PADI tables finally going away?

[Kevrumbo]

Translation: I refuse to admit I was mistaken no matter how obvious it is. I called you on your shenanigans and you refused to admit fault, committing more shenanigans. INSTEAD, you have endeavored quite unsuccessfully to prove that white is black and that up is down.

I choose a vernacular trade convention of analog/digital that I happen to use successfully in my job. My explanations, descriptions and opinions based on that are honest expressions, not shenanigans. . .There is no fault to admit other than your intransigent misunderstanding of my intent.

I don't care whether you accept that usage or not, but please spare me your negative, rhetorical causal attributions. . .

(NetDoc, I'm calling borderline abuse & harassment on you again and asking you to stop)

 

[John_B]

Ditto here ... on my first dives as a newly certified divers (previous millennium ) with buddies that had dive computers, I realized that, according to the RDP, I should have been dead :depressed: .... so I dropped the RDP and I bought a dive computer

What you (and some others) are describing are that you learned to "fly" a PDC, which essentially means throwing out dive planning and following the NDL number on the computer until it tells you that you ran out of bottom time.

Dive planning seems to be the main casualty when divers, for whatever reason, don't have to learn tables.

But they do allow you to run a lot more "what-ifs" scenarios than most computers (at least the ones I've used), I find the innability of computers to give me some basic info I could get with a table somewhat irritating. For example, answering the question how much time do I have to wait before I can go down to y feets for x minutes is something I haven't seen integrated in the UI of most dive computers.

^^^ THIS!

And it's because they are trying to shoehorn* a dive planner into a PDC display that clearly isn't built to display the type of data you'd need to do proper dive planning.

Here's the real problem. If you were building a wearable dive planning tool from scratch, there's no way you would only include two or three display lines of three or four digits each, and a couple of buttons to navigate around. But because that's what's already available in the PDC, that winds up being the constraint the PDC's planning functions are forced to implement. Why? Because the planning function isn't a priority for the companies that manufacture the dive computers.

If the PADI tables (or whoever else's) are really ever going to go away, there is going to need to be a sea change in how the PDC planning functions work.

* Yeah, I know, nobody still use shoehorns either.

 

[The Chairman]

(NetDoc, I'm calling borderline abuse & harassment on you again and asking you to stop)

Well, since my disagreement with you is clearly hurting your feelings, I'll leave others to read the thread and see your illogic and shenanigans. But please, don't expect me to accept your "less than accurate" use of the English language.

 

[Atom]

And it's because they are trying to shoehorn* a dive planner into a PDC display that clearly isn't built to display the type of data you'd need to do proper dive planning.

Here's the real problem. If you were building a wearable dive planning tool from scratch, there's no way you would only include two or three display lines of three or four digits each, and a couple of buttons to navigate around. But because that's what's already available in the PDC, that winds up being the constraint the PDC's planning functions are forced to implement. Why? Because the planning function isn't a priority for the companies that manufacture the dive computers.

If the PADI tables (or whoever else's) are really ever going to go away, there is going to need to be a sea change in how the PDC planning functions work.

* Yeah, I know, nobody still use shoehorns either.

I still think it could be improved on the current computers... but a wrist computer will never but as good a planning tool as a PC or a table on square profiles (I always bring my netbook to help plan dives when we do deco dives).

What would be really cool, would be for computers to come with a table (matching their software) and have them output a pressure group letter so that you can switch between that table and the computer for planning purposes or in case of failure. Wouldn't be optimal in term of times (the computer will likely let you spend more time at depth) but it would integrate both tools together in a nice way.

Now, I gotta say that I'm really tempted to buy a HeinrichsWeikamp computer (OSTC mk2 or RB5) and modify the software to allow me to do this.

 

[jdhuj.divemaster]

I certainly think that all divers need to know the dive tables and not rely entirely on modern technology. It's not a matter of if something goes wrong it's when and how to deal with it when it does. I have been using a computer for years but I still use the tables as well as a backup. Happy and Safe Diving !

 

[Kingpatzer]

My points, Kingpatzer:





_____________________________

Tissue compartments, half-life and all the rest are theoretical abstractions, just as the resulting pressure groups are ---but the motivation is an analog application and analysis, however crude and inaccurate it may be, approximating decompression physics in human physiology. In that loose spirit, I choose to use the term analog vis-a-vis digital (and I really don't care whether you or NetDoc respect that tangent usage or not).

I don't understand how you abstracted this irrelevant line of questions from my points above, which have to do with education & learning of primary fundamental first principles versus the usage of electronic conveniences. . .

Because they relate directly to your concern about "fundamental first principles."

1) do you believe an analog widget is inherently superior to a digital widget?

If yse, then it explains part of the issue and we can address if that is a true assumption. If no, then we can mark off such a prejudice as the basis for you concern.

2) do you believe that a dive table has a higher level of precision than a PDC?


If yes, then you are mistaken, the PDC is more precise because it takes so many samples over time compared to computing a square profile. If no, then we can take that concern off the table.

3) do you believe that because a PDC is digital that it is prone to a higher failure rate than an analog pressure gage and a mechanical or digital underwater bottom timer?

If yes, then you are again mistaken. Look up the mean time to failure for a mid-tier computer and compare that to an analog gage and a bottom timer. Do a bit of math and realize that the numbers are in favor of the PDC. So we can take reliability off of the table.


4) do you believe that the differentiation between discrete and continuous mathematical functions is in any way relevant to the validity or utility of computations around decompression models for diving?

If yes, then you are mistaken. The precision lost by using discrete computations to approximate continuous functions is insignificant in the diving application. So we can take adequacy off of the table.

In other words - using a PDC is not in any way inferior to using a table.

Now, we can address your concern about "first principles." Tables are not the diving equivalent of basic math facts that you have to understand to do higher level mathematics. Tables are the synthesis and summation of an enormous body of work -- that not only do very few people really understand but which is not necessary to know in order to understand decompression theory to a level adequate to be a very safe and educated diver.

Decompression theory is independent of tables. The foundational principles that divers need to know do not require the use of either tables or a PDC. The tables and PDC are the tools which a diver can use to APPLY the theory they have learned to their dive plan in order to create a safe dive profile. Neither is in some way 'foundational.'

So what is your objection?

Try dropping jargon and rhetoric and in a few simple sentences tell us what your issuee is.

 

[Kingpatzer]

. . . not rely entirely on modern technology.

Yeah, we need to get back to basics.

 

[The Chairman]

Try dropping jargon and rhetoric and in a few simple sentences tell us what your issue is.

I call shenanigans. You are using logic and fact instead of butchering the English language. It's not fair. :shocked2:

 

[FritzCat66]

And it's because they are trying to shoehorn a dive planner into a PDC display that clearly isn't built to display the type of data you'd need to do proper dive planning.

Tables are going the way of cuneiform on clay tablets, and rightly so, but I do agree that a PDC makes for a crummy dive planner. Yet that's no argument in favor of tables, but it's a great argument for a different kind of computer customized for planning purposes - like vplanner on a PC, or on your PDA if you want something portable.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Tell ya what NetDoc and Kingpatzer, since you're soooo strict & intransigent on the term analog: Change the premise of "Classic Dive Analog Tables" to the "Mechanical Analog PADI Wheel" in my analogies below and the arguments still turn out valid and consistent:

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.

The 120 rule that you can use & generate "on-the-fly" is actually an applied analog heuristic algorithm & mnemonic taken from the old NAUI (and US Navy) NDL Air Dive Table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevrumbo
. . .

Number Theory is to elementary arithmetic just as Decompression Theory is to dive tables.

The foundation and greater utility is first learning & comprehending elementary arithmetic, while the greater abstraction is going further to study & apply Number Theory, just as:

The foundation and greater utility is first learning & comprehending basic dive table decompression planning, while the greater abstraction is going further to study & apply Decompression Theory.

Electronic Digital Calculators/Computers are useful conveniences that should never precede or substitute for the learning of the fundamental elementary principles above. . .

Same further motivation as before. . .
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5268132-post59.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevrumbo
To reiterate succinctly IMHO,

Classic analog tables will always serve you.
Digital electronic dive computers while desirable & convenient
will just serve you until the battery needs a recharge or replacement (or the unit malfunctions).

classic analog tables => generated by continuous function algorithm, uses base 10 elementary arithmetic evaluations where needed (i.e. RNT calculations etc);

digital electronic computer => fast & efficient, uses binary logic for symbolic evaluation & data storage by discrete mathematical operations.]

Anymore irrelevant deductive rants & tedious tangents Kingpatzer? And trivial rhetorical bombastic bullscat from from ya NetDoc ? > Pete you silly shenanigan you!:kiss2: