Posted by Eins on March 05, 2001 at 20:07:08:
In Reply to: Computing on the fly- Very long posted by MHK on March 05, 2001 at 14:03:06:
I still regret not having been able to attend Saturday. And if I could have, I would have had to leave earlier than it ended.
I read all the recent posts reflecting on this meeting and I read the entire first half of your post here. I assume the second half is identical and was pasted by accident.
My questions are basically two:
1. You claim there is no computer on the market (today) that could effectively do the calculations that you do by using your specific computer programs.
Why is that? Is it just that marketing a dive computer takes too long and your system is too new to have found its way to a mass produced dive computer, or am I missing something?
I mean, with the right algorithm (RGBM) and giving deep stop benefits, would not a dive computer come up with equal or better results? Better, because it can actually sample changes of profile and adjust NDLs?
I think the argument of individualism is moot because today's dive computers allow for personal adjustments. I agree that it is up to the diver to decide how much adjustment cold water, his individual fitness level, his degree of hydration etc. would require.
I understand the "dependency" part. On the other hand, isn't less task loading better? Doesn't it also mean one (or several) less failure points?
Speaking of failure points, are there any verified statistics on how many dive computers have actually crapped out during a dive and what the reason was?
2. Your given example of 10 @ 100' and then modifying to 10 @ 100 & ascending to 60', making an average depth of 80' (I'm simplifying here) raises this question:
I understand you are doing these calculations up front and arrive at the average depth of 80' which then gives you 30 minutes BT. But does that not also require you to monitor your time (10 minutes maximum) at 100' and make sure you ascend after 10 minutes and then, after you arrive at 60', that you don't surpass that depth anymore? Would not a dive computer, working on the right algorithm, be a better (because more actual) solution?
I acknowledge the underlying rationale of understanding deco theory and I subscribe to its benefits. Which is why I recently tried to discuss the question from what point of familiarty with tables on a diver should start using a computer. I was disappointed with the response which basically said 'right after certification'.
As a recreational diver who does this for fun and relaxation, I have difficulties accepting that I need a laptop with me on multi-day dive trips, and that I need to have table-generating software (how much does that cost?) so I can prepare for my local dives.
Or am I just too blind and you are saying my Suunto Vyper is right on the money?
Post a Followup