDL times and depths and use the computer as a reference or backup to that knowledge, not in place of it.

 

[jviehe]

You know, I ran across this post today and couldn't help but laugh.



http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/co.../195116-beware-suunto-computers-d9-vytec.html

That we have to search for exceptions proves the rule. There are hundreds of computer model, thousands in use, and hundreds of thousands of dives conducted where a computer does not fail. This makes them NOT prone to failure.

 

[jviehe]

I guess you're not good with tongue-in-cheek comments.

Let me remind you of what I consider the important bit:

Dive computers are not life support.

I would disagree with that too. Monitoring your tissue loading is critical to diving.

 

[Nemrod]

I would disagree with that too. Monitoring your tissue loading is critical to diving.

I dissagree with you. Computers are NOT life support. They do not monititor YOUR tissue loading. They instead run a program based on assumptions that generally apply to tissue loading but it is not YOUR tissue, it is a hypothetical set of tissues. Every dive computer for which I have read the instructions more or less states it is not life support equipment.

Many people do still dive a watch and tables for no deco dives and certainly can use a watch and tables for backup for more complex diving.

N

 

[SparticleBrane]

I would disagree with that too. Monitoring your tissue loading is critical to diving.

According to your profile you are an IT helpdesk guru, so hopefully you understand this concept: computers do NOT monitor tissue loading.
They take depth and time, run them through a formula, and spit out a number. That's it. They don't take you into account...just a bunch of numbers. Heck, the computer doesn't even "know" that the numbers it's getting are depth at time -- they could be anything for all it cares.
I find it interesting in one of your above posts that you recommend against thinking.

 

[jviehe]

I dissagree with you. Computers are NOT life support. They do not monititor YOUR tissue loading. They instead run a program based on assumptions that generally apply to tissue loading but it is not YOUR tissue, it is a hypothetical set of tissues. Every dive computer for which I have read the instructions more or less states it is not life support equipment.

Many people do still dive a watch and tables for no deco dives and certainly can use a watch and tables for backup for more complex diving.

N

I beleive I said monitoring your tissue loading was critical. Do you disagree with that? I could care less what a manual says. The company is not here to debate me. Im saying monitoring your loading is critical to safety, and thus the tools you use to monitor them are life support, be it a slide rule or a computer. A computer is no different than a table, except more accurate and thus safer.

 

[jviehe]

According to your profile you are an IT helpdesk guru, so hopefully you understand this concept: computers do NOT monitor tissue loading.
They take depth and time, run them through a formula, and spit out a number. That's it. They don't take you into account...just a bunch of numbers. Heck, the computer doesn't even "know" that the numbers it's getting are depth at time -- they could be anything for all it cares.
I find it interesting in one of your above posts that you recommend against thinking.

They take youre specific dive into account, which is more than tables do. And some do have factors for specific body stats. I dont reccomened against thinking. I reccomend FOR using technology to make diving safer and more fun.

 

[Nemrod]

I beleive I said monitoring your tissue loading was critical. Do you disagree with that? I could care less what a manual says. The company is not here to debate me. Im saying monitoring your loading is critical to safety, and thus the tools you use to monitor them are life support, be it a slide rule or a computer. A computer is no different than a table, except more accurate and thus safer.

And what we are saying is that your not monitoring YOUR tissue loading, the computer is modeling a hypothetical diver--not you. You can monitor hypothetical tissue loading with tables and a watch, with a V-Planner and a bottom timer or with a computer. N