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

[eelnoraa]

bouderjohn beat me to it.

 

[boulderjohn]

So, if Shearwater decides they'd like a bigger bite of the rec. market pie, should they add AI to the Petrel (which tec. divers could disable and not buy transmitters for), or should they make a different model for the rec. market? Imagine the market confusion if the rec. version could do everything the tec. version could, plus AI.

I just bought a Petrel--haven't even opened the box yet.

I have been using a Shearwater Predator for a while now. It has a lot of features I never use--mainly its rebreather functions. I am simply not a rebreather diver, so I pay no attention to that aspect of the computer. I assume that if Shearwater decided that the market for an AI function was enough to add it to the package, they would just add it to the package. That would leave me free to use it or not use it as I pleased, just as I do not use the rebreather capacity now.

If it comes with the computer and works well, who knows? Maybe I'd make use of it. I would not, however, go out and seek it for that purpose.

 

[fnog]

I am guessing that if you are a computer manufacturer trying to gauge whether or not a market exists for launching an expensive project, a large number of people saying "I do not want it" (along with the reasons why it is not wanted) would be perceived as a pretty specific response. I assume from what you have been writing that if you were on the management team of such a company, you would be urging the project on, but a lot of other people at the table would be more wary.

I am frankly baffled by your continued thoughts in this thread.

As mentioned before my job is of little relevance here, but since you have doubts: I am a regular engineer and I do not have any ties to scuba DC manufacturers. I can give you more details by PM if you like.

The reason for my question is simply that I am a curious mind, not content to just pick up a DC in some scuba wallmart; I also wonder why it is built the way it is and what to expect from it. I am reasonably happy with the cobalt and will maybe someday add a wrist BT that can do decent compass, and fine ascent speed check during rescue exercises. That is my only mission. I am not going to discuss the 100% response figure, there is a clear majority anyway.

Sorry if you feel this was a waste of our time.

 

[Subcooled]

A transmitter might look and feel like a valve knob on backmount systems. That would complicate valve operation during dives. Yes, I actually tried to open a tank by turning the transmitter.

Displaying many pressures on a computer screen would complicate life. What if the displayed gas were not the one beeing used?

Cost.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Car makers, software makers and countless industries use common platforms that are even sometimes open. . . ."

Is this the crux of the question then? "Why are dive computer manufacturers, both those who market to tech divers and those who market to rec divers, not evolving toward a common hardware platform from which each can then customize for their own market via software/firmware?"

If that's it, then I think the answer is that not all dive computer manufacturers will want this. An analogous "common platform" in scuba might be the backplate/wing BC. Tech divers prefer it over jacket-style BCs because it is simple, streamlined, free of bells and whistles, free of things that can break, etc. One manufacturer's BP/W BC is pretty much like another's. In contrast, BC manufacturers who want to appeal to rec divers shun the idea of a common platform and include all kinds of bells and whistles in an attempt to differentiate their brand from others. I think manufacturers of dive computers aimed at the rec market want to differentiate their computers from others and would shun the idea of a common platform. Manufacturers of computers aimed squarely at the tech market might be interested in adopting something along the lines of a common platform, but since there are relatively few of them I'm not sure an effort to do this could be mustered or would be successful. Shearwater's rec software option for their otherwise tech-oriented computer might be likened to an internal effort by one company to use a common platform. But I doubt they would go so far as to add AI--especially some kind of novel and unproven approach like the one you suggested involving an analog SPG with an integrated digital sensor/transmitter--and risk alienating their core customer base.

 

[fnog]

The discussions in this thread have been helpful at gaining insight into why many tec. divers don't want it. People routinely using multiple bottles who don't want to bother trying to tell the computer every time they switch is understandable, for example.

Richard,

as it turned out earlier in the discussion, the automatic registration of gas switches when there is a wireless HP gauge on every tank was already done before, at least in field tests. I suppose the switch was triggered by some condition like no flow on the last active tank for more than a few seconds combined with an appearing flow of a lungful*ambient pressure on the new tank. If there is no wireless HP gauge on the new tank, then indeed the only way to tell the DC about the switch it is by button pushes (and I can very well believe this is a nasty distraction and risk addition).

--

I agree that current transmitters are bulky may be abused as valves or handles by mistake, use an extra 1st stage port because there must be already an SPG anyhow, and that they are too failure prone. That is why I ventured the idea that a new generation could be integrated in an otherwise classical analog SPG. This may be scifi, though. I did not do any math on that, neither the RF communication+powering nor the plumbing.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

the automatic registration of gas switches when there is a wireless HP gauge on every tank was already done before, at least in field tests. I suppose the switch was triggered by some condition like no flow on the last active tank for more than a few seconds combined with an appearing flow of a lungful*ambient pressure on the new tank.

I don't think any AI computer presently does that, and anything that did behave in that way would either require diver action to confirm the change, or, would be horribly unsafe for reasons that should be self-evident.

 

[eelnoraa]

as it turned out earlier in the discussion, the automatic registration of gas switches when there is a wireless HP gauge on every tank was already done before, at least in field tests. I suppose the switch was triggered by some condition like no flow on the last active tank for more than a few seconds combined with an appearing flow of a lungful*ambient pressure on the new tank. If there is no wireless HP gauge on the new tank, then indeed the only way to tell the DC about the switch it is by button pushes (and I can very well believe this is a nasty distraction and risk addition).

I am really interested on how this can be done. If based on change in tank pressure, there are too many corner cases to distract the computer. Temperature change can change pressure? How about a free flow 2nd stage? How about sharing gas? Or passing a deco bottle to a team mate?? I don't see how a computer can reliably automatically figure out which stage a diver is breathing on.

If data logging is the sole purpose, how about pressure sensor and logger in SPG only. NO wireless AI connection to a wrist computer. Each tank must have its own SPG anyway, if each SPG can sense and log pressure reading, then it all it needs to do. With no wireless transmission, a smaller battery will be sufficient fitting inside the SPG. A few MB of memory take no space at all. There will be way more detail to this tho. Still how much more will such a smart SPG cost, and I wonder how many would care about logging tank pressure to begin with.

 

[boulderjohn]

I don't think any AI computer presently does that, and anything that did behave in that way would either require diver action to confirm the change, or, would be horribly unsafe for reasons that should be self-evident.

As I said in an earlier post, I was on a dive boat for a day of diving with people who were testing a prototype that was doing exactly that. It was a couple of years ago--maybe three, now that I think of it.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

As I said in an earlier post, I was on a dive boat for a day of diving with people who were testing a prototype that was doing exactly that. It was a couple of years ago--maybe three, now that I think of it.

Missed that, but doesn't change the fact that not a single production AI DC attempts to automate gas switching. I imagine it's an interesting prototype concept, but what a mess it'd be to put into production...might explain why it's been 2-3 years since you saw that.