Why are my Vytec and Cobra so different?

[jamiei]

Once again Karl, the cobra and vyper do not use v planner software and thus do not use its values so that doesn't make a hill of beans. You kept talking about the SSI tables before, now you run and hide behind something else.

by the way, did you take the vyper along on those dives with you?

even if you did... you blew the dive profile anyway didn't you.

 

[jamiei]

Once again, you're wrong. There is no mandatory deco stop on the second dive, as you can see, beyond the 1:36 minute stop at 15 feet (which we would call a "safety stop" in the recreational world.)

KK, when did I ever even say anything about your dive profiles? Try never... so how the hell could I be wrong? How many of you are there in there Karl? I never said a single word about a mandatory deco stop anywhere in this entire thread. You're losing it...

I hope you have convinced at least a few of your personalities that some of them are right.

I noticed that Krazy Karl mentioned a 50 feet/min descent using his v planner... try looking at the bottom right picture on my dive sim page. That dive is a direct descent (50 feet or more/min) to 107' and doesn't show any signs for alarm that would constitute an unsafe computer. On the other hand, on KK's pics you'll see something different... The suunto simulation will allow you to descend like a rocket to the bottom and adversely affect the OLF readings... You can make something out of nothing... I'll give you that. But you can't, haven't, and won't reproduce it during a dive without violating the MOD/PO2 or NDL. Post all your evidence on a page or two on your site and lets see it. I'm sure the CPSC would love to have a look.

Bottom line, you're crazy and you're a winer. You change the subject with every post to avoid answering my direct questions and when I post something you can't lie your way around, you ignore that I even said it.

 

[Genesis]

Uh, how?

What do you see wrong with the two dive profiles I posted? Bad ascents? No. A deco obligation? That was intentional. The depth? Intentional. The mix taken? Intentional.

"Blew"? How? I planned those dives at my house using V-planner before I got on the boat. I knew what the "wall" was in terms of the redundancy I had on my person in terms of redundant gas. I had sufficient gas to make that dive if I lost my backgas supply at the point of maximum obligation, using my pony (only) as my deco supply. The Vytec permits gas switching, so it can recompute the stops.

Exactly how is this a "blown" profile?

Oh never mind - you're stuck in the mindset that any penetration of the 1.4 PO2 (even when its not really a penetration at all, due to the computer adding 1% to your entered values) or of the NDLs is "bad" and will "kill you." Never mind that Suunto advertises all of their computers as "full decompression computers" - not just implying, but actually stating that you can make those kinds of dives without a problem. From their web page:

Three instruments in one. Air, Nitrox and Gauge. Vyper features full decompression capabilities and combines several technological innovations into one product. Vyper offers everything a diver could possibly need for diving with standard Air or nitrox mixes.

 

[jamiei]

Tell me when I said something about a mandatory deco stop Karl? Tell me...

You did it again... skipped all the important stuff... you said you blew 1.4 by going to get the anchor. You violate a limit with a computer, it calls you on it. Thats simple... its not like you're talking your way out of a ticket Karl. You'll wait a long time for a dive computer that you can reason with. You don't have to violate the 1.4 PO2 limit YOU SET to do a deco dive. There's nothing wrong with the deco. If you set a dive computer at 1.4 and then you violate it, who's fault is that? YOURS


TRUE/FALSE: The Vytec is the only computer in the following group to be recalled: Vyper, Cobra, Vytec. Ans: TRUE

TRUE/FALSE: This recall of the Vytec involved the dive computer's simulation mode. Ans: TRUE

TRUE/FALSE: Suunto made it clear that the simulation mode is not directly linked nor provides an accurate reflection of the actual calculations during a dive. Ans: TRUE, TRUE,TRUE...

from suunto's website... notice it says Vytecs... odd isn't it Karl they found a bug in their most expensive computer and replace them for free. its also their newest so surely they would have found your "bug" by now with the cobra and vyper...

Despite an extensive pretesting program by Suunto and by independent divers all over the world, Suunto test program has found a software bug in the first series of Suunto Vytecs (products with serial numbers 205000-223700). It has been discovered that using Vytec´s SIMPLAN function may cause problems.

Although diving without using the SIMPLAN function does not cause problems and all features of the instrument work then normally, Suunto wishes that all users contact their local dealer, which contact information you can find here at www.suunto.com or Suunto HQ tel. +358-9-875870 to have their unit replaced with a new unit.

 

[jamiei]

Since you ignored the question again... did you or did you not take the vyper along on those two dives you just started babbling about? If not, why?

Woulda Shoulda Coulda... thats all there is to you. You provide half the story all the time. All you're talking about now is the vytec... why? Why not say the cobra is messed up because a Dive rite computer gives you more CNS clock time than it does... that makes just about as much sense... The vytec and cobra/vyper are designed differently for obvious reasons. Is the cobra broken because you can only do one mix on it? Or is what you're really trying to say is that they're broken cause they aren't vytecs?

 

[jamiei]

What about the video challenge? you haven't said a word about that? I'm sure with all your money you can do that yourself...

Ok, here's the deal...

You give me the profile and I'll do the dive since you are too chicken to do it. Just for safety, I'll dive a leaner mix but tell the computer I'm diving 32%. Calm freshwater lake, hanging on the anchor line at 107'? Is that what you want? Direct ascent to 107', begin ascent at 15 minutes. That was your initial complaint in the first thread. You said it toxed you out at 15 minutes into the dive on 32% at 107'. Will that suffice? I'll make the entire dive info available for download.

 

[cornfed]

jamiei once bubbled...

TRUE/FALSE: Suunto made it clear that the simulation mode is not directly linked nor provides an accurate reflection of the actual calculations during a dive. Ans: TRUE, TRUE,TRUE...

Are you talking about the vytec recall?

 

[Genesis]

You continually issue new challenges and try to deflect the discussion when cornered.

I'm not biting on your spread. Put the riggers out if you want, but all you're going to be catching on them is water.

I have continually returned to the issues at hand. You claim that I violated the 1.4 PO2 on the Vytec. Yep. I did. It complained at me at the tmie (properly.) What it did NOT do was tox me for an incursion beyond 1.4, although it did warn me that I had violated a parameter I had set before I got in the water.

What the Vyper and Cobra would have done, however, is both warn me AND accelerate the CNS loading, and even worse, if I had set a 1.5 or 1.6 PO2 exposure limit, they would have accelerated the CNS loading without warning. The selection of PO2 limit is a diver option, which Suunto permits in the range of 1.2 to 1.6, but they then IGNORE that setting when it comes to computing the CNS loading.

That is and has been the entire issue at the bar through both of these threads. If you make an option available you have a duty to actually make it do something, otherwise you are misleading people at best.

You have continually tried to deflect the discussion away from this point, first by claiming that the COBRA did not have this problem (it does), then claiming that it didn't do it in the water on a real dive (it does), then claiming that the Vytec, which does NOT have the problem, had been "gimmicked" by me by setting its conservatism to a lower level (yet a third lie.)

I can go back through the entire list again, but its pointless - you have simply refused to stay on topic, and instead have hurled insults, claimed that I have violated the computer and that made the test irrelavent (it does not invalidate the events that occurred and were recorded BEFORE I violated the computer!), and have continued to gin up excuses for the broken implementation of these computers as regards CNS loading.

My view is simple - anyone who intends to dive these computers as a Nitrox computer should be aware that the CNS computation is defective, and as such they should plan their OTU/CNS exposure limits using some other method (the tables you hate so much.)

Their NDL/deco schedules, on the other hand, appear fine.

 

[jamiei]

IF IF IF... I'll ask for the THIRD TIME... did you take the vyper along with the vytec on this dive? DID YOU? WHY WONT YOU ANSWER THAT? WHY? WHY WOULDN'T YOU? If you did... where's the evidence. You don't know squat about what would happen because you've only simulated it.

I'm betting you didn't and thats why you aren't answering... I'm not cornered... Thats you. Of course you won't video it or put your money where your mouth is. You won't do the dive you say gives the vyper so much of a fit. WHY KARL? That would prove your point? It is your responsibility to prove there is a problem, not mine to prove there isn't one. Isn't proof of the problem a really friggin important part of this issue? Obviously to you it isn't.

Where the hell is the deflection? You're talking to yourself here... you aren't responding to my comments at all.

THE ISSUE AT HAND ISN'T THE FRIGGIN VYTEC YOU WACKO!!! ITS THE VYPER/COBRA... did you forget that?

WOULD HAVE DONE... take it on the dive and prove what it would have done... you had ample opportunity and either did and are hiding the info or didn't because of whatever reason. Fact is, woulds and ifs are nothing but BS. You started this BS saying the vyper was dangerous because it would tox you out at 107' at 15 minutes... THAT IS THE WHAT YOU SAID. My pics prove you wrong. So i'm the one that is on subject. You change the issue when you're proven wrong.

Cornfed... yes I was talking about the Vytec recall. The quote is in the post. It said the sim bug does not affect the dive mode... that tells me they are separate and that the simulation mode is not an accurate reflection of the dive mode and thus its invalid.

Karl, if my actual dive to 107' would cause the bug to show up and prove your point... why do you oddly seem like you don't want me to do the dive? Because I would have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're full of it and then you'ld have to shut up? Thats what it sounds like? I even asked if you have had any requests for the dive. That isn't a challenge... thats a fact finding attempt and something you don't seem interested in. It could prove that the sim mode doesn't have anything to do with actual dive calculations and that your assertions are unbased. That would surely ruin your day wouldn't it. I'm sure you would argue then that my cobra must not be affected...

 

[jamiei]

My view is simple - anyone who intends to dive these computers as a Nitrox computer should be aware that the CNS computation is defective, and as such they should plan their OTU/CNS exposure limits using some other method (the tables you hate so much.)

1: you should always use tables to plan and/or backup your dives... weren't you taught that Karl? I was... never rely on a computer. I love my tables but i'm not idiotic enough to expect my dive computer to adopt them... I'm what's called an intelligent person. I can think for myself and I use the training I have received. I stay within the limits. I plan my dives and know when and if I will be exposed to dangerous po2 levels during a dive.

2: you said it... its just your view = opinion = not based on fact

I have continually returned to the issues at hand. You claim that I violated the 1.4 PO2 on the Vytec. Yep. I did.

Yeah, after running away from the issues... I claimed nothing about you... I was just recalling exactly what you admitted several times... boy you're off.