• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. 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

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

So, Will Shearwater offer Gas Integration

Discussion in 'Shearwater Research' started by guyharrisonphoto, Nov 14, 2014.

  1. Seya

    Seya DIR Practitioner

    240
    80
    28
    Lorenzoid you keep asking for proof but where's your proof that dive computers with AI and failing because of including AI. So until you can back that your just fear mongering. Did you protest when you could switch gases on dive computers get rid of that and it will be more robust .

    Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
     
  2. Lorenzoid

    Lorenzoid idling in neutral buoyancy ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Atlanta, USA
    9,464
    6,107
    113
    I am not asking for "proof" or even evidence. Do not mischaracterize what I said. As far as I know, there is no evidence one way or the other. For this reason--lack of evidence--I believe a simpler computer is likely to be more robust than one with added functions, especially functions that rely on a combination of hardware and software (like AI) as opposed to a software-only feature (like gas switching).
     
    Seya likes this.
  3. tstormdiver

    tstormdiver Instructor, Scuba

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: Kentucky
    6,177
    1,131
    113
    From personal observation, the biggest failures I have seen with AI is the loss of signal from transmitter to receiver, thus loss of gas pressure reading. Not so much the computer itself. I have seen it in many different models from different manufacturers.
     
  4. kelemvor

    kelemvor Big Fleshy Monster ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: Largo, FL USA
    6,296
    3,458
    113
    That definitely happens but it's not a big deal other than the annoying beep to notify the user. Fresh transmitter batteries go a LONG way to reduce or even eliminate it completely for a while. That's the case with scubapro anyway. I thought the guys at liquidvision claimed to not have that problem. They probably just don't report a momentary signal loss is my guess. Error checking, correction, and recovery is the name of the game in RF communications.
     
  5. scubadada

    scubadada Diver Staff Member ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
    12,301
    8,182
    113
    I'd still really like an AI Petrel, I can do without the compass though :D
     
    drrich2 likes this.
  6. tstormdiver

    tstormdiver Instructor, Scuba

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: Kentucky
    6,177
    1,131
    113
    As a repair technician at my LDS, I can guarantee you I have had happen to me & seen more than a momentary loss of signal with an "annoying beep". Let's try for most of a dive (they/ I had monolog SPG's as back- up) & the batteries had just been changed in both wrist & transmitters. The signal was lost & never came back,... with good batteries (yest tested). Yes, there were some that were "user error" for sure,... but I know the Suunto's were notorious about losing signals with another strong electrical source nearby, since it was in the shop,... florescent lights overhead were enough. No signal inside, but could get it outside & away from the shop. We called Suunto's technical support about this issue & they admitted that yes, it was a problem. Yes, yes, I know, you don't find florescent lights underwater,... but saying that signal loss is the biggest problem in AI computers. The signals are tenuous at best. I've had Oceanic, Suunto & other AI computers & have been rather underwhelmed by the signal integrity. If the reading is not there when a diver wants/ needs it then it is a failure, whether momentary or longer.

    With what is in this thread for AI causing failures or weaknesses in the computer itself,... No, I have never seen that, but I have seen more than enough issues with the signal integrity to make me just want to stick with my SPG..... they VERY rarely break or momentarily lose signal.
     
  7. victorzamora

    victorzamora Solo Diver

    3,041
    1,376
    113
    Unless you have an error logger, you won't see clear, decisive evidence of AI causing failures. What is obvious is that more complexity and more hardware/software interface means more chances to fail. Also, the more ways that the AI system crosses the deco algorithm, the more chances there are to fail.
     
  8. Lorenzoid

    Lorenzoid idling in neutral buoyancy ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Atlanta, USA
    9,464
    6,107
    113
    The thing is, we consumers have no idea to what extent the AI and deco systems share software or hardware resources. One of the things I find attractive about the Petrel--at least the original version--is that it seems so transparent. We know what algorithm it's running, we know it reads a pressure sensor that is probably nothing especially novel. It all seems so tried-and-true, so bulletproof, just like the brass-and-glass pressure gauge that is technology older than scuba itself. I switched from AI to a brass-and-glass SPG some time ago because I bought into the idea that low-tech is the most bulletproof. If a feature isn't necessary, I say leave it off; it will be guaranteed with 100% certainty to not cause a problem.
     
  9. victorzamora

    victorzamora Solo Diver

    3,041
    1,376
    113
    A consumer that has spent a ton of his life programming things like this can absolutely infer VERY accurately what's going on. My assumptions have been based off of similar things I've built and done. I can tell you, without a doubt, that outputting tank pressure on the same screen as deco algorithm output means there's some crossing over of programming. I can tell you that, without a doubt, Air time remaining and other calculations means there is a LOT of crossover in programming. I can tell you that when manufacturers state that they use increased air consumption rates to modify their algorithms that there is no "crossover" in functions since the code is one and the same.

    I can also tell you now that I'd be TRULY shocked if there was ANY separation at all in AI vs deco algo programming on ANY computer on the market. It would require too much crap to justify putting in something as small and cheap and low-volume as a PDC.
     
  10. guyharrisonphoto

    guyharrisonphoto ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Florida, USA
    1,958
    1,036
    113
    I have tried to go beyond assumptions in considering this, as it is important to me and a lot of other people. However, several posters have said that all I have is an "absence" of evidence, but I don't think that is exactly right.

    1. It is a fact that tens of thousands of AI computers are in use and have been in use for many years, and (an assumption here?) hundreds of thousands of dives. Even if the AI is not used, the extra software exists in all of the computers, for all of these dives.

    2. There is no documented instance or evidence that AI computers, as deco computers, fail more often or in different ways, than computers generally, merely due to the software.

    3. There is no documented instance of a mechanical failure--the loss of AI signal connection between transmitter and computer-- that triggers deco algorithm failure.

    4. There is no documented instance that this mechanical failure also causes a computer crash or lock-out. Victor pointed to a failure of a DC-03 that occurred simultaneously with AI failure, but even he cannot say that there was another, unrelated to AI reason that caused all computer functions to fail. Several DG03s with a particular firmware failed, this is widely reported, but no reports ever indicated that is was related to the AI software or hardware, and it was corrected with a firmware update. Perhaps Hollis can tell us more, and explain how the firmware fixed this crash problem, and whether the new firmware had to correct the AI to fix the crash problem.

    Of course, I can't know everything that has happened, everywhere, all the time. But, I have looked at this on the net, in reports of lawsuits, in magazines, and just have not found any examples.

    Now, the lack of any confirmed instance of AI causing deco algorithm failure over hundreds of thousands of dives, across multiple brands of computers, over many years, is far more than "absence" of evidence, it is, actually, positive evidence indicating that the theoretical concern about AI leading to deco unreliability in computers is simply not based in experience or observable phenomena.

    Also, no one addressed the plain fact that Shearwater has found a technology that it deems reliable enough to do not just AI but AI over very long distances, from multiple computers, all at the same time. What is the reason it could not be implemented over a few feet from first stage to wrist for a single computer?

    Whether people want it, whether Shearwater wants to make it, those are different things.

    I posted before an explanation of why AI (and a compass) is a tangible benefit in my personal diving, and a Shearwater with AI would cause me to dump my other computers immediately. I have to admit I am thinking about it even now (that color display . . .) but am not in a hurry because when I switch I would like it to be my final and last computer that has the features valuable to me.

    I am not alone, so I just encourage Shearwater to think about it . . . . that, really, was my only intent in posting. I do not want to change tech divers' minds about how they dive, only to raise the point that AI, if they do not use it, should not cause them to trust their computers any less, based on what is known thus far over a pretty big data set.
     
    Boiler_81 likes this.

Share This Page