Mass confusion about computers????

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Interesting! Thanks for sharing that.

Do you know anyone that dives using those instead of using PC-based planning and/or a dive computer in dive mode?

I know people who use tables for doing decompression dives. They are not NAUI so I am not sure if they are using this particular table.
 
I go on lots of group dive trips with 3-6 dives a day, day after day. The Suunto and Mares (and sometimes Cressi) divers really feel put upon with the limited NDLs their computers are giving them after a few days of this.

PS. You do realise, of course, that the 1994 DSAT paper, right in the abstract, recommends "at most 4" dives/day with a "reduced level (or none)" dives every 2-3 days? Because when they ran a 6 dives/day test schedule they had DCS hit on day 2?
 
A deco diver -- especially if using Trimix -- will plan the dive on desktop software first. The dive may then be executed on tables printed from the software, with a computer as a backup, or vice-versa. If the dive is truely a square profile, then those NAUI tables might work out, but given any mulilevel-ness (multilevality?) to the dive, the additional deco demands of assuming a square profile but not diving a square profile are daunting. And helium is expensive.
 
PS. You do realise, of course, that the 1994 DSAT paper, right in the abstract, recommends "at most 4" dives/day with a "reduced level (or none)" dives every 2-3 days? Because when they ran a 6 dives/day test schedule they had DCS hit on day 2?
Selective quote. The full quote is:
"From the test results we further conclude that performing multiple dives over multiple days with the RDP is acceptable, and can be done with no greater risk than is encountered in many common practices of recreational divers. Even so, based on this evidence and the suggestions of other experts, we recommend limiting the number of full-time dives per day to 3 or at most 4, and suggest including a day with a reduced level of diving (or none) every 2 or 3 days."

The 3-6 dives a day I mentioned were none that went to the NDL limit (i.e., a "full-time" dive; remember the authors were testing the limits, so people had to do to the limits), were in warm water (not Puget Sound), were usually 3-4 not 5-6, were mostly above 50-60 feet so were gas, not NDL limited, and did in fact have heavy days interspersed with light days. Since 1994, there have probably been millions of dives using DSAT tables or computers; I think we are OK.
 
The 3-6 dives a day I mentioned were none that went to the NDL limit (i.e., a "full-time" dive; remember the authors were testing the limits, so people had to do to the limits), were in warm water (not Puget Sound), were usually 3-4 not 5-6, were mostly above 50-60 feet so were gas, not NDL limited, and did in fact have heavy days interspersed with light days.

That's pretty much our vacation schedule, perhaps sans heavily interspersed with light days, and I'm yet to feel NDL-limited by my Cressi. Which leads me to believe that people who do feel that way must be doing something differently.

I don't have a Mares Puck, maybe it really is that much more conservative than ever other dive computer... except those in Suunto threads... and the Deep Blu threads... and Scooby Lab studies...
 
It is no surprise that in order to shrink the curriculum, divers are given computers from the very first day.
How does this shrink the curriculum? Teaching the computer section of a computer-based OW course takes about as long as teaching the tables.

Comparing teaching basic math before teaching calculators to teaching tables before teaching computers is a completely false analogy. Using a calculator makes mathematical functions easier and faster, but you still have to understand the mathematical functions that need to be calculated. You also need to know and be able to use mathematical functions for a number of purposes for which calculators are not used--we do not use calculators every time we need to add numbers. In the modern world, you need to be able to do basic math, and you also need to be able to use calculators.

In contrast, you need to know decompression theory to understand a computer, but you do not need to know how to run tables to understand a computer. You can understand decompression theory and how to use a dive computer without even knowing that tables ever existed.
 

Back
Top Bottom