oh... and yes, the images show. The issue is that they may not be 100% trustworthy to everyone here. You may have pulled some stunt (as may have Jamie) to prove your point.
Why are my Vytec and Cobra so different?
- Thread starter SM Diver
- Start date
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
BTW... in playing with the SDM simulator function, the only way I can duplicate the error is if I enter higher O2 value than you claim... presumably it runs on the same algorithm as the actual units.
Scuba_Vixen
Guest
I've followed this thread and the last similar one with interest, being a techie type and all. There's a couple points I'd like to express here from the viewpoint of a knowledgable diver.
!) When Uwatec's computer factored offgassing during the surface interval as though you were still on nitrox (if you had dived on nitrox), We called that a Bug because it was an error in design that hurt people. (Fatal Exception should have been more like it)
2) The Cobra and Vyper, under certain very possible conditions, will, because of programming design, "tox you out" on profiles that by any other reasonable way of measurement, should not put you over 25% or so. Karl has displayed evidence that convinces me of this, and I'm a skeptic.
3) The Cobra and Vyper do this, With Out warning you. Karl has displayed evidence that convinces me of this also, and I'm a big skeptic.
4) The Vyper and to a lesser extent, the Cobra, are marketed to a generally lesser sophisticted and more likely to "blindly follow the computer than have the dive knowledge to know when it's flukey" segment of divers than the Vytec.
5) It doesn't take a genius to see where some one seeing his computer toxing him out is gonna do a WAPA (Wild And Paniced Ascent) sooner or later. Especially, since they never got any alarm indication that the cns clock was in 10X overdrive.
6) Based on the above liklihood for injury, the fact that the Vyper and Cobra initiate the cns clock overdrive function and the alarm function in what can only be considered to be, reverse order, makes that design issue a BUG, and should therefore be addressed. I can't imagine anyone having their car come to a screeching smoking halt, and THEN the light comes on the dash and says, "Low Oil" "Check Engine". I'm gonna guess everyone would expect the warning light first.
7) The fact that the computers can ERRANTLY tox you out, can render them Useless for repetitive diving, or even some possible multilevel profiles. Since those two reasons are what most divers buy computers for, and the computers can not be counted on to perform under All Reasonable situations, Then that's a BUG, and should be addressed.
8) Charlie brings up the issue of conservatism. Some conservatism can be a good thing. ( I propose the diver should decide how much for him/her self) Following the idea that if some is good, then alot is better, let me offer a parallel thought and then tell me if some is good, then alot is better. When the speed limits were lowered to 55, the insurance companies loved it, accidents rates were lower, and the severity was lower. If we lowered them to 45 or even 35, there'd be even less accidents and they'd be even less severe. seems most drivers are willing to accept the risk level that comes with 65 or 70. Would 35 be conservative, or ridiculous on the interstate, same answer to the 10X overdrive on the cns clock
Anyway, that's my $.08 worth, thanks guys for a good thread.
Darlene
!) When Uwatec's computer factored offgassing during the surface interval as though you were still on nitrox (if you had dived on nitrox), We called that a Bug because it was an error in design that hurt people. (Fatal Exception should have been more like it)
2) The Cobra and Vyper, under certain very possible conditions, will, because of programming design, "tox you out" on profiles that by any other reasonable way of measurement, should not put you over 25% or so. Karl has displayed evidence that convinces me of this, and I'm a skeptic.
3) The Cobra and Vyper do this, With Out warning you. Karl has displayed evidence that convinces me of this also, and I'm a big skeptic.
4) The Vyper and to a lesser extent, the Cobra, are marketed to a generally lesser sophisticted and more likely to "blindly follow the computer than have the dive knowledge to know when it's flukey" segment of divers than the Vytec.
5) It doesn't take a genius to see where some one seeing his computer toxing him out is gonna do a WAPA (Wild And Paniced Ascent) sooner or later. Especially, since they never got any alarm indication that the cns clock was in 10X overdrive.
6) Based on the above liklihood for injury, the fact that the Vyper and Cobra initiate the cns clock overdrive function and the alarm function in what can only be considered to be, reverse order, makes that design issue a BUG, and should therefore be addressed. I can't imagine anyone having their car come to a screeching smoking halt, and THEN the light comes on the dash and says, "Low Oil" "Check Engine". I'm gonna guess everyone would expect the warning light first.
7) The fact that the computers can ERRANTLY tox you out, can render them Useless for repetitive diving, or even some possible multilevel profiles. Since those two reasons are what most divers buy computers for, and the computers can not be counted on to perform under All Reasonable situations, Then that's a BUG, and should be addressed.
8) Charlie brings up the issue of conservatism. Some conservatism can be a good thing. ( I propose the diver should decide how much for him/her self) Following the idea that if some is good, then alot is better, let me offer a parallel thought and then tell me if some is good, then alot is better. When the speed limits were lowered to 55, the insurance companies loved it, accidents rates were lower, and the severity was lower. If we lowered them to 45 or even 35, there'd be even less accidents and they'd be even less severe. seems most drivers are willing to accept the risk level that comes with 65 or 70. Would 35 be conservative, or ridiculous on the interstate, same answer to the 10X overdrive on the cns clock
Anyway, that's my $.08 worth, thanks guys for a good thread.
Darlene
Thank-you Darlene for providing some objectivity to this thread. As someone who is not very technical, a lot of this was difficult for me to follow, though I think I have the jist of it.
In the end it is fairly obvious to someone fairly inexperience in computer usage that there are differences from computer to computer. This thread is fairly timely for me in that I have been diving with a Vyper and have just recently purchased a Vytec and am planning to use the Vyper as my redunant computer (it is console mounted). It still can't say that I completely follow the arguments on both sides (name calling aside), but it has been enlightening nonetheless.
In the end it is fairly obvious to someone fairly inexperience in computer usage that there are differences from computer to computer. This thread is fairly timely for me in that I have been diving with a Vyper and have just recently purchased a Vytec and am planning to use the Vyper as my redunant computer (it is console mounted). It still can't say that I completely follow the arguments on both sides (name calling aside), but it has been enlightening nonetheless.
cornfed
Mindless lemming
This is the biggest bunch of bull$hit I've heard in a while.
If you don't understand what your computer (any computer) is telling you then you shouldn't be using it.
If you blindly follow the computer you're just an accident waiting to happen.
I'm beginning to understand Uncle Pug's stance on computers.
Cornfed
Scuba_Vixen
Guest
The vyper, and it's AI partner, the cobra, are marketted to newer divers, and at attractive entry level pricing. Divers with more diving experience and more extensive needs understand the added expense for the additional features they require, and generally have greater diving knowledge and use the computer more as a tool than a leader to rely on. good or bad not withstanding, new divers tend to let the computer run their dive and tell them what to do. They also usually have just made large investments in new gear and saving a few hundred on the comp often seems reasonable.
I stand by my statements.
Darlene
I stand by my statements.
Darlene
cornfed
Mindless lemming
I'm not disputing you marketing claims. I think it complete bull$hit to use a compute that way.
I would not make an immediate ascent if I saw a CNS tox alarm and knew (from my profile, PO2 exposure, etc) that it was B.S.
However, I bet many divers would.
Realize that the original Uwatec "offgassing is done as if on bottom mix" bug only bent a handful of people - but that was enough for major lawsuits to get going and for real trouble for them down the road (not to mention their apparent attempt to cover it up.)
Also note that the most-recent Uwatec recall, from the CPSC information, had not (yet) led to ANY injuries!
However, I bet many divers would.
Realize that the original Uwatec "offgassing is done as if on bottom mix" bug only bent a handful of people - but that was enough for major lawsuits to get going and for real trouble for them down the road (not to mention their apparent attempt to cover it up.)
Also note that the most-recent Uwatec recall, from the CPSC information, had not (yet) led to ANY injuries!
cornfed
Mindless lemming
Wasn't there a discussion a while back about "computer dumb" vs "computer smart" diving?
These examples are why I don't like seeing computers pushed on inexperienced divers.
These examples are why I don't like seeing computers pushed on inexperienced divers.
Scuba_Vixen
Guest
In another thread, where we all wailed about quickie certs, I believe, some one did post some statistics (DAN I think) relative to the number of new divers in the last 10 years and the accident rate. Turns out there is a 3 fold increase in new certs, and the accident rate Declined by 3 fold. That makes diving today, 9 times safer than a decade ago. (Iknow, when you watch some of these people, it's hard to believe) Anyway, it IS. That forces us to find a reason to account for it. Is it better / more complete training, snowball's chance in a blast furnace of that, would be my guess. So that leaves us with equipment improvements; nothing radical there. (like when spg's came along, or decent bcd's) The only real difference in the last 10 years is the huge increase in the percentage of divers using computers. Much to our collective chagrin, they make diving safer (at least for the general diving population) than it was before they were the norm. Should divers follow them blindly, It's not recommended, but rarely will it hurt them. It'll just keep them dumb, but how many want to learn more than they absolutely have to anyway. Most divers buy computers to make diving easier, and since the computers are usually smarter than they are, the dives become safer too. To the average casual diver, longer bottom times, safer diving, and less thinking, ... Computers are the Holy Grail! Human nature being what it is, I think we're going to have to just accept the trend. ]
Anyway, thanks for letting me rant,
Darlene
Anyway, thanks for letting me rant,
Darlene
Similar threads
