Nitrox tables going too?

[Kingpatzer]

The problem with this logic is that it is easily taken too far. After all does a student really need to know all that physics? Couldn't a diver simply follow sets of safety rules and guidelines and still dive safely? Well yes they could, but I don't see to many arguments saying that dive physics and physiology need to be cut from courses.

No OW course in existence now, or ever, has been sufficient to allow a student to derive a decompression model, or even sufficient to allow them to calculate a decompression schedule given a model. A table is nothing more than a very limited abstraction of a model's outputs to give a diver who understands the very barest of essentials the ability to calculate a dive plan that should probably keep them reasonably safe.

If taken to extreme levels classes could devolve into even simpler and shorter than they are now.
Instructor: "Strap this to you, breathe from this, listen to what this doohickey says, equalize, don't hold your breath, and don't drown. Got it? Good here's your card, have fun."

I am not advocating that divers do not plan their dives, or that they don't understand decompression theory anymore than a chemistry teacher who allows calculators over slide rules or log tables is trying to avoid teaching the mathematical concepts behind a calculation.

Not teaching tables takes no dive theory or physics away from the course.

 

[rubixcube]

No OW course in existence now, or ever, has been sufficient to allow a student to derive a decompression model, or even sufficient to allow them to calculate a decompression schedule given a model. A table is nothing more than a very limited abstraction of a model's outputs to give a diver who understands the very barest of essentials the ability to calculate a dive plan that should probably keep them reasonably safe.

You seem to have missed my point entirely, first off I didn't mention deco or anything of that level. I was referring to the basic gas laws, effects of pressure, etc. present in the OW and more so the nitrox courses.

I am not advocating that divers do not plan their dives, or that they don't understand decompression theory anymore than a chemistry teacher who allows calculators over slide rules or log tables is trying to avoid teaching the mathematical concepts behind a calculation.

Not teaching tables takes no dive theory or physics away from the course.

I did not say anything about you believing or not believing anything, my point was that when one group of people decides that something is unimportant and should be ignored another group will inevitably take it to the next level, and eventually yet another group will take it even farther. I also did not connect tables to theory or physics.

 

[Kingpatzer]

You seem to have missed my point entirely, first off I didn't mention deco or anything of that level. I was referring to the basic gas laws, effects of pressure, etc. present in the OW and more so the nitrox courses.

In the PADI system one is not required to demonstrate the gas laws until the DM level. Prior to that students need to demonstrate underlying physical concepts. Which is not leaving the course regardless of if we use tables to not. Linking that material to using tables makes about as much sense as saying we're not going to teach proper bouyancy control if we include teaching BCDs.

I did not say anything about you believing or not believing anything, my point was that when one group of people decides that something is unimportant and should be ignored another group will inevitably take it to the next level, and eventually yet another group will take it even farther. I also did not connect tables to theory or physics.

"Slippery slope" is not a valid argument for choosing a course of action.

 

[vladimir]

Don't tables come with instructions printed on them? If you'd never seen a set of tables, but had the most basic familiarity with decompression concepts, how hard would it be to figure out how to use them?

 

[rubixcube]

In the PADI system one is not required to demonstrate the gas laws until the DM level. Prior to that students need to demonstrate underlying physical concepts. Which is not leaving the course regardless of if we use tables to not.

In the NAUI books Hery's Boyle's and Dalton's laws are gone over in very short and simplified explanations (which are in fact largely limited to their physical effects), I was simply using them as a possible example.

Linking that material to using tables makes about as much sense as saying we're not going to teach proper bouyancy control if we include teaching BCDs.

As I said before I am not linking the two together.

"Slippery slope" is not a valid argument for choosing a course of action.

Your right it's not, luckily I'm not using that way. I was simply making the point that people take things to far, and that similar arguments could be made about many other concepts in the classes.Tables are not time consuming or difficult, they may not be entirely practical, heck they might not even be used, but in certain situations they can be useful.

Let me continue the example I used in my first post.Thanks to elementary school I know how to do long division, do I ever need to actually go through that process in real life? No not usually, after all I can just use a calculator it's faster and easier. But has that knowledge been useful in a few circumstances when I needed to do simple math and was without a calculator, and am I grateful I know that process? Yes, I am. IMHO I don't think it's necessary to cut a relatively short and simple and possibly useful part of what is typically already a very short and extremely easy course.

 

[Randy43068]

Don't tables come with instructions printed on them? If you'd never seen a set of tables, but had the most basic familiarity with decompression concepts, how hard would it be to figure out how to use them?

What are you thinking man? It takes a PADI speciality class to understand this very advanced concept.

 

[boulderjohn]

My two cents, in math class before the student is handed a calculator they are taught how to actually work the math. The calculator is easier, quicker, and more practical, it also reduces the possible amount of human error. That said if I need to solve a math problem and am without a calculator, or faced with a broken one I can still solve the problem. The parallel should be fairly obvious.

It may look parallel at first glance, but it is not.

The basis of a calculator is the math the student had to learn first. That is correct.

The basis of the computer is NOT the tables, though. The basis of the computer is an algorithm based on decompression theory. The basis of the tables is an algorithm based on decompression theory. The tables are two different and independent ways of calculating decompression. You do not need to know one to understand the other.

Next, there is a value to knowing both the manual math process and the calculator. You will regularly use manual math practices every day, even if it is only calculating how much time it will be before your favorite TV show starts. There is no no corresponding value in knowing the tables.

A better comparison in math is to compare the different ways the that manual calculations have become automated. In that comparison, mathematical process are similar to decompression theory. Tables and Computers are comparable to calculators, abacuses, and slide rules. Are you suggesting that schools teach students to use slide rules and abacuses in case the batteries in their calculators fail?

 

[rubixcube]

It may look parallel at first glance, but it is not.

The basis of a calculator is the math the student had to learn first. That is correct.

The basis of the computer is NOT the tables, though. The basis of the computer is an algorithm based on decompression theory. The basis of the tables is an algorithm based on decompression theory. The tables are two different and independent ways of calculating decompression. You do not need to know one to understand the other.

Next, there is a value to knowing both the manual math process and the calculator. You will regularly use manual math practices every day, even if it is only calculating how much time it will be before your favorite TV show starts. There is no no corresponding value in knowing the tables.

A better comparison in math is to compare the different ways the that manual calculations have become automated. In that comparison, mathematical process are similar to decompression theory. Tables and Computers are comparable to calculators, abacuses, and slide rules. Are you suggesting that schools teach students to use slide rules and abacuses in case the batteries in their calculators fail?

It's not parallel in that way no, but I make the parallel that the tables are the longer and less practical method that will not typically be used in day to day diving (in other words the math processes) and the computers are the faster and easier method that are what most will almost always use when possible (the calculator).

 

[boulderjohn]

I just don't think a few minutes to learn to read a computer is enough to truly grasp the fundamentals behind what the computer is doing. Granted you don't need an intricate knowledge of every single algorithm the computer uses, I'm not advocating anything like that. I went through Nitrox year before last, so I still remember the class, and sadly I saw people in the class figure out how to go through a table example but 5 minutes later don't really remember what PO2 really represents, or the critical importance of MOD etc.
.

Because some people teach the meaning of PO2 and MOD at the same time they are teaching tables, people are continually confused about this.

They are not the same thing!

If decompression theory, MOD, etc. had been developed during the computer age, it is very possible that the tables would never have been invented. You do not need need tables to teach these things. In fact, as someone who always taught decompression theory apart from the tables, I think students learn it a lot better when they are not also learning how to manipulate a table at the same time.

If you look into the educational theory of interference, you will see that it is quite likely that teaching tables at the same time that you are teaching decompression theory, learning one might be interfering with learning the other.

 

[boulderjohn]

It's not parallel in that way no, but I make the parallel that the tables are the longer and less practical method that will not typically be used in day to day diving (in other words the math processes) and the computers are the faster and easier method that are what most will almost always use when possible (the calculator).

So why do they need to learn the longer and less practical method if they are going to use the computer?