Place of dive tables in modern diving

[lowviz]

Funny. My computer did not have any problem with my doing that second dive. ...//...

You are off-topic.

Of course your computer would allow that dive. I would have done it too. But the topic is "Do tables have any value in modern diving?". I take it that your answer is no. I'm fine with that too.

Two computers allow you to be completely unconcerned with where you are and how long you remain there. I get that.

Problem is, progress is built upon solid foundations and foundations are built upon rank basics.

 

[KeithG]

You are off-topic.

Of course your computer would allow that dive. I would have done it too. But the topic is "Do tables have any value in modern diving?". I take it that your answer is no. I'm fine with that too.

Two computers allow you to be completely unconcerned with where you are and how long you remain there. I get that.

Problem is, progress is built upon solid foundations and foundations are built upon rank basics.

Agreed, except the NDL list on tables are not rank basics. They are simply an artifact of the rank basics. An artifact that a dive computer also produces in plan mode.

The foundation is basic deco theory. This is what needs to be understood.

 

[TMHeimer]

Or the first dive.

One of my favourite recreational dive profiles is a max of 90 feet and a duration of 90 minutes. Obviously a multilevel dive. Something that can easily be done safely with a computer. And is way off the charts with tables...

Well yeah. My very first dive post OW course had a max depth of 54', but mostly in the 20-30'- range. I was weary of getting bent when I reviewed the profile on my tables (What did I know? 2006 for me: What's a dive computer?). But as I said, tables are fine for square profiles.

Some (including a good post by stuartv) have mentioned that the important thing is to understand the idea of on-gassing/off-gassing. Stuart mentions that tables are sometimes taught just by going over the mechanics (to pass the test, etc.). I would guess computers may at times be taught that way also. I was taught that way 13 years ago with tables. But, I don't think the basics of on/off gassing and NDLs is rocket science. Pretty basic stuff that (at least for me) needs to be explained once, and I'm no genius. I explained it to my wife years ago in like 5 minutes (she is smart, though). Learning all the "whys' and history of how all this came about is nice (those Caisson workers below the Hudson River a hundred years ago), but really adds little to what you need to know--follow your tables and/or computer and don't ascend faster than the "safe" speed.

 

[lowviz]

Agreed, except the NDL list on tables are not rank basics. ...//...

Disagree.

Exactly what is basic deco theory? I prefer something based on the statistics of divers diving given profiles.

 

[boulderjohn]

You are off-topic.

Of course your computer would allow that dive. I would have done it too. But the topic is "Do tables have any value in modern diving?". I take it that your answer is no. I'm fine with that too.

You seem to have missed the part where I was replying to the many posts in this thread that said tables are great to have with you so you can switch to them if your computer dies.

Problem is, progress is built upon solid foundations and foundations are built upon rank basics.

As Giffent pointed out, the "basics" on which the computer is based is decompression theory. Students need to understand how tissues on-gas, how they off-gas, and what the consequences of ignoring those issues will be. They have no more need to understand how a table deals with those issues than a calculator user needs to know how a slide rule works.

 

[lowviz]

You seem to have missed the part where I was replying to the many posts in this thread that said tables are great to have with you so you can switch to them if your computer dies. ...//...

You actually said that? (this is Basic Scuba discussions)

I can't think of a more worthless use of tables in a recreational setting.

 

[tursiops]

You actually said that? (this is Basic Scuba discussions)

I can't think of a more worthless use of tables in a recreational setting.

What IS your point? You seem to be supporting all sides of this discussion. If your point is that ones learns deco theory best by learning to use tables, I'm not sure very many people agree with you.

 

[tursiops]

They have no more need to understand how a table deals with those issues than a calculator user needs to know how a slide rule works.

Then there is The Wheel, which is a (circular) slide-rule dive table. That, and the eRDPML, were interesting and quite obsolete by-ways on the path to dive computers.

 

[lowviz]

What IS your point? ...//...

That is an insightful question. As I said before, I learn by discussion.

Just figured it out. Tables are a bit like taking an axe to cut something that describes your dive. The 'Wheel' is like taking a sharper knife to cut more pieces that better describe your dive. A computer can cut far sharper and faster than either.

It is very much like the Calculus. Calculus gives the value that all attempts converge to.

If you start with a PDC, this insight is lost.

 

[lermontov]

That is an insightful question. As I said before, I learn by discussion.

Just figured it out. Tables are a bit like taking an axe to cut something that describes your dive. The 'Wheel' is like taking a sharper knife to cut more pieces that better describe your dive. A computer can cut far sharper and faster than either.

It is very much like the Calculus. Calculus gives the value that all attempts converge to.

If you start with a PDC, this insight is lost.

i wonder if DC were developed first then someone introduced table if wed be having this discussion?