Wireless

[Meng_Tze]

Just wondering if there's anything non-DIR about using a wireless transmitter with computer in gauge mode *assuming* a typical brass spg is also used. Seems like a convenient way to add redundancy. Not what I'm doing (can't afford a wireless setup), but wondered what others thought, especially since an spg is one of the few things not to meet the hog notion of take two of what you need (and I understand why one doesn't "need" an spg, but it sure is convenient!).

Is it DIR? No
Is it handy for some people? Yes
Would the hardcore DIR divers consider one? No
If the technology would improve, then would it be? Maybe

You make a choice...

As for entanglement hazard.... no more than a valve, first stage etc. Yes it is an added protrusion, but if a line is that close to your valve etc, chances are it is going to get snagged.... extra transmitter or not.

 

[cmalinowski]

...As for entanglement hazard.... no more than a valve, first stage etc....

Or twice as much as one valve depending on how you look at it.

 

[Meng_Tze]

Or twice as much as one valve depending on how you look at it.

Regardless of how you look at it. Entanglement is a function of awareness that manifests itself on prortrusions.

Entanglement is not a function of protrusions

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

As for entanglement hazard.... no more than a valve, first stage etc.

Yes, but it is kind of hard to go diving without those.

What I had reference to is the fact that any unnecessary equipment will always increase the possibility of entanglement. One of the reasons for the "don't need it, don't bring it" philosophy is that it decreases that risk (in addition to adding more potential failure points).

 

[Meng_Tze]

Yes, but it is kind of hard to go diving without those.

What I had reference to is the fact that any unnecessary equipment will always increase the possibility of entanglement. One of the reasons for the "don't need it, don't bring it" philosophy is that it decreases that risk (in addition to adding more potential failure points).

Failure points and complexity I agree with.

Entanglement not per se. You get entangled because you dont pay attention, are making wrong decisions and do not know how to address entanglement issues. Having more things (lets use this extra 'knob' on valve as an example) does not increase your risk or possibility of entanglement. Again, if a line is that close to the valve, and you do not address that appropriately, you are going to get entangled... 'knob' or not. There is a false sense of security with many thinking that having less equipment equals less risk of entanglement. The risk is equally great, it is the awareness of the environment and being able to manage it that keeps you from getting entangled. Of course there are less points for the line to attach to, but that is negated by not being able to handle/ be aware of the situation and allowing line to get that close to 'attachment' points. By that time, one less point is not going to make a difference.

Line has a way of finding points to attach to..... whether you have one extra 'knob' is of no consequence.. the issue is to ensure you do not get in that situation.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Independent doubles are not DIR, therefore sidemount diving is not DIR. Sidemount diving is a whole different thought process from a gear configuration standpoint, and DIR principles don't really apply there (other than the general recommendation of streamlining to reduce entanglement hazard).

A GI3 rant on DIR Sidemount:
http://www.innerrealm.co.nz/dir_details.asp?pk=45

A very specialized technique and not very common in the DIR realm, and not yet standardized or taught in the GUE Curriculum. . .

 

[darkpup]

A GI3 rant on DIR Sidemount:
http://www.innerrealm.co.nz/dir_details.asp?pk=45

A very specialized technique and not very common in the DIR realm, and not yet standardized or taught in the GUE Curriculum. . .

His rants are always good for a laugh, and going back over 50 years to find material to bash a group of divers over the head is something not often seen on SB.

~ Jason

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

Entanglement not per se. You get entangled because you dont pay attention, are making wrong decisions and do not know how to address entanglement issues.

I agree that avoiding entanglements has more to do with your situational awareness than it has to do with equipment choices. In some cases, awareness may not be enough, however. I am thinking specifically of a zero-vis exit from a cave, or possibly ascending through a dense kelp bed. In those cases, you may have less control over where you are relative to a potential source of entanglement.

So yes, we should work very hard not to get ourselves into those situations (i.e. make sure you know where the line is, don't silt the cave, don't ascend where there is lots of kelp), but in some cases it may be unavoidable. I still believe it's important to do as much as you can (within reason, of course) to eliminate potential "gotchas" from your gear as well.

 

[cool_hardware52]

His rants are always good for a laugh, and going back over 50 years to find material to bash a group of divers over the head is something not often seen on SB.

~ Jason

It's odd to cite the losses during the landings at Normandy, where the US suffered more than 2x the number the British did....


Tobin

 

[Thalassamania]

Seems to me that replacing an spg with a wireless system like the Atom 2.0 (computer argument aside for the moment) would be welcomed by DIR. You reduce the failure possibilities by two rotating o-rings, two swedges, one hose, and one bordon tube and you can have, not just redundancy for your back gas pressure but can also monitor an additional cylinder (or be non redundant on your back gas and monitor two slung cylinders).