PADI tables finally going away?

[Kevrumbo]

You are only fooling yourself if you feel that knowledge and comprehension of dive tables is superior to knowledge and comprehension of a PDC. You compare doing the tables to doing long hand multiplication and division: Shenanigans. It is comparable to using a SLIDE RULE. You're still not doing the math in your head and especially when you are narced. The feeling that you are some how more in control is nothing more than an arrogant delusion based on some machismo argument that this is the way REAL MEN dive. Unfortunately, delusions underwater kill. I'll stick to reality. So? If my NDL is way out of line with it, you can bet I'm gonna take a look and see why.

As a side note: My Physics professor held the same delusion when it came to the TI10. We HAD to use slide rules (to three significant digits) and calculators were not allowed for her classroom or exams. She was CERTAIN that we could not understand the science if we used calculators. Sound familiar? Thank goodness Academia saw that as a quaint idea whose time had passed.

I call on your rhetoric Pete . . .how do you infer that dive tables are superior and the rest of the bullscat above from my quote below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevrumbo

The basic digital calculator is a convenience but should never precede or replace fundamental knowledge & comprehension of analog four-operator arithmetic by hand.

The basic personal dive computer (PDC) is a convenience but should not precede or replace fundamental knowledge & comprehension of analog dive tables.

And as a matter of trivial semantics to your opinions about the usage of the term "analog dive tables" in comparison to the function of a PDC (a Personal Dive [digital electronics] Computer), classic dive tables are most certainly & obviously tabular analog in function.

Just to be pedantic, 'analog' is any device where output is proportional to the input as a continuously variable physical quantity that can be measured. It doesn't have to have a pointer, it merely has to have an output. Often analog devices include some display of the measurement, but that is not necessary to be analog.

Which doesn't change your point or alter the fact that Kevrumbo fairly clearly doesn't know what the word means.

Wait, I almost missed it, but we have a double shenanigans here. In his endeavor to mischaracterize tables, he has called them "analog", which they are not. Your mechanical SPG is analog: it has a pionter. There is no pointer on a table. It measures nothing. Your table is based on the very same algorithms that my PDC is based on. The difference, is that there is no human error introduced on time or depth with my PDC. You can count on it with table usage. In actuality, the bar graph showing my N2 load on my PDC is a digital rendition of an analog gauge. Ergo, the PDC is far more analog than a table.

 

[CuNanoTube]

I cannot afford a dive computer, I had to look hard to find equiptment I could borrow / steal (parents) / purchase used just to dive. A computer is too much on a students salary (-$20 00 a year)

 

[Ban's Tec]

The newly updated Padi Enriched Air Diver specialty course has completely done away with all the tables. The course now entails 1 knowledge review, one exam and practical application. The course also goes into a lot more about dive computers and some of the universal features. Our dive school has about 50 dive computers to be used free of charge by Open Water or Advanced Open Water students.

As a technical instructor I do see the value of tables and sure its always better to teach some one more. However, I have also seen negative effects from over teaching. Drilling nitrox tables into a student on holiday doesn't always seem to be that effective. At least do these people actually retain this knowledge? Being that a lot of the recreational diving world is diving computers why not spend the time teaching them what they will use.

We are using the Suunto Zoop, I am not a huge fan but they are effective. We show students how to set the percentage, the partial pressure limit, check the max depth and use the plan feature to estimate how much time they will be given at a particular depth. While on the dive we will prompt students to show the NDL, OLF% or what percentage they are set to at the moment, reinforcing the features while they are using it.

With the right instruction I think this could be a more effective way of teaching. At different locations I have seen Open Water students diving with no computer, timer or gauge.... No names or places, but given the alternatives I think teaching them a computer is reasonable.

 

[Bogie]

It is important to know tables and the theory behind them. Getting you Nitox certified teaches you even more. Deco diving even more.

Computers give you more accurate dive profile and realistic dive information that make the tables a bit useless for normal recreational diving.

 

[cloudflint]

Too freaking funny. Those old fangled tables were ALSO based on "maths and tissue groups". But we get it: you hate new.

Its not that we hate new, we just dont trust the new tables. The RNPL tables we use where developed by having a diver go to a set depth and working for a set time then they would bring him up and see if he was bent. They would keep putting divers down increasing the time till they found the time that the diver had to spend at that depth before getting bent. They could then say OK this diver can spend X amount of time at this depth.

They would then put in say 100 or so divers at that depth for that time and pull them up and if they all came out OK they knew that the time they had was safe. There was no real maths involved it was just loads of guys going down and working till they got bent. And this is why we don't trust the new tables, alot of the stuff itll let you do would get you totally bent on our RNPL tables. When they where going to bring out the BSAC 88 tables a bunch of guys from our club actually went down to BSAC HQ and basically argued that the times it gave made no real sense and got them pushed back otherwise they would have been the BSAC 87 tables

Though people do dive on the new tables and not get bent so whatever works. im not trying to start an argument on the merits of these old tables i just thought it might be interesting in the context of the conversation for people to know that we have been diving these tables since they came out and we have never had anyone get a bend in our entire history.

 

[The Chairman]

I call on your rhetoric Pete . . .how do you infer that dive tables are superior and the rest of the bullscat above from my quote below?

Read This Kev. Please look at our statements. You have simply regurgitated a statement that you contend to be true with little to no support. You made a contention, using a fallacious analogy and I called Shenanigans. As pious as it might sound your analogy is so far from reality that it made me laugh.

And as a matter of trivial semantics to your opinions about the usage of the term "analog dive tables" in comparison to the function of a PDC (a Personal Dive [digital electronics] Computer), classic dive tables are most certainly & obviously tabular analog in function.

Trivial semantics? My opinions? Dude... tables just aren't analog. You're completely wrong on that. Go look up analog at Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com and see what it actually means. I triple dog dare you. Calling tables "analog" is a gross misrepresentation based on your ignorance of what analog actually means. Now, they are "tabular", but they are not analog. Let me save you some time:

From www.Dictionary.com:

an·a·log   [an-l-awg, -og]
–adjective
of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure.

Like PDCs, tables are theoretical: they measure nothing.
Like PDCs, tables are derived from algorithms based on several models of tissue groups.
However, your SPG is an analog gauge because it measures a continual physical variable with a pointer (mechanism). See the difference? Analog does not mean "not digital". Next you'll be referring to a pencil as an analog recording device. My double Shenanigans stands. You would do well to move away from the myths surrounding dive tables as some type of Holy Grail. Like a PDC, they are nothing but a tool, albeit a less useful tool for me than my PDC.

For me, the biggest difference between tables and PDCs is that we remove a substantial amount of human error from the situation. There is no need to rely on the inaccuracy of a human remembering when they splashed and how deep they went. Moreover, there are no fingers to draw a line with sideways, down, to the back and back over. The input is automatic and free from human error and the output is derived electronically from the very same algorithms and with greater speed and precision.

Pardon me for bringing this up, but weren't you bent by making a simple miscalculation? That's what someone told me, and I have no idea if there is any veracity to the claim. If you were, then that would lend a lot of credence to my contention that PDCs remove a lot of human error.

Let's face it. The biggest detraction leveled at PDCs is the phobia that somehow and at sometime they will fail. Guess what? The human mind fails a thousand times more often than any PDC. Our minds are so multi-tasked that it's no wonder that they do. When I go on a dive, my mind is focused on looking at my students, the pretty fishies or hunting. That's why I have a dedicated instrument to record my dive and to give me feedback on all of my limits: air, depth and time. I am certain that there are those who feel more comfortable with their tables and devoting a lot of their mind to tracking their NDL. That's fine! Just don't act like you are a better or more conscientious one because of it. That's just Shenanigans.

As for PADI moving away from tables: GREAT MOVE! It's time we taught students to use the gear they will be using during their diving. MOST people use a PDC, so it makes sense that we train them to use it well from the very beginning.

 

[The Chairman]

Though people do dive on the new tables and not get bent so whatever works.

Ah, so your contention is that your tables are superior to other tables. Fine. My contention is that more human error is introduced than is necessary with any table, ergo: I like my PDC better than a table. This thread is about PADI tables finally going away, and they are computer generated and based on algorithms. I wouldn't be surprised if your tables weren't extrapolated/interpolated in much the same way.

However, sloughing off the new just because they are new seems a bit sketchy to me.

 

[John_B]

.....

 

[cloudflint]

Ah, so your contention is that your tables are superior to other tables. Fine. My contention is that more human error is introduced than is necessary with any table, ergo: I like my PDC better than a table. This thread is about PADI tables finally going away, and they are computer generated and based on algorithms. I wouldn't be surprised if your tables weren't extrapolated/interpolated in much the same way.

However, sloughing off the new just because they are new seems a bit sketchy to me.

I gotta agree about the PADI tables, given a choice between the PADI tables and using a computer i would definitely use a computer. I found it way to easy to make mistakes as you say working with the PADI tables even in the classroom.

 

[drrich2]

Its not that we hate new, we just dont trust the new tables. The RNPL tables we use where developed by having a diver go to a set depth and working for a set time then they would bring him up and see if he was bent. They would keep putting divers down increasing the time till they found the time that the diver had to spend at that depth before getting bent. They could then say OK this diver can spend X amount of time at this depth.

I believe it was in a past thread that someone posted a link to an article on World War II research focusing on diver tolerance of toxicity (such as O2 toxicity) when diving. If memory serves, the same individual making much the same dive (e.g.: depth, exercise) can have a wide variation in susceptibility to adverse effects.

Tables don't give you credit for time spent at shallower depths, at least from what we did in PADI OW when I took it over 4 years ago. I'm aware some people train as 'multi-level divers,' but I don't plan in advance just what 'depth plateaus' I'll use, or for how long. Training in a quarry I could, but not meandering around the reefs in Bonaire.

Richard.