Why do computers rot the brain?

[AltonK]

UP,
I think you make a valid point that many users of dive computers don't develop their skills and continue their education as to dive/deco theory. But my hypothesis is that their brain was probably already rotted before they learned to dive and would do the same thing in other risk sports as well (i.e. let someone else pack their chutes).

Personally I carry a hoseless computer, a dumb dive watch (depth and time) and the tables. However, In the vein of profile awareness and heuristics I guess I do that too. Because my typical dive is shallow enough I couldn't deco with a 80 cf single and by the time I eat two hot dogs and get my tank changed I've gotten plenty of SI for my next dive.

As far as the ascent gauge I tend to agree with you also, you ultimately need to be able to sense your rates without and instrument. But new divers need a yardstick to begin to develop that skill.It's difficult to compute ascent rate in your head using a watch/timer and a depth gauge on your sixth dive when your also scared the shark going to eat you and the boat's not going to be there when you get up.

and BTW the chlorine from the pool sessions finally got the old bungees and now my wing is dangling in the breeze. It didn't seem to make enough difference to motivate me to string twelve pieces of bungee.

 

[The Chairman]

I only got to read about %60 of the posts in this thread... so I might be repeating things...

Computers don't rot brains... brains rot brains. A person with a less than great situational awareness will not improve that with either tables or a computer. It takes a commitment to excellence and frankly, I don't see that computers dilute that commitment.

I might suggest that the "we don't need no steenkin' computers" mentatlity is rooted in the testosterone index. Anyone who boasts that their brains can track profiles better than a computer is either already brain dead, or has cohones bigger than his brain.

Apollo 13 was computerized... are you going to say that those astronauts brains had rotted??? Are you going to insinuate that they had no clue what their apogee or perigee would be? Dang, if only we had water proof slide rules! These men did astounding feats of computational alnalysis, some of which was checked by an earthbound computer. They survived.

Crap will hit the propellors from time to time... tables or computers means nothing if you don't have the right stuff to begin with. As for me, I will use every single tool I can to assist me. I am not too proud for that. After my dive, I will re-check my profile and possibly make some adjustments on my next one. In fact, it was during one of these re-checks that I noticed that my ascents were way too fast and that I would do less than optimal stops. I changed that because of my Cobra, not in spite of it.

Tools are great, but only if you use them. Brains are great too, especially if they learn to use tools effectively.

 

[nradov]

AltonK once bubbled...
So DIR guys use Heuristics interpretations of mathmatical algorithms expressed as computer generated tables. The inputs to these Heuristics are gross approximations to their actual profiles (square)

I can't speak for DIR but that's not what I do at all. You seem to be reading what you want to see, not what I wrote.

 

[AltonK]

You said and I quote:

Dives are planned using a set of heuristics learned in GUE classes and from reading posts by decompression experts on the Quest ( http://www.dirquest.com/quest.shtml ) and Techdiver ( http://www.aquanaut.com/bin/mlist/aquanaut/techdiver ) mailing lists. In some cases desktop decompression software is also used as a learning tool or an easy way to get a rough starting point;

I assume the output of the desktop decompression software is in the form of tables or graphic plots and is certainly based on algorithms and a mathmatical model.


So which part did I misinterpret?

 

[nradov]

NetDoc once bubbled...
I might suggest that the "we don't need no steenkin' computers" mentatlity is rooted in the testosterone index. Anyone who boasts that their brains can track profiles better than a computer is either already brain dead, or has cohones bigger than his brain.

Ridiculous. There are plenty of women who understand decompression so I don't see how testosterone is related. For example, I guarantee you Pina Porceddu ( http://www.pina.us/dive/index.htm ) knows more about proper deco than any of us here. Or check with any of the women who are GUE instructors; I don't think you'll find them relying on computers.

The only profile I need to track in my brain is roughly what depth I was at every 5 minutes or so, and for some dives even that is not necessary. Differences of a few feet or minutes either way are irrelevant when figuring out how to ascend. Insistence on a high level of precision is generally caused by a fear of deco, which in turn is caused by not understanding it in the first place.

If you want to use a computer to record your profile so you can download and examine it later I see no problem with that, although I don't bother with it myself.

 

[nradov]

AltonK once bubbled...
I assume the output of the desktop decompression software is in the form of tables or graphic plots and is certainly based on algorithms and a mathmatical model.


So which part did I misinterpret?

You are correct about the output form, but we don't print out a table and then go diving with it. Even the best available software produces profiles that are far from optimal. The software is useful only in the sense that it can help you start to see patterns and get a natural feel for the shape of decay curves. The software is a fun toy but don't take it too seriously.

For actual diving you won't find anything that looks like a table anywhere near me. If I don't have a fairly good idea what the ascent should look like I won't get in the water in the first place.

This deco stuff may seem complex and confusing but really it is not. The constant misunderstandings are mostly due to having learned it wrong in the first place and then being unable to shake off that misinformation. Everything one needs to know for handling single gas, open water dives down to 100ft could easily be taught during a standard OW1 class, but that would require the instructor to understand it completely, and there are few of those to be found. I've tried to pass on some of what I know in this thread but without direct interaction I can't tell if anyone is really getting it.

 

[The Chairman]

But the "tables" they use are as close to fictional as they come. They fit one person... and only one person. They were not derived in the normal way.

I think Dr Deco, and MANY of the real scientists here on Scubaboard really understand decompression in a way that GI3 only wishes he understood it. Just because a guy is loud and abrasive DOES NOT make him an expert. He has made some guesses and they work for him... great. He is trim and I am fat. I will take my chances with the commercial algorythms and not his voodoo decoware.

As for testosterone... I've met some babes that should have had nads. The computer tracks your profile better than you can, whether you want to admit that or not.

 

[AltonK]

apparently George has only one tissue compartment (muscle only, no fat, or nervous tissue) and wants club soda for blood. Too scary for us mere mortals.

But I like the published science, I'm alive dammit isn't that good enough.

 

[nradov]

NetDoc once bubbled...
But the "tables" they use are as close to fictional as they come. They fit one person... and only one person. They were not derived in the normal way.

Geez, where are you people getting your information? You seem to have bought into every old wive's tale in diving. The reality is that the methods George recommends have been tested and gradually refined on lots of divers over many thousands of dives with results consistently superior to the "normal way". It's not like George came down from the planet Krypton with magical deco powers. If you had been reading the mailing lists I mentioned earlier you would know this. Those methods will work for anyone who is in reasonably good shape and has no circulatory system shunts, and divers who don't meet those requirements can't count on getting consistently good results regardless of what profiles they follow.

By the way, for short dives the profiles that George recommends actually involve more deco time than the "normal way", not less. I just thought I'd mention that since some people have gotten the wrong idea that we are always trying to shorten deco.

 

[AquaTec]

It does appier that the DIR method of decompression was designed based on the trails and errors of the WKRP.
If i am wrong it would be interesting to know the history of the development of your methods.

most tables/computer profiles have a distinct history and published method of development, this provides the user the ability to research and determine the validity.

i do not see any public documentation of the development of your procedures, or even public mention of what you do...its all a big secret.....i wonder why