Will Air Integration in dive computers replace the SPG?

[lowviz]

Corded home phones are a good analogy to the SPG. Neither contains ANY electronics. Electrical components, yes. --mostly inductors, wire wrapped around a core.

To make a call, two people have to be in two specific locations at the same time. You forget that small point?

Utility. I don't have to stay at home waiting for an important call. I just take my cell phone with me.

 

[DevonDiver]

No... I agree with the point on functionality (and mentioned that in my prior post). The issue was reliability.

The analogy fits the AI debate. AI provides functionality at the expense of reliability.

The secondary issue is who needs, or wants, that added functionality. Many don't. Some do.

As for the functionality of being available for calls anywhere.... then we could still be using Nokia bricks. They are far more reliable and sturdy. But we use smartphones. For me, it's because I can answer emails on the go.... productivity. For others, it's for gaming or posting endless selfies on Facebook.

 

[lowviz]

...//... AI provides functionality at the expense of reliability.

O-rings fail me far more often than any of my electronics. Catastrophically so, I posted an extruded neck seal in the past, probably still out there for viewing.

Of all the millions of hardware and software failure points present in the Challenger, it was an O-ring and hubris that killed the crew.

 

[DevonDiver]

That's true. It's a reason why o-rings are a major player in the 'failure point' assessment. That said, o-rings are part of a service schedule - meant to be checked and, if necessary, replaced at frequent intervals.

Steve Lewis wrote a great article about 'Normalization of Deviance', the concept of which stems from the Challenger disaster. The failure was of complacency and not adhering to agreed operating procedures.

That said, in my lifetime, I've encountered literally hundreds of electronic failures; phones, tvs, dive computers, laptops, ipods.... you name it. Electronic items are rarely subject to fixed service schedules, are normally sealed units and generally faults can't be identified until they occur.

 

[lowviz]

...//... Electronic items are rarely subject to fixed service schedules, are normally sealed units and generally faults can't be identified until they occur.

You speak with presumed authority in the field of electronics.

http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/hottopics21.htm

 

[DevonDiver]

No.... but I'll note that I never saw anyone opening up a Petrel to examine the components for wear or potential failure. I saw plenty of divers examining o-rings.

 

[lowviz]

Precisely.

One should focus on the greater threat first.

 

[DevonDiver]

How to quantify that threat?

If something is diagnosable pre-dive, then is it a major threat? In contrast, if something is most likely to fail in-water, with no prior warning and no means to diagnose potential failure in advance... is that the more major threat?

In respect to technology advances in diving; I'd much rather see the design effort turned towards improving safety/reliability of existing components. If someone improved, say, materials technology in o-rings, or connection design. I'd like to see an improvement to LPI designs.... mask and fin straps fail... why do manufacturers not embrace alternatives as a standard?

 

[lowviz]

...//... I'd much rather see the design effort turned towards improving safety/reliability of existing components. If someone improved, say, materials technology in o-rings, or connection design. ...

OK, how about replacing two dynamic O-rings and one static O-ring with just one static O-ring?

Given that the electronics are within the reliable portion of the bathtub curve, I'd take that trade any day.

 

[CT-Rich]

No... I agree with the point on functionality (and mentioned that in my prior post). The issue was reliability.

The analogy fits the AI debate. AI provides functionality at the expense of reliability.

The secondary issue is who needs, or wants, that added functionality. Many don't. Some do.

As for the functionality of being available for calls anywhere.... then we could still be using Nokia bricks. They are far more reliable and sturdy. But we use smartphones. For me, it's because I can answer emails on the go.... productivity. For others, it's for gaming or posting endless selfies on Facebook.

I use an Android phone and an I-pad mini for work. I carry no paper with me other than my business card. I have apps for measuring the slope of a roof and converting images in PDF files and can convert images into text. I had no idea ten years ago that I would need software for signing virtual paper contracts and a mapping clients in real time, not to mention calling for uber and turn by turn directions.

What are we expecting from the next generation dive computers? I have no idea, but it might be something we haven't even thought of. How about underwater GPS and mapping? A hand held sonar scanner, CO monitoring, homing devices, communications? How systems monitoring and biometrics measuring? There was a time when some divers considered the SPG itself a secondary devise, an unnecessary luxury. When you were low on air, your reg would draw hard. You pulled on your J-valve, opened the reserve and went up.

Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. mechanical devises like an SPG can fail, too. It isn't common, but when I was student diver in 1980 I was taught to hold the face of the SPG away and towards the ground in case it blew out when cracking the valve. O-rings fail, hoses fail. No system is going to be perfect, but the technology will be as reliable the mechanical spg. When an SPG is out of calibration, a diver will still be able to use it, with no way of knowing that it has failed until he starts sucking rust when the gauge is reading 400 psi. A transponder will fail catastrophically and the diver will know he has a failure and can abort the dive.