http://www.diveheart.org/

Quick Survey!! regarding the development of an Automated BCD (please fill it out :)

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Hi Everyone! I'm part of a team of Yale students working on a project regarding the potential development of an automatic BCD. We would love to hear about your experiences with current dive technology. Your feedback would greatly help our research.

Would you be willing to share your thoughts in THIS short 5-minute survey?

Thank you so much for your time and help!!!

Here's the link as well:
I have to ask why you are looking at complicating the process of buoyancy control? Unless the BC has some kind of advanced AI, you are risking killing someone when it reacts to a benign scenario that it wasn't expecting. Instead of looking to introduce additional failure points try addressing the proliferation of other gimmicks that add complexity and risk to diving.
 
Apparently the Engineering school, not liberal arts. Ha ha.

Typos and grammatical mistakes aside, I think it is a worthwhile project, as an academic exercise. I don't think it would be commercially viable, which is what the survey is apparently trying to evaluate. These sorts of "automatic BCs" have been proposed before, and the projects never seem to gain traction with the public. This one has gained some interest recently: Avelo
But there has been so much effort put into developing technology to solve a problem that really isn't a problem.
The list goes on.
 
The only time that I could see an automatic BCD making sense is during a "try it" scuba class. A lot of people struggle with the concept and it takes a while to gain experience. To have one less thing to think about and to be able to "feel" what diving can really be like would probably get more people hooked. Throw someone on a 20-30' reef and set it so it doesn't allow them to crash into the reef would be a nice bonus. Just tell them to breath and enjoy the show.

Just thinking out loud. It's a horrible crutch for anything after that. What do you do when it malfunctions @ 100' and rockets someone back to the surface... I mean besides lose everything in the lawsuit.
 
Hi Everyone! I'm part of a team of Yale students
Ask the Yale professors to teach you poll design.
It's a complicated matter.
Professionals have failed.
working on a project regarding the potential development of an automatic BCD. We would love to hear about your experiences with current dive technology. Your feedback would greatly help our research.

Would you be willing to share your thoughts in THIS short 5-minute survey?

Thank you so much for your time and help!!!

Here's the link as well:
"How many dives did you perform until you managed to reach a good neutral buoyancy easily?
0-5
5-15
Still stuggling"

It took me nearly 50 dives (drysuit)! What should I answer? I've done 400 dives, and "still struggling" is not correct.
Your partitioning of Ω is incorrect because "still struggling" is not a proper response to "how many".

You also forgot that some of us wear drysuits while some rely on rash guards or swiming trunks only.
Take the universe, not a part thereof. You shall love the "other" option.

You ask this: "Do you plan diving using tables or rely on a dive computer?"

It's complicated. I plan my dives either by using printed tables or by using a desktop computer or a mobile phone app. Sometimes I plan to use "minimal deco" (it is a well defined memorized procedure for certain gasses at certain depths). Sometimes (easy dives) I rely on a computer. Sometimes I only rely on the SPG. You should have omitted these words: "using tables" and you might have added the following options: "it depends" or "it's complicated".

ps. It was a good choice to post here. And you're welcome to use these ideas in the discussion part of your report :wink:
 
Don't have a Google account, and don't randomly give out my email address,
That's why we have several email addresses :D
not to mention the survey looks more ESL than Yale. I'll pass.
We should not be too harsh on students. We have all been there, haven't we? Learning. ESL? Does ESL stand for Elementary School Level? This poll is not quite that bad :D

But let's focus on the poll...

"Do you plan diving using tables or rely on a dive computer?"

Minimum deco, tables, deco app, dive computer, dive supervisor, all, some, neither?
You reduce this to a binary question.
OK, minimum deco, tables and deco app have a lot in common but commercial divers cannot really answer this, can they? And what if we use several procedures depending on the dive?

"Have you ever felt unsafe during a dive due to equipment? i.e. almost ran out of air, missed your decompression stop"
None of the examples given relate to equipment. They are all awareness problems.
Equipment problems include free flowing reg(s), frozen BCD inflator, wet breathe, flooded reg (due to a leak), burst hose, dropped second stage (I managed to do that!), tank not well secured, leaking drysuit, lost fin, broken mask strap, kinked pee valve hose, compass that does not rotate...
 
The problem with a survey like this is that it is assumes that buoyancy control is the number one problem
You mean its not????

Then why do so many people try to fix it with back inflate BCs?

Ok, ok, let the bonfire begin

:rofl3::rofl3::rofl3:
 
You mean its not????

Then why do so many people try to fix it with back inflate BCs?

Ok, ok, let the bonfire begin

:rofl3::rofl3::rofl3:

1649703352720.png
 
I have to ask why you are looking at complicating the process of buoyancy control? Unless the BC has some kind of advanced AI, you are risking killing someone when it reacts to a benign scenario that it wasn't expecting. Instead of looking to introduce additional failure points try addressing the proliferation of other gimmicks that add complexity and risk to diving.
This was in the back of my mind as well, but I didn't bring it up because I'm not mechanically inclined. I suppose if the technology were such that there could never be a mishap because the BC thought to inflate or deflate and was wrong, that would be OK. Has anyone heard of any whiz gadget we have today that NEVER messed up on it's own.....?
 

Back
Top Bottom