Suunto Vyper **SERIOUS BUG** in CNS O2 computation

Please register or login

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. Log in or Register now!

FLL Diver once bubbled...


I wouldn't be so certain if I were you. :D

From the manual

6.2. REDUCED GRADIENT BUBBLE MODEL,
SUUNTO RGBM

The Reduced Gradient Bubble Model (RGBM) is a modern algorithm for tracking both dissolved and free gas in the tissues of divers performing a wide variety of maneuvers. Unlike the classical Haldane models, the RGBM can address a number of circumstances outside the range of just dissolved gas
models by:
• monitoring continuous multiday diving
• tracking closely spaced repetitive diving
• accounting for diving deeper than previous dive
• regulating rapid ascents with high degrees of Doppler bubble
formation
• incorporating consistency with real physical laws for gas kinetics
• taking a modern approach to a difficult problem.

The SUUNTO RGBM algorithm is developed in co-operation with SUUNTO and Bruce R. Wienke. It is based both on laboratory experiments and diving data.




The research and testing that went into RGBM models is very well known, as is the work of Dr, Bruce R. Wienke, PhD. You can read all about the development and testing in a number of different papers, and in his book Basic Diving Physics and Applications.

Marc
My most sincere appologies, I was unaware that Dr, Bruce R. Wienke, PhD was working for Suunto.
 
Charlie99 once bubbled...
Interesting. The only DecoPlanner I have seen is PURE HALDANIAN DISSOLVED GAS MODEL!

I believe WKPP has used RGBM models for planning their dives. Perhaps DecoPlanner might have been used for some of the support dive planning, but in any case, it is a basic Buhlmann model, with gradient factors, much like GAP and many other predecessors.
Charlie, The quote is from GUE, not me.
Several WKPP divers use VPM as well, few if any use "out of the box" profiles.
Dave
 
First, I cannot give Jamiei what he wants, because I inadvertantly violated the 1.6 PO2 setting I put into the Vyper today (chasing a fish to shoot - go figure - dinner was more important than the test, sorry) and cleaned its CNS clock, so to speak.

HOWEVER, I found a very interesting piece of data out while I was at it. I do have the profile from the dive, and it shows something that I did not expect.

I set a 1.6 PO2 in the computer. In fact, its STILL set to 1.6, and a 47% Nitrox mix (which I computed would put me between 1.4 and 1.6 PO2, thereby "tripping" the bug. Unfortunately I decended below 77', which invalidated the test....

BUT, when I downloaded the profile, SDM shows the PO2 in the display for the dive parameters and on the graph and computer "face" as 1.4! This despite the fact that I explicitly requested 1.6 in the computer, it STILL shows the same 1.6 (I just checked - I was NOT drunk, stoned, or narc'd when I set the computer!) and the same FO2 that I had set.

Thus, it appears, to me at least, that setting a PO2 of more than 1.4 on the Vyper is a noop in terms of its ACTUAL calculations, EXCEPT for where (or if) the PO2 alarm sounds!

That is, you can set it, and it won't ***** during the dive until you exceed 1.5 or 1.6, but when you look at the profile later in SDM it not only doesn't pick up your 1.5 or 1.6 setting, it ALSO computes the "alarms" in the graph function as if it was set to 1.4! Worse, it does its "acceleration" thing based on a PO2 of 1.4, irrespective of what you set as your maximum PO2, and if its not 1.4, you get no warning that the acceleration took place unless you also violate your setpoint.

So basically, Suunto is grossly misrepresenting the settings available on this computer and what they do. There is no setting available for >1.4 PO2; despite it being there, it is non-functional and misleading to the diver. Further, there is a rounding error which can apparently cause the "over 1.4" PO2 acceleration to trip a few feet shy of the 1.4 alarm - and the alarm will NOT sound until a 1.5 or 1.6 setpoint is breached, even though the acceleration will STILL take place when 1.4 is exceeded.

This problem is, in my mind, somewhat MORE serious than I had first believed. Allowing a diver to set a parameter that should control the dive profile limits, displaying those limits (the MOD appropriately adjusts when the PO2 is changed) but then ignoring the setting the diver made in favor of an internal default is both a bug and quite dangerous.

Yet that, from a real dive and a
real[/b] download today, is what we have here.

Unfortunately I toxed the computer on the first dive (badly enough that four hours later it STILL showed CNS off the charts) so I was unable to get anything useful on Dive #2. I will, however, take it with me again when I next get wet and will make another attempt to get a profile that adheres to the 1.4 < PO2 < 1.6 test sequence I intended for today.

I am including a point on the graph from the dive that shows what I'm talking about, however. After manually resetting the PO2 in SDM to 1.6, which is where the computer is set, and going to a point only three minutes into the dive, where depth over 77' has not yet been exceeded (look for yourself) I am showing 30% of the CNS clock gone. AT THREE MINUTES OF EXPOSURE.

While the PO2 limits were exceeded just one minute later (and the rest of the test is thus invalid) this is pretty conclusive evidence of the acceleration that I'm talking about.

BTW, I looked at the computer just before going after that fish - and saw those same three bars, just three minutes into the dive - in real time.

sdm4.jpg
 
jamiei once bubbled...
somebody let me know if Genesis has any real proof of anything... I see he's posted a few times, but he's on my ignore list and so far nothing he's said is worth reading.

If you want to know what he has to say you shouldn't have put him on your ignore list.

Cornfed
 
Jim Clymer of Aqualung has responded to my original email to Suunto; apparently the finland folks are shut down pretty much for the month of July. (So much for Jamiei's claim that "nobody had contacted Suunto about this.")

He has provided me a technical contact in finland, however, and I will be forwarding my emails to him this afternoon.

Jim does recognize the issue and its potential effects, but was unable to speak to whether Aqualung would consider this a "bug", as he did not have knowledge of the algorythm used in the computer or the reasons for how it acts.

We'll see what the CPSC thinks... note that they recalled the Uwatec/SP computers with only two documented instances of failure at depth, and no injuries linked to them (according to their release on the recall.)

This problem appears to affect anywhere from a large number of to all Vyper computers, is reproducable on every one of them, and and happens every time one sets a PO2 above 1.4, and occasionally even if one does not.
 
jamiei once bubbled...
somebody let me know if Genesis has any real proof of anything... I see he's posted a few times, but he's on my ignore list and so far nothing he's said is worth reading.

My kids play this game all the time..............
 
So does my 3 yeard old.....but I don't think we can spank jami.

:wacko:

Brules
 
thanks guys... but I am (was...) interested in the truth about this bug, just not in getting myself worked up over his propaganda any more. Disregard my request and enjoy the thread



I did read his last post... Jim Clymer emailed me a few days ago concerning this issue... so much for going straight to the top Karl... Oddly enough, Jim's email seemed a bit different from what you related in your post. I'm sure the folks on the board would be interested in reading it if you still have it.

You highlighted 2 in your remarks about the recall, you failed to highlight a very important aspect of that... it was the documented part. We still haven't seen that yet. We'll see... I did inform Jim the other day that a complaint had been filed with regards to this in hopes that the message would get to Suunto and whatever necessary actions be taken immediately. Jim Clymer is the person that told me that if the problem affected the Vyper, it should affect the Cobra because the software is identical except for the air integration feature. Yes, he does represent Aqualung but who's to say we know more than he about the products his company imports? I do look forward to some clarification.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom