Will Air Integration in dive computers replace the SPG?

[Wookie]

My point is the SPG doesn't alarm the operator to the fact they don't have enough air to reach the surface. It is 100% up to the diver to make sure they are checking their gas. However, if they are using a AI computer the computer would alarm them to the fact they are approaching the point where they will not have enough air to complete the dive and reach the surface. I understand many would say this is a "gear solution to a skills problem", but not everyone is as good as us. "Generally" speaking I could see where the technology could save lives.

You want it to make noise too? I spend a lot of money on computers that don't make a sound. You may want the albatross, the AI version of the Shearwater Parrot.

 

[CarcharodonCarcharias]

As much as I love my AI, I would have say that I am in the camp of sticking with SPG.

My AI supports 4 transmitters and I think all that ATR (air time remaining) and bottom time calculation according to your rate of consumption are pretty cool.

My AI will also alarm me and let me know when I am low on air.

But my AI always show that my gas remaining in my tank is 10 bar less compare to my SPG. Maybe because of the added margin of safety? I don't know.

Also, I've heard stories of bad transmission of signals from the transmitter to the computer.

I still don't think AI technology has advance far enough for divers to cast SPG to the side completely. I love my AI for cool factors. But I will always rely on my SPG.

 

[CuzzA]

This isn't a discussion about what features "I" want out of an AI computer. It's a general discussion about AI technology replacing SPG's in the future. That is one of the reasons I asked that we keep brands out of the discussion. Audible alarms can be turned off on some computers so the point is moot.

 

[AJ]

"Generally" speaking I could see where the technology could save lives.

If they can't read an SPG timely, they should not be diving in the first place. Way too dangerous. Put it in an other way: if you can't steer clear of an obstacle while driving your car, you should not be driving in the first place.

What's next, automated deflation when you ascend too fast? That's dangerous too you know. Geez, take some lessons before starting to d(r)ive. Don't try to eliminate every skill through electonics, that's really crazy.

 

[CuzzA]

So, to recap. For AI to universally replace the SPG as the primary source of tank pressure data in the future the following are the requirements we've heard so far.

1) The transmitter has to be universal technology. Like Bluetooth for example. Any computer can connect to any transmitter.
2) The transmitter cost has to be approximately the same as today's hose and SPG. So about ~$100.
3) The transmitter has to be equally as durable as a SPG.
4) The transmitter has to be smaller. Between the size of a button gauge or small SPG to accommodate bailout and stage bottles.
5) Improvements need to be made to increase reliability. Obviously some R&D would need to take place to insure they are just as reliable as an SPG.

Anything else?

---------- Post added January 12th, 2016 at 11:25 AM ----------

If they can't read an SPG timely, they should not be diving in the first place. Way too dangerous. Put it in an other way: if you can't steer clear of an obstacle while driving your car, you should not be driving in the first place.

What's next, automated deflation when you ascend too fast? That's dangerous too you know. Geez, take some lessons before starting to d(r)ive. Don't try to eliminate every skill through electonics, that's really crazy.

I don't disagree with you. But unfortunately divers still run out of air. Why/How? I don't know. But it still happens. Read the DAN annual reports and A&I forums. It happens.

I'm not saying AI should replace the skill of checking your air. (In fact, IME, AI actually keeps me more aware of my air as I have a tendency to check my wrist computer more than my SPG.) All I'm saying is divers run out of air. Should we say, "Well, they deserved to die because they let themselves run out of air!" You tell that to a mom, dad, son or daughter. All I'm simply saying is a side benefit of AI as the standard replacement to the SPG would likely reduce OOA deaths, this assuming AI is as reliable as an SPG.

 

[doctormike]

So, to recap. For AI to universally replace the SPG as the primary source of tank pressure data in the future the following are the requirements we've heard so far.

1) The transmitter has to be universal technology. Like Bluetooth for example. Any computer can connect to any transmitter.
2) The transmitter cost has to be approximately the same as today's hose and SPG. So about ~$100.
3) The transmitter has to be equally as durable as a SPG.
4) The transmitter has to be smaller. Between the size of a button gauge or small SPG to accommodate bailout and stage bottles.
5) Improvements need to be made to increase reliability. Obviously some R&D would need to take place to insure they are just as reliable as an SPG.

Anything else?

Yeah, all of this cutting edge bluetooth technology and small, powerful, user replaceable batteries would need to be universally available and immediately servicable at the remote third-world locations that are home to a large percentage of the worlds popular dive sites.

Sounds like a long run for a short slide. I mean, I can see some advantages of WAI. But the idea that it is so far superior in every way that it will actually make SPGs go the way of video rental stores seems unlikely.

 

[abscuba]

For recreational divers AI may be the way to go. For tech divers there is no way. First off as many have stated we have multiple tanks and multiple gases adding a transmitter means that if one transmitter fails, which I would assume would be check at a 10ft bubble check, I would have to stop get out of the water replace it get back in and try again. People keep talking about having to frequently check amount of gas in a tank which believe it or not is the easier part of technical diving, some one even stated in the shearwater thread they were check tank pressure more frequently than ppO2 or their CNS clock. For a recreational diver this is true on the technical side it is completely opposite. The least amount of air I will take with me on a deco dive is 160 cubic feet which at 100 feet at my personal sac rate gives me 2 hours. The gas can't sneak out with out being notices (bubble checks) so a gas loss is noticed and planed for. I will check my tank pressure but often more just to verify it and is not every 30 seconds. If I am OC I am often worried about my CNS clock as we use longer bottom times it is not hard to run that up no it won't happen fast but if I am on the bottom and its already at 95% and I have 45mins of deco ending in pure O2 I have a problem. Now one step farther most of my tech diving currently is on a rebreather and that is hours worth of gas. My PPO2 on the other hand can change very quickly as well as my O2 level and a dozen other things. I tech recreational diving and I get the rational I have to hawk my tank pressure mainly because in recreational diving most people are realying on their computer they have done little if any diving planning, which you can get away with as you just have to know your NDL. Tech diving requires a good amount of planning, when I hope in the water I have calculated out my deco schedule and have it written down for a dual computer failure, I have calculated my gas requirements to include if I loss gas in any combiniation of deco or back gas and included a large amount of gas just for emergency. So If I have an spy failure I can still know I have enough gas to make it to the surface. I am also on a schedule, I am not swimming around until my computer says go up it is all planed out and run on the clock. We often work as a team which is also different in tech diving. In recreational diving you have your dive buddy and you keep them close as comfort will allow and if your entire kit fails you can make an accent with your buddy. In technical diving the team works together stops together, checks each other, and often has the reserved gas split amount the team. So if I have an AI computer I have to work out how has what transmitter check them to ensure every ones computer which depending on depth and the size of the team you can have 4 to 20 tanks between the team maybe more in some instances that is a lot of transmitters needing to link up. In technical diving failures are not accepted, that tiny stream of bubbles that comes out of half the regulators people ignore in recreational diving is a no go on a technical dive. So I have to solve all the above problems to have some thing that is just a convenience to save me from having to look at a separate gauge which should be in an easy spot. If your spg is hard to see then your kit is not set up well it should be tailored to you and your diving so move the spg where you can see it. The only time you can get to a spot you may not be able to reach your spg is if you are cave or wreck diving working through tight squeezes, but you can go to side mount and put you bottom gas gauges with the spg up then you glance down and you can see them. Recreational and technical diving are apples and oranges, both are diving, but the mentality is completely different which is why gear configurations are different. There are some tools we need to be different on the technical side and folks arguing till you are blue in the face with the folks who do technical diving is not going to change the rules that have been written by the blood of the people who lost their lives before us.

 

[rmssetc]

While I can understand the wide variation in wireless AI transmitter & receivers (computers) from the computer manufacturer's point of view (consumer lock-in, QC, no need to adhere to standardized API, etc), I'm amazed that there isn't a regulator manufacturer who's partnering with a computer manufacturer (or making their own computers) and including the transmitter in the first stage.

Given manufacturing scale (many, many more first stages produced than transmitters) and physical design, it'd probably be a small additional cost ($100) to included the transmitter hardware in every first stage...then an additional cost ($100?) at time-of-sale or a future upgrade to unlock (electronically activate) the transmitter function. The result would be more rugged than the current design, more compact, and transmitter service (O-rings, battery, calibration) could be part of "annual" regulator service if desired (more expensive than current reg-only service, cheaper than current reg+computer service).

The ultimate convenience for divers who want to use a computer would be if there was a open communication standard for the transmission of data between the wireless AI transmitter and display unit (computer). Then you could pair your computer with any transmitter regardless of computer & regulator manufacturer.

 

[doctormike]

While I can understand the wide variation in wireless AI transmitter & receivers (computers) from the computer manufacturer's point of view (consumer lock-in, QC, no need to adhere to standardized API, etc), I'm amazed that there isn't a regulator manufacturer who's partnering with a computer manufacturer (or making their own computers) and including the transmitter in the first stage.

I would never dive with a first stage that had any extra hardware incorporated into the gas delivery system. The current transmitters put all that stuff external to the regulator, which is much better...

Demand regulators are very similar functionally and structurally to ones from many years ago. It is an example of something that actually IS life support, works well, is incredibly reliable and has a proven track record of millions and millions of dives with an extremely low failure rate over many decades of use in all sorts of challenging environments.

I wouldn't mess with that system.

 

[chrisch]

...
size-button gauges for deco bottles are super small and that is about the size a transmitter realistically needs to be in order to justify the change..

This is the Suunto one:

That piece of junk has no place in my kit.

...Never, ever rely on a piece of electronics for your safety.

Whilst I tend to agree a lot of airlines might not...

... I understand many would say this is a "gear solution to a skills problem", but not everyone is as good as us. "Generally" speaking I could see where the technology could save lives.

Better dive skills save lives.

If they can't read an SPG timely, they should not be diving in the first place. Way too dangerous. Put it in an other way: if you can't steer clear of an obstacle while driving your car, you should not be driving in the first place...

The modern trend (Audi etc.) is to cars that overcome the stupidity and incompetence of the driver. Google want it to drive itself....

... There are some tools we need to be different on the technical side and folks arguing till you are blue in the face with the folks who do technical diving is not going to change the rules that have been written by the blood of the people who lost their lives before us.

Yup.


Also it is important to remember there are many countries where scuba is not as gadget oriented as the USA or Western Europe. Also a lot of divers worldwide for whom 3-400 UD$ is a lot of money. Mechanical SPG will be around after I'm gone.