Will Air Integration in dive computers replace the SPG?

[dmaziuk]

someone had to correct it

Andy, this is not about nicey-nicey jedi vs no longer nice ex-jedi. Sides got nothing to do with it.

 

[The Chairman]

for that matter an SPG isn't necessary either.

Re-introduce the J-valve for the tech divers! There ya go! My first few hundred dives were on a J-valve and it worked well if you didn't accidentally hit the lever before you splashed. Those four times are vividly etched into my memory. Ah, that atavistic panic. The last episode stopped me from diving for a long time. SPGs are great. Wireless IAs are even better.

 

[dmoore19]

That would have been a long time before my scuba experience. When I started AI was available. My first computer was not AI, I didn't have it very long before I sold it and got what I wanted.

Re-introduce the J-valve for the tech divers! There ya go! My first few hundred dives were on a J-valve and it worked well if you didn't accidentally hit the lever before you splashed. Those four times are vividly etched into my memory. Ah, that atavistic panic. The last episode stopped me from diving for a long time. SPGs are great. Wireless IAs are even better.

 

[DevonDiver]

You are spinning Andy, I was talking about rec dives. You're telling me to plan for a funeral if I don't plan 50' reef dives and I should be embarrassed?

Recreational divers don't need Rule of Thirds for 50' reef dives...and this is not taught by any agency. You can ascend at any time (the crux of recreational diving safety).

If you wished to correct my earlier statement, then you should have clarified then that you were talking only about recreational diving... instead of calling me out for "BS".

As it is, a diver appropriately applying Rule of Thirds needs to consider Gas Matching and the system is not "so simple" that you simply turn the dive when one diver reaches 2/3rds gas volume remaining.... as that simplistic approach fails to consider dissimilar gas supplies and consumption rates.

The thread has contained substantial discussion on technical diving, so if you want to use technical terminology and protocols in different context, then you need to state it is for recreational diving.

At least you know about gas matching now...

 

[DevonDiver]

Andy, this is not about nicey-nicey jedi vs no longer nice ex-jedi. Sides got nothing to do with it.

Live long and prosper Padawan

 

[DevonDiver]

I understand that you and some others have shown a distrust of AI and your opinion and that of others is that it is not necessary.

That's an incorrect interpretation.

1. I don't distrust AI, I merely question its frequency of in-water failure relative to mechanical SPGs.

2. As a technical diver, my views on necessity are that AI provides no function that isn't already trained as a core competency in technical diving training.

I presented the idea that in the past the same was said for computers.

A technical diving computer provides functionality that doesn't exist with tables/timers. From my perspective, the greatest benefit with modern tech computers is the ability to adjust parameters in-water - this allows the diver flexibility to adjust their decompression schedule in response to unforeseen (or even predictable) circumstances.

For example; I plan my dive (on the laptop) with a high degree of conservatism. My tech computer is set to the same parameters (same algorithm, same settings). However, on that dive circumstances arise that make it more prudent to reduce conservatism and exit the water as soon as possible. From my own experience, those circumstances could include a leaking drysuit, a stonefish sting, swarms of toxic jellyfish at deco depth...

This is functionality that can be used by an educated diver to make informed decisions and changes in response to real-time situations.

What functionality does AI provide relative to that?

If one were to follow your absolute line of thinking...

To reiterate;

1. I have quoted formal 'technical diving principles' that are taught in the materials of technical diving courses. I cannot take credit for these.

2. I have communicated that these principles are over-arching and provide technical divers with a framework for decision making that assists with preventing known incident chains.

3. I have stressed and re-stressed that these principles stem from real-world accident analysis and are not specific or absolute, but are prudent to apply....and can be applied to any one of a myriad of technical diving considerations (not least AI).

..none of these "tools" would be necessary because you planned your dive and would know exactly how much gas you have in your tanks.

Technically, yes and no.

Yes...if everything goes to plan.

No...if the unforeseen occurs.

Technical divers are taught to plan assuming Murphy's Law... that "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". Thus, we plan for deviances from our plan. The obvious example is lost gas. We would need to know our remaining gas volume so as to calculate our real-time parameters. For instance, if we had to amend our deco plan due to lost gas... knowing the volume of gas remaining would allow us to re-plan our decompression for the optimal (least damaging) outcome..

The question is if AI will replace the SPG in the future. I believe it will, just as the SPG replaced the j-valve.

A personal opinion, rather than tech diving principle.... but I am in two-minds about this.

On one hand, AI has been around for a relatively long time and hasn't become that popular yet. If it hasn't already, then why should it in the future?

On the other hand, the march of technology is inexorable. Miniaturization, cost decreases and culture all seem to dictate that analog is in decline. I think the major barrier until now is cost and reliability. Cost will come down. I don't know about reliability.... right now, at this very moment, my Android phone is suffering a battery charging problem... I suffered an external HDD failure yesterday...the 'powerbank' I bought in December is distinctly 'powerless'.... my girlfriend blew up my blender... and on my 'dead' shelf, I have an Uwatec bottom timer that's still doing a 56m dive that ended in November..... and 3 very deceased LED torches.

In contrast to those digital/electronic woes... I call witness to my antique Scubapro SPG, whose brass-bound ruggedness seems to know no bounds... and still proves itself reliable after more than 2 decades...

 

[packrat12]

It's not the better SAC rate that I'm worried about. It's when I'm going through gas faster than I thought. One quick flick of the wrist and I see depth, time and gas. All three limits are right there. No muss, no fuss and no fumbling.

That's not the only benefit to AI. I use it when I sidemount. It eliminates some failure points as well as entanglement hazards.

And wireless AI adds a LOT of failure points that a B&G SPG does not have. We have 2 batteries, 2 interfaces, 2 sealed compartments, a wireless gap and communication, software, strain gauges etc. I agree it removes 1 bad one, the hose rupture. An airspool failure is rarely severe and is a maintenance issue if not corrected when first noticed, as is the case for any o-ring leak.

Pete, I know you use a turn pressure. I also know it is easy to know when 1/2 dive is done what expected pressure should be. You dive will be predicated on that information. How you get it does not control the dive. Other than easy information all on a wrist, it offers no more information then a SPG. As for entanglement, my bailout bottles are rigged side mount style with a 6" hose curled up at bungied to the first stage. Everything attached to the valve, including the valve is more of an entanglement hazard then the SPG. I would suspect that a hard 3-4" post would be a more severe hazard then a flexible loose hose with SPG and considering it is bungied, offers no profile, well maybe 1". I doubt I could wedge my SPG where I could not remove it.

I do not disagree that it offers convenience but at what cost. You have $800 in transmitters (assuming $400 each) offering you no real additional information. You have risk of sync issues and battery management. While it works for you, it truly offers little to the technical diver. You also need to be more careful of wrist to computer placement, verify sync issues etc.

I do not think AI cannot be used in technical diving. I do think its acceptance will be limited until it offers more benefits then a B&G SPG.

As I stated earlier, no matter what, it will not kill you but it does not offer much in the way of advantage over B&G SPG, especially when you take into account the maintenance and potential issues with wireless AI.

 

[The Chairman]

How you get it does not control the dive.

I might turn my dives on thirds, but never on SAC information. However, most of my dives are turned before thirds are reached. I like having lots of gas.

As for entanglement, my bailout bottles are rigged side mount style with a 6" hose curled up at bungied to the first stage.

Yet, we have Andy telling us that he can engage his hose with his elbow. Hey, I get all the phobias and resistance. I don't think wireless AI is for everyone. Then, neither are rebreathers... or Shearwaters. That doesn't stop me from using them.

 

[agilis]

Yeah, occasionally I run across motorcyclists who are more experienced than I am. They've been riding 40 years - on the same bike or same brand and style. They've never had an accident. But they've also never ridden over the speed limit. Never ridden in really heavy traffic. And never ridden in bad weather. They, too, believe that there is nothing someone who has only been riding one or two years can possibly tell them. If they person with less saddle time agrees with them, they are "smart". But, if the person with less saddle time disagrees with them, they are ignorant and close-minded and stupid for not listening to the "more experienced" person.

I can only imagine that at some point in the past the guys that insisted that mechanical depth gauges were the only smart way to go thought the same of you that you seem to think of me now.

My dad started diving in about 1960. He dove in the Navy. He was diving the caves of north Florida (we're from Tallahassee) before a lot of people on this board were even born. The mastodon skeleton he brought up out of the Aucilla river may still be on display on the US Geologic Survey at FSU. He scoffs at your electronic depth gauge. He never needed one. Are you going to listen to him and stop using it?

No, because I don't use one. I have several excellent wrist and hose mount analog depth gauges.

I like my Gekko computer, which has a digital depth gauge, but I don't really use the computer much. It's especially useful for repetitive and irregular profile dives, and I like its name. It calculates based on atmospheric air, so it provides an extra safety margin when I use Nitrox.

When I dive local inlets I don't really need a depth gauge and I certainly don't need the nifty little Gekko. A mechanical SPG, an analog self-winding dive watch I bought in a PX when God was a boy, and my decades old compact Tekna compass are all I really need.

 

[The Chairman]

1. I don't distrust AI, I merely question its frequency of in-water failure relative to mechanical SPGs.

How about some real data??? Science over BS. How many in-water failures have their been?