• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. 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

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

I need the help of ScubaBoard to develop a new safety device

Discussion in 'Research and Development' started by ADA_JIM, Feb 22, 2016.

  1. dmaziuk

    dmaziuk Orca

    5,410
    1,881
    113
  2. The Laconic

    The Laconic ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Chicago, IL
    348
    146
    43
    Every dive computer already offers a digital log.

    Otherwise, and I realize this is a cliche, it sounds like an technical solution to a training problem. My two cents.
     
  3. DevonDiver

    DevonDiver N/A

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: Subic Bay, Philippines
    15,396
    8,165
    113
    I'm trying to figure out what stage of R&D this prospective device is at. The questions posed by the OP don't really explain what practical/theoretical help he needs from Scubaboard members in the development.

    It's almost as if the product had finished R&D and were actually being pre-marketed, especially given the other thread posted...

    anyway...

    1 - what do you think of the features?
    I think they are quite irrelevant to promoting dive safety. I believe that safety stems from effective education teaching appropriate protocols and procedures to mitigate known risks.

    2 - how would you do them?
    I would apply a reasonable amount of situational awareness and team diving protocols.

    3 - are they important to you?

    The concept of effective underwater communication and team cohesiveness is important to me. Neither of these things is promoted by abdicating proficiency to a digital gizmo.

    4 - can you think of any other features that would be useful?

    Coffee maker?

    5 - do you think these devices you make your diving experiences safer?

    I think they'd promote a decline in actual situational awareness.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2016
    The Laconic likes this.
  4. mmmbelows

    mmmbelows Regular of the Pub

    1,031
    573
    113
    Hi Jim,
    Don't get discouraged with the replies you receive, what you should understand is that if you posted on here that you were going to invent a new device to allow people to put compressed air on their backs and go underwater, you predict a new industry of people riding boats specially outfitted just to take people with your new idea out to the reefs and that you predict this will one day reach world wide and average cost will be about $60 each time you do it, you'd get reply after reply at how impractical it is, how no one would pay $60, how it's not a needed invention, how nobody would pay to go see fish underwater when you can look at them in an aquarium... It's what happens over and over again on scubaboard.

    Most famous is the replies always given about new product ideas at how they aren't needed because they are a technological solution to a training solution. Believe me dive buddy separation is the #1 problem with diving safety and the #1 violation that everybody sees. It's why there have been phrases coined for buddy types such as "same ocean diver" meaning you have a dive buddy with you somewhere in the same proximity of the ocean or not where they should be to be offering any safety. Dive buddies separate from each other, get lost from each other more often than most anybody will admit, because when the topic comes up those doing the most denying are typically the ones with the worst violations of the protocol.

    So don't get discouraged, this is a typical responses to any new idea, you'll get 1000 reasons why you can't do it and another 1000 why it's not needed.
     
  5. The Laconic

    The Laconic ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Chicago, IL
    348
    146
    43
    P(A|B) != P(B|A)

    In particular, the likelihood that a new idea is actually good, given that everybody thinks it's bad, is not the probability that everybody thinks a new idea is bad, even though it's actually good. In practice, it's not even close.
     
    DiveNav likes this.
  6. Storker

    Storker Divemaster

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: close to a Hell which occasionally freezes over
    12,853
    9,247
    113
    What kind of signaling technology are you going to use? I'm asking honestly, because I don't know any kind of communication principle that can give you those features. If it exists, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
     
  7. giffenk

    giffenk Great White

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: toronto
    4,924
    2,404
    113
    I applaud your request as you appear to be seeking "the truth". As a technology uber-weenie, I am also very interested. but skeptical.

    This thread reminds me of A Student Claims to Have Designed Working Artificial Gills | Innovation | Smithsonian And Mars One

    Lots of marketing hype, very short on the practical science & reality part. And yes, I had the rare opportunity to personally talk to a "real" astronaut about mars one...

    If the OP came out with a whole pile of science I would be interested. If they identified a real problem AND have some valid thoughts about a potentially viable cutting edge technology solution, then I may jump on the band wagon and be willing to contribute in a positive way (I already revealed a uwatec "secret" on how to create a buttonless button!)
     
  8. ADA_JIM

    ADA_JIM Angel Fish

    # of Dives: 25 - 49
    Location: Cageside
    5
    0
    1
    Wow thank you all so much for this feedback. I truly appreciate all of you who have taken the time thus far to give me your insight. Please keep your feedback coming in as the more views we have the better.

    Re: Bluetooth low energy working at depth - we are testing this right now and believe that it will actually work better in water than it will do outside of it.

    I will keep you all updated with our progress but please do keep
     
  9. giffenk

    giffenk Great White

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: toronto
    4,924
    2,404
    113
    Nope. Not sure there is any need to test this. This is well known science. The military has poured lots of money into research (they need to be able to talk to their submarines...)
    Let me google that for you
    You should be easily able to find some examples like 300km range in air gives 10m range in seawater. The higher the frequency the greater the reduction in range.
     
  10. Lorenzoid

    Lorenzoid idling in neutral buoyancy

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Atlanta, USA
    9,138
    5,669
    113
    Sure, the OP should not allow the responses here to discourage him. Dreaming is good. But he did ask for input. It wasn't unsolicited advice that he received. He even got more than he asked for.

    He's going to need something more sophisticated than Bluetooth or other off-the-shelf technology. As giffenk pointed out, underwater communication has been the subject of millions of dollars of research by the US Navy, and miniaturization and cost-effectiveness are probably not even major goals. So far, companies like Liquivision, Desert Star Systems (Dive Tracker Scout), and Uwatec (Neverlost) have developed some devices with capabilities limited by commonly available (and therefore economical) technologies. I think to achieve something that really solves the problems the OP mentions, the device would need to leverage some technology that either hasn't been discovered yet or is still in the realm of basic lab research or secret Navy programs. I wish the OP all the best in developing the technology.
     

Share This Page