Do I really need a computer?

[Charlie99]

The issue for me is a computer will not do what I need it to and the ones that may come close will not do it very well or give the profiles I need. I bet if more people had better training, they may opt out of using a computer since this stuff is way to easy to do without one.

For my NDL/no stop/minimum deco diving and my mild deco diving, the computer doesn't give a profile. It gives me a ceiling; I set the profile.

I've been looking around for better training available to us BCD-wearing underwater tourist divers, but haven't been able to find it.

 

[boomx5]

For my NDL/no stop/minimum deco diving and my mild deco diving, the computer doesn't give a profile. It gives me a ceiling; I set the profile.

I've been looking around for better training available to us BCD-wearing underwater tourist divers, but haven't been able to find it.

There are a number of classes scheduled that will be going on over on the islands. Contact 5thd-x and they can get you into one if you are interested. As far as the computer useage goes. I've dove with you and know that a computer is just a tool for the diving you do, and if anything happed to the thing you wouldn't have an issue handling it. It's not the end of the world if someone has a dive computer for recreational diving and it certainly doesn't make them unsafe.

That's just my .02,

 

[Goose75]

As far as tables vs computers for recreational diving goes, both properly used should be safe. The problem is proper usage. I question the reliability of more computers on top of the shoulders than I do those on the wrist. With a good computer on top of the shoulders I'm not really worried which calculator the person prefers.

 

[ZzzKing]

I've certainly used MS Excel for design / design support work as well as a data analysis and troubleshooting tool, for the past 12 years in my occupation (we used Lotus 1-2-3 previous to that), so add me to the list of such engineers. I can introduce you to my coworkers too . . . it's a global company with a sizeable technical employee base.

My understanding is our competitive competitors also use MS Excel for similar functions - maybe our less competitive competitors don't, I don't benchmark against them, so I don't really know.

I must have misinterpreted his original meaning. I use Excel all the time for design also but I set up the spreadsheet and equations myself. It sounded to me as if he was using some sort of pre-prepared template that shipped with the software. My mistake.

I'm not taking the Microsoft comments back, though.

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

well put.

it depends on the objective and degree of sophistiction to achieve the objective.

Internal combustion engines obviously don't 'need' a computer to operate - but as things like gas mileage, environmental emissions, etc. all became larger issues, they were used to better achieve such objectives. The emissions from a beloved (by me anyway) 1960's or early 1970's V-8 powered hunk of Detroit iron as well as fuel efficiency are different to engines with similar displacements that are today manufactured with CAD / CAM assistance and operationally are assisted by computer control. And to my delight, business like Hypertech allow monkeys like me to alter such programming if I value power performance vs. fuel economy. 'Lean burn' isn't compromised like going back to carburators, points, condensers, etc. under the hood.

But neither version of transportation worked or will work well if the organic brain is disengaged from the nut behind the wheel.

Likewise, jet aircraft didn't require computer control - the German fighter / interceptor models used in WWII had no such controls - but survivability of things as simple as takeoff and especially landing have increased dramatically with computer assistance for control, whether for military or commercial use - but pilots still engage their brains, especially during those steps to my knowledge.

This is why I don't understand why there's a paradigm that use of a computer inherently implies the lack of functioning of the organic brain for this sport.

 

[Goose75]

I must have misinterpreted his original meaning. I use Excel all the time for design also but I set up the spreadsheet and equations myself. It sounded to me as if he was using some sort of pre-prepared template that shipped with the software. My mistake.

I'm not taking the Microsoft comments back, though.

I was originally complaining about Excel's inability to do simple math. It is an old gripe from Excel 97 that was fixed with the service pack. Inexcusable mistake in my opinion. If a dive computer algorithm made that kind of error you can bet they would loose in court no matter how strong a disclaimer they use.

 

[boomx5]

it depends on the objective and degree of sophistiction to achieve the objective.

Internal combustion engines obviously don't 'need' a computer to operate - but as things like gas mileage, environmental emissions, etc. all became larger issues, they were used to better achieve such objectives. The emissions from a beloved (by me anyway) 1960's or early 1970's V-8 powered hunk of Detroit iron as well as fuel efficiency are different to engines with similar displacements that are today manufactured with CAD / CAM assistance and operationally are assisted by computer control. And to my delight, business like Hypertech allow monkeys like me to alter such programming if I value power performance vs. fuel economy. 'Lean burn' isn't compromised like going back to carburators, points, condensers, etc. under the hood.

But neither version of transportation worked or will work well if the organic brain is disengaged from the nut behind the wheel.

Likewise, jet aircraft didn't require computer control - the German fighter / interceptor models used in WWII had no such controls - but survivability of things as simple as takeoff and especially landing have increased dramatically with computer assistance for control, whether for military or commercial use - but pilots still engage their brains, especially during those steps to my knowledge.

This is why I don't understand why there's a paradigm that use of a computer inherently implies the lack of functioning of the organic brain for this sport.

I understand what you are saying. However, I think a diver using a dive computer irresponsibly is more akin to a driver using cruise control irresponsibly and falling asleep at the wheel. Granted, we don't all turn off our brains and fall asleep at the wheel while using cruise control, but it can happen. I do know people who are very "heads up" about using dive computers, but I also have seen people who are not. Personally, I don't think dive computers are inherantly dangerous, and I think it's foolish to make a strawman argument that they are.

For me, (as I've already stated) a dive computer just will not do the job I would need it to do. Furthermore, there is not an algorithm in any piece of software, dive computer or table for that matter that produces the profiles that we dive.

 

[Sordello]

I am not aware of any engineers that use a stock Excel spreadsheet to do their design for them. You might ask your professor exactly how this exercise is preparing you for a design career.

You gotta love Microsoft, though. That's some awesome customer serveice there. They sell you faulty software and then charge you for service packs to make it work right. :hyper:

It's a good sign that you used your brain and realized that the computer was wrong and figured out how to deal with the problem rather than blindly following your machine's design. Hey, that sounds vaguely similar to some of the posts on in this thread, too...

It has to be the most important thing there is - when one realizes the their equipment isn't telling the whole story. I've been a tech for nearly 30 years and it is easy to shut off the brain and just rely on the test equiment to tell you the story. The most telling jobs are the ones that the equipment can't discover - only using a logic plan can solve these conundrums. While very rare that situation does happen.

It is the same thing while diving as the computer will be 99.99999% reliable and it will only be that one in a million thing that will get you. If you don't have a plan and are paying attention to the computer while ignoring the other gages it is unlikely you will ever have a problem. One thing I've learned in 28 years of being a tekkie - you have to trust the equipment but, mostly you have to trust your brain.

By the way ZzzKing - The service packs and updates from the defective Micro$()#! are free. They only charge if they are mailed to you rather than downloaded. I think that Apple is the only company that charges for patches. I work on both systems and am not to particular as to which is used - Unix/Linux are also good but there are very few third party software for common devices using Linux.

 

[sff]

For me, (as I've already stated) a dive computer just will not do the job I would need it to do. Furthermore, there is not an algorithm in any piece of software, dive computer or table for that matter that produces the profiles that we dive.

This is a really interesting comment. Tables and dive computers are all based on the same basic theoretical model. What I would be really interested in knowing is what exactly are the kinds of dives that you do for which a dive computer, or for that matter any algorythm out there, can not be used. And to take that to the next step, exactly how do you plan your profiles?

Just very curious as I can't think of any profile for which a computer can't be used. To include deep diving with trimix. Though in those cases, the research upon which all of the tables and profiles are based is scant.

Thanks,

Steve

 

[jonnythan]

Tables ... are all based on the same basic theoretical model.

This statement is inaccurate.