Nitek 3 its expensive but GREAT!

[Uncle Pug]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
Computers offer the "easy" route -- the more "attractive" route.

Only attractive until you realize what they are doing to you physically....

Only easy until you get out of the water feeling crappy and tired after what should have been a weenie dive....

And I am not even talking about the *rot your brain* effect here!

So your computer starts adding stops first at 10 then 20 then 30 then 40....

When if you really knew what was going on you would realize that the minimum is 1 min at 10, 20, 30 and if you need more at those depths then you have better be adding them at 40,50,60...

But your wrist computer won't do that for you will it???
Some might give you credit for it, but YOU have to be smarter than the computer and add those stops in the first place...

And some will give you a *very conservative* 3 minutes at 15' from which you can just go ahead and pop up to the surface @ 120+fpm and think that you just did something good for your body with the *safety stop*! Better to take that three minutes (if you really need them) and use them to slowly ascend to the surface from 15'....

Think with your brain about this one.... and you will realize just how stupid computers are... and they will make you stupid too...
Oh, I guess I did get to the *rot your brain* part

Anyway... I really mean no offense to the compuphiles and thinkaphobes... hope that none is taken...

Remember... Uncle Pug loves you all and wants you to thrive!

 

[Friggincold]

I'll stick with my tables and bottom timer. I think for about $260 I can get a palm pilot and Dplan. Sure beats a grand for the nitek. Plus I can generate all kinds of tables(anytime,anywhere) with different factors just to educate myself on the deco curve. I don't think I can do that with a nitek...Happy Bubbling puter guys:boom:
Friggincold:cold:

 

[Lost Yooper]

OK guys, let see if I can address some of these things .

A computer can continuously track multilevel depths and times that far exceed the capacity of the diver to accurately apply to a table solution on the fly.

If you're planning on doing a multi level dive, then you can run a set of tables and follow the plan. No computer needed. Technical diving requires discipline and computers encourage a relaxing of discipline.

By taking the algorithm on the dive itself, instant, continuous recalculations of decompression status that account for deviations from the planned profile (intentional, accidental or in response to an unforeseen need) can be made that a diver just can't do as well as the computer.

This is assuming the algorithm is any good first of all -- which they aren't. With proper pre-dive planning most deviations are easily dealt with (staying too long, cutting the dive short, loss of a deco gas, etc.).

The computer won't forget a deviation that a diver might.

Comes back to proper planning.

The computer won't misread the table by accident.

Two divers are not likely to misread a table either.

The computer is no substitute for sound planning and does not eliminate the need for manual table calculations. But it is a wonderful tool for fine tuning the plan on the dive, a great backup, and the best error-checker ever.
Rick

This assumes the computer is not making errors which computers do as a matter of their programming. I would add that a computer isn't a substitute for learning proper deco procedures and practical physiology.

Take care.

Mike

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by Lost Yooper
Computers offer the "easy" route -- the more "attractive" route. I'm only going to put forth an argument for others who are lurking to consider, and thereby reconsider the actual value of a dive computer.

Take care.

Mike

Mike,
If you'll read my posts again I think that you'll find no mention of "easy" or "attractive" - but rather that computers offer a new dimension in providing dependable, timely, accurate information to the diver that he can use to his benefit.
I remember a very similar argument when the first real computers were put in attack airplanes - why, they'd make the pilots lazy, they'd forget how to plan, they wouldn't monitor their airspeed, dive angle and altitude closely enough, they'd be less safe, they'd end up being smokin' holes just beyond their bombs... and those were all real possibilities. But you know what? Those who continued to put full effort into planning and flying *and used the computers* ended up being more precise, more safe and more effective than those who refused.
Remember this thread, and let me know what you think in 2012.
Rick

 

[miztflip]

I can't wait to hear this. Rick said it best when he mentioned the sampling rate of a computer and thus the benefit. In the meantime I Keep an eye out for the diver with slates up and down both arms and legs, followed by a "Hey lost yooper" on my dive slate. Using a computer has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to learn the discipline of tables and deco theory. In that case we should all turn our desktops off now and relearn the lost art of handwritting. Then again maybe it just an island thing. Soon com'.

No hard feelings, it is however fun to hear varying thoughts from different types of divers in vastly different locations.

 

[Lost Yooper]

Hey Pete,

Let me see if I can address some of this .

Originally posted by NetDoc
Is that even while you are slamming computers as making your brain rot, you still use them to compute your deco obligations and dive profiles. An algorithm is an algorithm. If you are using a binary tool to compute it, does it really matter whether or not that tool gets wet? AND, as Rick pointed out, the computer has a far better sampling rate than a diver. Would this not be seen as reducing the task loading that encumbers the diver? Are there any diving computers that can accommodate different algorithms and/or different mixes?

We use deco planners because they use better algorithms than computers do. They can be customized in their conservativism to accomodate variables that computers can't. Often times, a square profile using tables will get a diver out faster than a computer that "tracked" you the whole dive. With proper planning, there isn't any significant task loading.

Now, I am NOT trying to make an argument here, as I do not even START to understand how you guys think on this. I really have no idea if there are really good reasons for your aversion to computers, or if they are just vestigial remnants of technophobia.

I am certain that it can not be merely adding "failure points" as bottom timers and depth guages are subject to failures. Carrying a second (or third) computer would be fairly easy too.

You're right, however backing up a depth gauge and timer is easier (and cheaper) than backing up a deficient computer. I carry a backup depth gauge ($30) and a Timex watch ($25). A digital BT could puke, and I wouldn't skip a beat.

Take care.

Mike

 

[The Chairman]

Are you using a computer to "run" these tables? Or are you doig these algorithms manually?

IF you are using a computer, then do you feel that the PC's program is better than the built in one that comes with a Dive Computer?

IF that is also the case, then I still have to ask... are there Dive Computers out there that will accomodate various program sets?

Before you get upset, remember, I am a professed newbie to this field, and I am just trying to get a handle on what/why you guys do what you do. From what I gather...

You dive fairly figid plans that are determined before getting into the water. How much of a deviation can you accomodate before you have to throw out your custom deco schedules? Is there ever a time, where a greater lattitude for deviation might be appropriate? Such as in exploration and such.

Well... I can see someone's gonna have to break the rules and dive with this stroke so I can see how/what you do to accomodate all of the variables. Any takers???

BTW, I did receive the DIR fundamentals book, but I have not had time to read it.

 

[Lost Yooper]

Rick,

Do you really think that a computer is "accurate" if it's programming is based on conservation and inadequate algorithm? Deco isn't an exact science and there isn't a reliablely "accurate" way to track the bubbles. People are paying for a gizmo that can't do what it says it can do.

Mike

 

[Lost Yooper]

Originally posted by miztflip
I can't wait to hear this. Rick said it best when he mentioned the sampling rate of a computer and thus the benefit. In the meantime I Keep an eye out for the diver with slates up and down both arms and legs, followed by a "Hey lost yooper" on my dive slate. Using a computer has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to learn the discipline of tables and deco theory. In that case we should all turn our desktops off now and relearn the lost art of handwritting. Then again maybe it just an island thing. Soon com'.

No hard feelings, it is however fun to hear varying thoughts from different types of divers in vastly different locations.

I don't suspect I will enlighten anyone who has spent a fortune on dive computers and enjoy the mindless ease of dive planning that computers allow. My only hope is that others who read this won't waste their time and money.

Funny, I don't have a slate on my arm -- just a couple wetnotes in my pocket.

Good luck to you.

Mike

 

[Lost Yooper]

Good questions, Pete -- 'bout time .

Originally posted by NetDoc
Are you using a computer to "run" these tables? Or are you doig these algorithms manually?

Yeah, I use the very desk top that I'm looking at. The algorthm is built into the program I use. I just plug in the numbers; the program spits something out; I adjust a few variables that I want; print it; and go diving.

IF you are using a computer, then do you feel that the PC's program is better than the built in one that comes with a Dive Computer?

Absolutely.

IF that is also the case, then I still have to ask... are there Dive Computers out there that will accomodate various program sets?

I don't think so.

Before you get upset, remember, I am a professed newbie to this field, and I am just trying to get a handle on what/why you guys do what you do. From what I gather...

You dive fairly figid plans that are determined before getting into the water. How much of a deviation can you accomodate before you have to throw out your custom deco schedules? Is there ever a time, where a greater lattitude for deviation might be appropriate? Such as in exploration and such.

First of all, I don't get upset when someone asks intelligent questions. I don't care to change any minds here -- only to offer a different view that a lot of people share.

We have various plans ready to be used that can accomodate all kinds of scenarios (extended BT, shorten BT, loss of deco gas, etc.)

Well... I can see someone's gonna have to break the rules and dive with this stroke so I can see how/what you do to accomodate all of the variables. Any takers???

Sure, but I'll have to do it later. Gotta go.

BTW, I did receive the DIR fundamentals book, but I have not had time to read it.

It's a great book. It discusses why computers are not optimal -- take a look.



Mike