zjd0114
Registered
That is insane.If they are recently certified, there is a very good chance they have never seen or used tables. They aren't taught in most Open Water courses these days.
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
That is insane.If they are recently certified, there is a very good chance they have never seen or used tables. They aren't taught in most Open Water courses these days.
Why is it insane?That is insane.
I just feel as those are core skills that should be taught. Like teaching math with a calculator vs by hand.Why is it insane?
The important ones still are. Tables are really unnecessary anymore. Some cling to them, but there are better options. I learned on tables. I still know how to use them (it’s not hard), but I don’t understand how this enhances my diving today.I just feel as those are core skills that should be taught. Like teaching math with a calculator vs by hand.
The types of dive operators that let you dive without a computer aren't doing 65 minute dives (at least I would hope not).What is the "average depth" that you would use to give the same N2 loading, and thus allow the calculation of a repetitive dive? The mathematical average depth of that dive is about 43 feet. Is that the depth you would use? If you use the RDP with a 65 minute dive to 43 feet, you get less N2 loading than the ML dive gives. Apparently you do not use the mathematical average depth; what do you mean by average?
How often do you get out and use your slide rule? It can do most anything your calculator can do.I just feel as those are core skills that should be taught. Like teaching math with a calculator vs by hand.
I must admit to enjoying learning to use the tables (when I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the earth). I liked the graphical nature of it… if you go to this depth, and stay there for that time, you have to stay at the surface for this long to clear the nitrogen…. Etc. I liked the up/down nature of the tables and I think it helped me understand the relationships in a way that just looking at numbers on a screen might not have for me.
Sort of like looking a a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet, vs a graph derived from those same numbers.
That being said, while I dive with a computer, and am happy to do so, I think that ‘learning the tables’ might still be a use exercise, if only for that.
Understanding something of the physics and physiology of inert gas absorption is important, but I see no indication that "teaching the tables" provides that. They were a necessary way to summarize a lot of data prior to the advent of PDCs, but using them is a simple rote process, not a lesson in deco theory. You might just as well say that in order to understand how logarithms work you need to learn how to use a slide rule.Knowledge of the diving tables provides the basis of knowing safety limits [as pertains to nitrogen] while diving. A noobs reliance upon computers without first having learned the laws of physics and physiology of nitrogen absorption is a disservice to the student. Teach the tables.