Nitek Q vs Petrel

[Superlyte27]

That response is one I can understand. You have dove both. That is why I ask. I personally did not find the need for the manual with my Q. However, I have nothing to compare it to as I have not dove a Shearwater anything.

Come dive with me one day. You can borrow mine.
We should dive together one day anyway.

 

[JamesK]

Come dive with me one day. You can borrow mine.
We should dive together one day anyway.

Agreed. The next two months are going to be crazy for me and limit my trips from three or four a month to maybe one a month. I will let you know.

 

[stuartv]

I've dove both. I recently borrowed the Q when I left my computer home for a cave dive. Dive both, the decision will be easy. Well, truth be told, I haven't dove a Petrel, but I am very familiar with the Predator, which is very similar to the Predator. The Petral gets you out of the water much quicker and is a lot easier to use.

I know this is resurrecting an old thread. But, I am contemplating purchasing a Nitek Q as an inexpensive backup tech computer.

I am baffled by the statement in bold. If you set a Petrel and a Nitek Q to Buhlmann with the same GF, and you set the same gases, how can the Petrel get you out of the water much quicker? They should give virtually identical ascent plans, right?

Since I know the Petrel Buhlmann/GF implementation performs almost exactly the same as what MultiDeco (PC software) predicts, this statement would imply that the Nitek Q Buhlmann/GF implementation is seriously flawed in some way.

What's the real story there?

 

[runsongas]

don't you already own a petrel and a seabear?

 

[DiverDownD3]

Dont mean to hijack this thread, but it seems to fall under the same topic. Is the petrel or perdix really worth the $$ to your average (40-50 dives a year) recreational diver? I think one day I could see myself going the technical route (after a lot more training and experience of course).
I'll self admit that right now I think it's just the "I love new toys" that draws me to it. Right now my puck seems adequate

 

[ffdiver]

I know this is resurrecting an old thread. But, I am contemplating purchasing a Nitek Q as an inexpensive backup tech computer.

I am baffled by the statement in bold. If you set a Petrel and a Nitek Q to Buhlmann with the same GF, and you set the same gases, how can the Petrel get you out of the water much quicker? They should give virtually identical ascent plans, right?

Since I know the Petrel Buhlmann/GF implementation performs almost exactly the same as what MultiDeco (PC software) predicts, this statement would imply that the Nitek Q Buhlmann/GF implementation is seriously flawed in some way.

What's the real story there?

I can sell ya my Nitek q for $200 if you would like a backup.

 

[JohnnyC]

Dont mean to hijack this thread, but it seems to fall under the same topic. Is the petrel or perdix really worth the $$ to your average (40-50 dives a year) recreational diver? I think one day I could see myself going the technical route (after a lot more training and experience of course).
I'll self admit that right now I think it's just the "I love new toys" that draws me to it. Right now my puck seems adequate

Most recreational divers who purchase a Shearwater product buy it for the easily visible screen, excellent information layout, reliability, and customer service. Some purchase it because of its advanced functionality as a recreational nitrox computer, some purchase it in anticipation of needing the more technical functions, and some purchase it because they like spending bunches of money, regardless of whether or not they need or are even able to take advantage of the capabilities. Considering people purchase computers that are less capable, for more money, I don't think it's necessarily a question of whether or not it's worth it, as it's obvious that people can justify less performance for more money.

Is your puck adequate for the dives you do? Sure (I'm assuming). Would a Shearwater computer be just as adequate? Sure. Is the cost of the Shearwater worth it for the dives you do? That's up to you, but it's not out of the realm of possibility to justify it. Would it be worth it to upgrade from a puck? Again, it depends on your needs and/or desires. For most people, probably not. For certain people, absolutely. However, the capability jump is pretty substantial, as opposed to most other "premium" pieces of hardware in the scuba world.

 

[stuartv]

don't you already own a petrel and a seabear?

I had a Petrel 2 and sold it after I got my H3. I didn't feel like I could afford to keep the Petrel 2. Plus, the whole reason I wanted the H3 is because I really did not like the brick-like size of the Petrel 2. The NQ is less than half the thickness of the Petrel 2 and less than half the price. Way less even than what I sold my used Petrel 2 for.

However, I emailed questions to Dive Rite today and they responded. Based on their answers, I'm not sure I want to spend money on a NQ at all. Here are the questions I sent, and their answers.

- Can I change what gases are programmed, during a dive? E.g. I dive EAN32 on my first dive. I get out for a surface interval then do a second dive. On my second dive, I use EAN36. But, I forget to reprogram my computer before I get in. Can I change Mix 1 from EAN32 to EAN36 after I get in the water and descend? The manual implies that I cannot and that I would only be able to do that on the surface.

- Can I change the gradient factor settings during a dive? E.g. I start the dive set to GF 30/70. I end my dive early and want to change my GF to 50/85 in order to get out more quickly. Can I do that?

- Total Ascent Time does not appear to include the time required to ascend to the surface from the final deco stop. Is that correct? The example in the manual shows a current depth of 98’, a deco stop of 6:00 at 10’, and a TAT of 6:00. If I stop for 6:00 at 10’, and the TAT is 6:00, then it obviously does not include any time to get from the bottom to the first deco stop or any time to get from the last deco stop to the surface. The description of TAT says it is the time at deco stops and the ascent time BETWEEN deco stops. It does not say it includes the time to get to the first deco stop or the time from the last deco stop to the surface. In which case, maybe the example shown is exactly how the compute would really look. In which case, I would have to say that I would like it a lot better if the TOTAL Ascent Time included ALL the ascent time required to get to the surface – i.e. including time to the first deco stop and time from the last stop to the surface.

- Does the TAT factor expected gas switches into its calculation, or is the TAT shown based on using the current Mix for all deco? If the latter, then that means that I would expect a big drop in the TAT as soon as I do a gas switch to a deco gas on the computer, right?

- If the TAT does factor expected gas switches into its calculation, then is there a way to have a gas programmed in as a Mix, but tell the computer not to include it? In other words, essentially disable a gas without actually deleting it. It is pretty common for me to do a deco dive with a gas switch, then have a surface interval, then do another dive where I do not carry a deco gas with me. It would be nice if I did have to delete the deco gas from the computer before the second dive, then add it back the next morning before my first dive. And, of course, still have the TAT and ascent plan display accurately for the gases I’m actually carrying.

- Is there a way to set the computer for what depth I want to do my final deco stop at? It’s pretty normal for my ocean dives for me to want to do my final deco at 30’, to stay out of the surface surge when conditions are rough. It would be nice to be able to tell the computer to plan my ascent that way, so that it would give me a more accurate TAT.

- Does the data that gets uploaded from the log include the gas mixes used and when the gas switches occurred?

- There appears to be no way to put the Nitek Q into a Gauge Only mode. Is that correct?

The answers from Dive Rite Support:

The Q has limited function once in dive mode.

I will try to answer your questions

Once in dive mode you cannot edit the gas list or change gradient factors.

TAT is based on gases programmed and tries to anticipate you doing the changes based on whether or not you programmed in 1.4 or 1.6 for the alarm setting for that gas.

TAT does not include time to ascend from last stop, 10' and you can't change the depth of your last stop. It can't be put into gauge mode.

Gas switches are not recorded in the download. The WorkBench is obsolete so to download dives use www.divinglog.de

 

[ajduplessis]

The one is a Parker, the other a Mont Blanc. They both will do a great job.

Personally I prefer the Mont Blanc (shearwater)

 

[bergersau]

I am baffled by the statement in bold. If you set a Petrel and a Nitek Q to Buhlmann with the same GF, and you set the same gases, how can the Petrel get you out of the water much quicker? They should give virtually identical ascent plans, right?

Since I know the Petrel Buhlmann/GF implementation performs almost exactly the same as what MultiDeco (PC software) predicts, this statement would imply that the Nitek Q Buhlmann/GF implementation is seriously flawed in some way.

What's the real story there?

I suspect that the two computers in question were set to different Gradient Factors - though that is just my speculation.

Also the response you got from Dive Rite looks about right to me. The Nitek Q is a good computer (IMO) but there's no question that the Petrel/Perdix is a much better one.
I picked up a Q with only 5 dives on it for under $400 Australian, a Petrel on the other hand is $1000 to $1100 on the shelf here. The Nitek Q has everything I need (and more) but does lack those last few touches that separate the Petrel and Perdix from the rest of the pack.