Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?

[divad]

I think Shearwater should introduce AI in the perdix or another computer like it, However they should hedge their bets by continuing to offer a non AI computer for the traditionalists who would cry witch and attempt to burn Shearwater at the stake here at Scubaboard.

Have you spoken to them about this? Are you actively working together on this scheme?

 

[WarrenZ]

Of course Im not working with them however it wasnt be too hard to see the logic in it.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Pete, I agree with you, but I had a PM from another member who gave me a couple of examples where he feels like AI did result in an accident (though death was averted). I'll recount the general idea just so that it can be called out and debunked.

A diver was diving with AI and monitoring his ATR display. Another diver went OOA and came to the first diver. They buddy breathed and subsequently ran out of air together before they made it to the surface.

The person who PM'ed me about this believes that ATR is "deadly" because the diver that had it depended on that display and the fact that it didn't factor in the increased consumption from starting to air share meant that it was very wrong, once he started to share.

Netdoc is right, but this also was another a diver failure, in not understanding what ATR "means." ATR is YOUR time left before you must ascent to reach the surface with YOUR set reserve. However, it is a "predictive" calculation and can change in real time based on gas consumption. Thus, if another diver begins consuming the tank in addition to you, then the prediction will change and your time will drop very quickly. However, it will take a little time (30 seconds to a minute) for the computer to detect that the increased consumption is more than a momentary anamoly and adjust its prediction downward accordingly. If your friend looked at ATR at the time the crisis began,and relied on that, he made an operator error as it was only HIS time. If he kept watching, he would have seen the ATR drop precipitously once it became "THEIR" time and would have been able to adjust his ascent accordingly.

Also, ATR presumes you reach the surface with a set reserve. In an emergency, that "reserve" becomes "your buddy's gas" during the emergency ascent. If the diver had not reached "zero" ATR and gas was still not enough, then perhaps the reserve was set too low (some divers I know set the reserve to 300 psi, meaning they drain the tank before their ascent and have no true reserve of sharing gas). I do not use my computer that way and set a reserve that based on my experience should be enough to get two of us up on a fast emergency ascent with no safety stop (remember I am a rec diver--safety stops are optional and I would not do one in an OOG gas sharing emergency). What I set depends on the dive plan. For 120', I set 900 psi. For 50 or 60', 700.

 

[stuartv]

Netdoc is right, but this also was another a diver failure

I totally agree. But, my opinion carries virtually no weight around here, thus why I didn't bother to take the time to post a very similar opinion.

Not understanding what your equipment is telling you and having a serious problem is a result is not (to me) a reason not to use that piece of equipment. Plenty of divers misinterpret what tables are telling them and use the information inappropriately. That's not a reason to not use tables.

I think divers should be self-sufficient (even if they will always dive with a buddy). Being self-sufficient means (in part, to me) having a thorough understanding of your equipment - including understanding what an ATR display means. A person who doesn't bother to understand that aspect of their AI computer and then misuses the ATR is not an example (to me) of why AI should not exist on a dive computer.

 

[Bratface]

I'm not interested in an AI computer. I just purchased a new Perdix and waiting for it to arrive this week. I chose it over the Scubapro Luna for many reasons but the main reason was non-air integrated and the simplicity in use.

 

[jhnmdahl]

I get not wanting to pay for a transmitter you won't use, but I don't really think people would be shunning the Perdix if an air transmitter could be added as an upgrade/option.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I get not wanting to pay for a transmitter you won't use, but I don't really think people would be shunning the Perdix if an air transmitter could be added as an upgrade/option.

So long as they don't increase the price to account for the receiver end of it that won't be used either, or to account for the R&D cost of something that won't be used. To put it another way, as I've said before, if they can make the existence of AI capability completely invisible to those customers who don't want to use it, THEN I can't see why those customers would shun it.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Yes, we don't really know the cost of the receiver and software, because the only "separate cost" item that we see is the transmitter. However, there are several AI computers that are very cheap (Hollis DG-03, I think?) without the transmitter, so my guess is that the cost of the programming and receiver is pretty minimal. Would be interesting to know but my wild guess is that it would not be more than $50.00 or 75.00 and that might be way high. The addition of the compass chip, bluetooth and associated software did not affect the price on the Petrel 2 at all, as far as I can see.

 

[The Chairman]

Just posted on Facebook:

 

[Buliwyf]

They could just make a Ai rec dive computer under a different brand name. Preserve their brand name for tech divers. Sell a similar rec oriented unit to the larger rec market as a rec brand.

Caterpillar's little power generators are sold under a different brand name. Because Cat's little generators are garbage.