No air integration in high-end and tech DCs . Why ?

[guyharrisonphoto]

From Dr. Lecter "If you think the risk is tiny enough that you're willing to dive an AI tech computer for your deco schedule, knock yourself out. I assume you have at least one backup ascent schedule, so it's just a question of whether a failure is an obvious one or one you dismiss as the AI just being on the fritz."

You are right about that. Just like I have spg back-up for the AI, I have a back-up computer as well.

From DevonDiver: "As for failures/redundancy: if something goes wrong, the dive is aborted. End of.. When that dive might have cost me $000's, and been cancelled because of an AI (that I didn't NEED) failure... the whole idea of using one seems very pointless."

An AI failure should never mean the end of any dive. All it means is that you can't see tank pressure on your wrist and have to look at the spg. I appreciate the "simplicity is everything" philosophy, all I am saying is that, if a diver, even a tech diver, wants the convenience of AI, it does not ruin any dive if for some reason it does not function. I mainly wanted to address the misconception that AI failure equals computer failure or deco calculation failure (and, just like the spg is reduncancy for the AI, tech divers have back-up computers or printed schedules for redundant deco calculations as well).

 

[DevonDiver]

An AI failure should never mean the end of any dive. All it means is that you can't see tank pressure on your wrist and have to look at the spg. I appreciate the "simplicity is everything" philosophy, all I am saying is that, if a diver, even a tech diver, wants the convenience of AI, it does not ruin any dive if for some reason it does not function. I mainly wanted to address the misconception that AI failure equals computer failure or deco calculation failure (and, just like the spg is reduncancy for the AI, tech divers have back-up computers or printed schedules for redundant deco calculations as well).

Why not take an actual tech course, before lecturing an experience technical instructor about what is, and is not, a technical diving mindset and approach?

What you meant to say, surely, is introduce with the preface; "what I imagine a technical diver would do / think is........."

That'd ensure that any casual reader of this thread couldn't construe your contributions as any sort of informed knowledge... which is, I hope, not what you intended to portray.

Non-technical divers often misunderstand what technical diving is... they consider the gear aspects, the gas aspects (and can argue endlessly and hypothetically on such subjects...), the protocols and procedures... (all stuff easily gleaned from the inter-web)... but what they never fully appreciate is the mindset and approach. And that's the mistake evident in your post...and some other posts.. in this thread.

Technical diving is not free-for-all gadgetfest... and, no, technical divers tend not to pick their equipment based on what they want - selection of equipment follows a refined path, which includes failure analysis, community knowledge and due deference to established principles based on lessons learned by those who've died before...

Mindset plays an important role in technical diving. As a recreational diver, you might find it hard, or impossible, to understand WHY that is.. This is why recreational divers should err against publishing decisive view-points, or stating what they believe to be factual contributions, on threads where the topic level is beyond their level of training and experience.

What recreational divers under-appreciate is how their mindset will change during/after technical diving training. What you think and believe now... is largely irrelevant once you've entered the technical diving community with the appropriate training.

You have a right to an opinion. Just don't express that opinion as if it were factual... Opinions aren't facts.

 

[fnog]

Larry,

it is true I could ask a less naive question if I simply learned tec diving. But it is my experience that the naive questions of those who are not in the know are never asked during training, and are then afterwards completely lost and forgotten. Some of those questions do have value however. I am not claiming that is the case for mine, it is just as likely -if not more- that it is absurd.



Lorenzoid,

I see, my tone is perceived as a request rather than a question. My mistake then.

Car makers, software makers and countless industries use common platforms that are even sometimes open. Not all of these guys are raging loonies. I see yet no reason why scuba equipment makers could not do the same. If you do not feel like explaining the reasons why DC makers are making DCs as they are on this forum, that is a shame but no biggie.


DevonDiver, flots am,

I understood that you must not bring fancy toys but only the necessary equipment for safety reasons. But you are not going to take apart a piece of equipment that is working just fine and has some physical consistency under that principle, I suppose ? You would not peel apart your suit undergarment because you found out that some material in there brings no insulation or strength to the fabric ? Would you ditch a DC that has inactive AI transmit function or try to take it apart ?

I also understood that the DC is not to be relied on exclusively in a tec dive, that you dive tables, and that the tables were made according the plan. In my first post, and the following, I have never claimed that a DC was necessary to a tec diver, even less that AI should be used during the dive, or that they should do anything differently.

Why second guess my intentions for asking this question ? It is truly a question, and I truly expect answers to it. Even if opinions are welcome too. It is not an attempt to find a problem, or a solution, or land free toys, or turn the scuba industry upside down. I believe I have acknowledged the answers which I understood and I am not arguing any of these. (I may be dense, but some of the other answers were just too short to make anything of them.)

Regarding energy necessary, I have still not seen any proof that transmitting enough power is not practical, neither RF, nor mechanical (ultrasound). We are talking here about sending something like 15bit every 5 seconds. There has to be energy for the piezo sensor reading, the A/D conversion, and switching the loop antenna on/off for an OOK type of modulation. Times two for redundancy. But not all digital circuits need to be CMOS power hogs.


Regarding the niche/mass distinction. I would like to make a sweeping statement too: a properly designed piece of gear need not be fundamentally different if optimised for safety versus ease-of-use. Adapting to different use-cases should be doable in software only. Massmarket gear is tested by millions. Some common hardware platform for a tech/rec DC would be tested first for months in it's rec firmware version, with the most brittle software and all hardware functions active. That has value too.



Nimoh, guyharrisonphoto,

Thanks for giving "another bell ring" to this thread. I will however in the end take home those answers that are both reasonable and in majority.

 

[flots am]

Regarding energy necessary, I have still not seen any proof that transmitting enough power is not practical, neither RF, nor mechanical (ultrasound). We are talking here about sending something like 15bit every 5 seconds. There has to be energy for the piezo sensor reading, the A/D conversion, and switching the loop antenna on/off for an OOK type of modulation. Times two for redundancy. But not all digital circuits need to be CMOS power hogs.

The technology is not impossible, however there is insufficient demand. In fact, more than that, there is active dislike.

I would never do a deep dive with anything more complicated than a printed plan, a timer and a depth gauge. When you're getting stupider by the foot, it's much nicer to look at a small, clearly printed table and know "It's 15 minutes into the dive, I should go to xxx feet and stay there for 5 minutes" than it is to look at a wrist-mounted video game and try to figure out what the squiggly line with the flashing arrow is, and whether or not you think it might be broken.

Even more dramatic is the difference between the printed table and a big flashing "E7" which means "Send me back to the manufacturer if you live long enough to get back home"

As I mentioned, I actually own a ~$2000 computer that does everything but scratch my butt, but there's still no way I 'd trust it on anything but a no-deco dive.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

An AI failure should never mean the end of any dive. All it means is that you can't see tank pressure on your wrist and have to look at the spg. I appreciate the "simplicity is everything" philosophy, all I am saying is that, if a diver, even a tech diver, wants the convenience of AI, it does not ruin any dive if for some reason it does not function. I mainly wanted to address the misconception that AI failure equals computer failure or deco calculation failure (and, just like the spg is reduncancy for the AI, tech divers have back-up computers or printed schedules for redundant deco calculations as well).

I'm going to try one last time to get this across clearly, and I'm going to do so with a somewhat glib summary:

GHP: "An AI failure is NBD, all it does is remove a conveniece feature!"

Dr. L: "How do you know the AI stopped working because of an AI failure and not something else wrong with the computer?"

GHP: "It's just an AI failure! Those don't affect other functions!!"

Dr. L: "Sure, but how do you know what type of failure it is in the first place?"

GHP: "Duh, it's an AI failure because the AI isn't working "

Dr. L: "<headdesk>"

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

I'm going to try one last time to get this across clearly, and I'm going to do so with a somewhat glib summary:

GHP: "An AI failure is NBD, all it does is remove a conveniece feature!"

Dr. L: "How do you know the AI stopped working because of an AI failure and not something else wrong with the computer?"

GHP: "It's just an AI failure! Those don't affect other functions!!"

Dr. L: "Sure, but how do you know what type of failure it is in the first place?"

GHP: "Duh, it's an AI failure because the AI isn't working "

Dr. L: "<headdesk>"

GHP: "sigh . . . . ."

 

[TSandM]

But it is my experience that the naive questions of those who are not in the know are never asked during training, and are then afterwards completely lost and forgotten. Some of those questions do have value however.

This is absolutely true, and there was nothing wrong with asking your original question at all.

It IS a bit frustrating for those of us who are trying to answer, though, that instead of hearing us (and we are people DOING the technical diving you are asking about) you seem to be stuck on the idea that we SHOULD want what you think we should want. We don't.

It's not that AI isn't ever used by technical divers. My husband dives with a transmitter on his backgas, because he likes the convenience of seeing his pressure on his wrist (he's too lazy to unclip his SPG from under a stage or deco bottle to look at it ). But there is VERY little demand, for the reasons you've already been given -- keep it simple; and a planned dive just doesn't NEED the ability to see pressure on a moment-to-moment basis.

You made a good point about the AI perhaps hastening the diver's learning of his gas consumption rate, but in fact, I don't think it would make any difference. AI gives you continuous information, but what you need to do calculations is measurements sufficiently far apart that you can use the change and the time period to calculate. Checking every five minutes is sometimes not even enough interval to do calculations (I'm thinking shallow Mexican caves here). Having the computer download your gas consumption is a convenience, but it isn't that hard to remember your starting and ending pressures. No computer I know gives you a continuous graph of what your gas was that you can overlay on the dive profile (maybe there are some that do, but I don't know of any).

As far as the learning curve goes, remember that people generally don't start tech or cave diving until they have a fair amount of recreational, open water experience, so they already have some handle on their gas consumption before they start a technical class.

What you want would be at most a minor convenience, and most people doing technical dives wouldn't bother to buy it, which is undoubtedly why the manufacturers don't make AI setups for what are almost exclusively technical computers.

 

[boulderjohn]

I It is not that the computer you envision cannot be designed and produced, but rather that it appears it is not worth it to the kind of manufacturer who squarely aims his product at tech divers and has already gone to great lengths to establish a reputation for a straightforward and highly reliable product.

It IS a bit frustrating for those of us who are trying to answer, though, that instead of hearing us (and we are people DOING the technical diving you are asking about) you seem to be stuck on the idea that we SHOULD want what you think we should want. We don't.
.... But there is VERY little demand, for the reasons you've already been given -- keep it simple; and a planned dive just doesn't NEED the ability to see pressure on a moment-to-moment basis.
...
What you want would be at most a minor convenience, and most people doing technical dives wouldn't bother to buy it, which is undoubtedly why the manufacturers don't make AI setups for what are almost exclusively technical computers.

The technology is not impossible, however there is insufficient demand. In fact, more than that, there is active dislike.

I get the sense that people are trying to tell you something.

There is simply not a big demand for this feature in this market. A manufacturer will think more than twice before pouring development money into a product that people don't want to buy.

 

[Diver0001]

Hi everyone,

I would like to bluntly ask the title question, as I am a rec diver with little experience. The stickies and various posts hint at some rationale behind the refusal of Shearwater, OSTC, xDeep, Liquivision and other tech brands to produce DCs with AI -by AI, I do not mean dying blond hair black-. Why would all your gas tank pressures not be recorded by the DC ? Given the price tag of these brands I guess it would make little difference to add gas integration hardware (for the software part, I have no clue).

On a properly planned technical dive you may only have to check your pressure once to make sure you're on target.

Why is that? Because technical divers eliminate the variable of gas pressure from the dive. This is done by calculating how much gas you need and are going to use before the dive starts. It's a different mind set. You don't turn your dive at a certain pressure on the fly. You don't do anything with pressure on the fly. It's all worked out before you get in the water. The only thing you need to do is to check your actual pressure against your planned pressure at some point during the dive (I usually do it just before I cross over the NDL) to make sure that reality is conforming to your plan. You can do it more often if you want, of course, but aside from a matter of habit, it is seldom necessary.

As a matter of fact, I can usually tell you what my pressure is going to be at the END of the dive before the dive even starts. This is how many technical divers roll.

So with all of the *relevant* information your computer has to display, why would you want to have the screen cluttered with information that you don't need and probably already know?

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Why is that? Because technical divers eliminate the variable of gas pressure from the dive. This is done by calculating how much gas you need and are going to use before the dive starts. It's a different mind set. You don't turn your dive at a certain pressure on the fly. You don't do anything with pressure on the fly. It's all worked out before you get in the water. The only thing you need to do is to check your actual pressure against your planned pressure at some point during the dive (I usually do it just before I cross over the NDL) to make sure that reality is conforming to your plan. You can do it more often if you want, of course, but aside from a matter of habit, it is seldom necessary.

Actually, on cave dives it is very common to turn when a diver's pressure reaches a specified turning point. Since in most of the dives I do like that I am the one turning the dive, I start checking my gas very frequently as soon as I start getting close. It goes back to the day my cave instructor told me that if I miss my turn pressure one time, the course is over with no refund.