Reliability of Hoseless Computers?

[RJP]

To my way of thinking, it seems the number of failure points stays the same. Is my thinking flawed there?

Yes...

Elaborate please

Your thinking is flawed because it is not accurate.



Obviously a battery could fail, but that is countered by not having a hose that could be cut

Cut? Ever TRY to cut an HP hose? Not easy even when you WANT to, much less by accident.


Bumping could damage a hose or a transmitter, so that one pushes.

Nonsense. 99 times out of 100 a shear force that could snap a transmitter off (or just damage it) would merely cause a hose to deflect out of shape momentarily.


But I see the computer as being a single point of failure...

That's fine, but it's just not accurate.


I guess technically there are different electronics involved...

Not "technically" but rather "actually"

Remember, were talking about HOSELESS computers here.

 

[eponym]

There are only 3 kinds of people in this world -- those who can count, and those who can't.

Decidedly off-topic, but I couldn't resist . . .

There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

On topic, there will never be unanimous agreement on something as abstract as number of failure points. Practially, it's not an issue, as I learned in my first deco course: the first failure aborts the dive and initiates the ascent, so don't worry about multiple-failure-point scenarios.

Obviously this is oversimplified, but for non-overhead non-deco diving it's a useful approach to planning.

-Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

If by failure points you mean ways to loose gas, you're down one or two o-rings, two swedges, and a hose.

 

[mruseless]

Your thinking is flawed because it is not accurate.

LOL! I take your point, but that doesn't really help me though. I would like to understand your way of thinking better. Do I remember from other posts that you are an engineer?

 

[RJP]

LOL! I take your point, but that doesn't really help me though. I would like to understand your way of thinking better. Do I remember from other posts that you are an engineer?

My original (smart-ass) response has been edited - scroll up.

PS - my Logic professor in college was once asked by a student "Why is my answer wrong?" His response was elegant in it's simplicity: "I really don't know. Error has no defense."

 

[mruseless]

Decidedly off-topic, but I couldn't resist . . .

There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Programmer, I assume?

On topic, there will never be unanimous agreement on something as abstract as number of failure points. Practially, it's not an issue, as I learned in my first deco course: the first failure aborts the dive and initiates the ascent, so don't worry about multiple-failure-point scenarios.

yes, I agree with that, I'm merely interested in the discussion, since I'm new to it for the most part. Also, as RJP stated earlier, even though Wireless AI comps may marginally increase the risk, its not enough to disqualify them for your typical rec diver like me.

 

[RJP]

as RJP stated earlier, even though Wireless AI comps may marginally increase the risk, its not enough to disqualify them for your typical rec diver like me.

Yeah, but I should point out that in addition to my Vytec DS I do have an SPG on my left hip and a bottom timer/depth gauge on my right wrist.

When it comes to redundancy "Two is one, and one is none."

 

[eponym]

Programmer, I assume?

Yes, once upon a time, before GUIs (graphical user interfaces).

yes, I agree with that, I'm merely interested in the discussion, since I'm new to it for the most part. Also, as RJP stated earlier, even though Wireless AI comps may marginally increase the risk, its not enough to disqualify them for your typical rec diver like me.

Well said. I continue to walk the fence, using an analog gauge as backup. If I've spent thousands to dive the Truk wrecks I don't want to have to thumb any dive because of a failure to link.

Bryan

 

[mruseless]

Your thinking is flawed because it is not accurate.



Obviously a battery could fail, but that is countered by not having a hose that could be cut

Cut? Ever TRY to cut an HP hose? Not easy even when you WANT to, much less by accident.

So there are of course degrees to points of failure. This complicates things. Do I use a weighted score for the relative difficulty/probability of each?

Bumping could damage a hose or a transmitter, so that one pushes.

Nonsense. 99 times out of 100 a shear force that could snap a transmitter off (or just damage it) would merely cause a hose to deflect out of shape momentarily.

Yes, but my point was that they are each points of failure. so I guess I'm faced with the weighted score thing again.

But I see the computer as being a single point of failure...

That's fine, but it's just not accurate.


I guess technically there are different electronics involved...

Not "technically" but rather "actually"

Remember, were talking about HOSELESS computers here.

Of course, but perhaps I should have used the term "realistically", because isn't a failure that takes out the whole computer a single point rather than a simultaneous occurrence of two separate points?

OK, I'm pushing the envelope with this discussion because its kind of fun , but it really doesn't matter that much in the big picture. I love my hoseless AI computer, and the risks are fine for the type of diving I do.

At the margin, I might lose a dive somewhere along the line because of a battery or something, but the overwhelming force here is the gadget factor. Gadgets are cool.

 

[RJP]

OK, I'm pushing the envelope with this discussion because its kind of fun , but it really doesn't matter that much in the big picture. I love my hoseless AI computer, and the risks are fine for the type of diving I do.

Oh, I'm with you. I was just jumping on the point that there's many reasons to go hoseless, but "to reduce failure points" just ain't one of them!

:14: