Why no accurate computers?

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!

How was this handled in the pre-computer era? Did people dive more square profiles because they didn't get a time benefit for going shallower? I know there was a multilevel dive planner, but we didn't cover it in OW class for whatever reason.
The frustration with this was why both the wheel (PADI's multi-level planner) and the RDP were developed, and the research and planning on them occurred simultaneously in the early 1980s. I never knew anything about the wheel myself until I started my DM training and had to learn it for that. It never caught on.

I haven't been diving much longer than you. I got my OW certification using tables, and I got my AOW immediately after that in Cozumel, with the shop loaning me a computer for the deeper dives. I still used tables for the other dives, done off the shore. Then I went out and did my first dive with a dive operation, and it was a typical Cozumel multi-level dive. When we were back on the boat, I whipped out my tables to prepare for the second dive and saw that I was about as far off the tables as I could be. I stared at it in befuddlement. Then I realized the rest of the divers were looking at me in amusement. "It makes a decent Frisbee," one of them said. As soon as I got home, I got my first computer. That remains the only time in my life that I have seen anyone attempt to use tables on an NDL dive outside of training.
 
Hi @Happy Spearo

There is a problem here somewhere.

In manual start up that computer has a built in Barometric altimeter. If 'spearo' is not at sea level running these tests, then it will throw off the "Plan" and that would be the problem.

@Happy Spearo ,,,post back up when you complete the 330 wall dive.
 
The frustration with this was why both the wheel (PADI's multi-level planner) and the RDP were developed, and the research and planning on them occurred simultaneously in the early 1980s. I never knew anything about the wheel myself until I started my DM training and had to learn it for that. It never caught on.

I haven't been diving much longer than you. I got my OW certification using tables, and I got my AOW immediately after that in Cozumel, with the shop loaning me a computer for the deeper dives. I still used tables for the other dives, done off the shore. Then I went out and did my first dive with a dive operation, and it was a typical Cozumel multi-level dive. When we were back on the boat, I whipped out my tables to prepare for the second dive and saw that I was about as far off the tables as I could be. I stared at it in befuddlement. Then I realized the rest of the divers were looking at me in amusement. "It makes a decent Frisbee," one of them said. As soon as I got home, I got my first computer. That remains the only time in my life that I have seen anyone attempt to use tables on an NDL dive outside of training.
I'm an old guy myself, dived Navy tables with a steel 72 and J-valve. I've been diving a computer since 2002.
 
It is interesting that the ascent rate becomes important with the BSAC tables, with a slow ascent rate being problematic. When I was doing my research on NDL ascent strategies last year, one of my great personal realizations was that on an NDL dive (using computers or tables that end bottom time at the beginning of ascent), the ascent rate does not matter as long as it is not too fast or so slow that the diver goes into deco on the ascent. PADI says the ascent rate should be as fast as the computer instructions tell you or no faster than 60 FPM, and a member of the PADI hierarchy familiar with the RDP research said that the research indicated that there was no problem with going slower. DAN America's recommendation for NDL ascent is simply to tell you to ascend slowly, with no clear indication of a rate that would be too slow. DAN Europe recommends an intermediate stop on an NDL ascent, but I frankly do not see research that that really supports that.
 
@scubadada- Sir, I am using a Atmos Mission One. I changed the conservatism to the lowest setting to see if I could get my computers dive planner to match the NDL of my SSI dive tables. My instructor taught me to use tables and they were safe. I was taught to plan my dive and dive my plan. However during my Deep Dive Cert class I noticed my computer in dive plan mode would say my NDL was less then my tables stated. So if I plan my dive and use the tables NDL then my computer would alert stating I now need a deco stop which I didn't actually need according to my tables. So I started looking for a computer that would keep me from losing so much dive time. Like I said, I lose 8 minutes on the 90ft dive. SSI says 25 minutes, computer states 17 (As shown in your graph). If I paid a lot of money to go somewhere and dive a certain cool wreck or wall, I surely don't want to lose 8 minutes on a dive. At 100 ft I lose 7 minutes. To me this is not acceptable performance of a dive computer. But then I found that most computers are to conservative. However, I was told the Teric might not be. Waiting on the final email from the rep. So, all of that made me wonder if the computers make a no deco stop (Rec dive) dive to short, they must also be making Tech dives shorter then need be (Could be wrong, don't have deco experience). I want to eventually do 330ft wall dives when I get enough experience under my belt.
I keep hearing the tables are to aggressive. They have been used for decades, don't understand that comment. Of course your still going to have some people get the bends because the tables are a approximation and some peoples bodies might not be able to handle them. I haven't had any issues using the tables. I read the tables were modified to meet the needs of MOST people. People need to judge for themselves. Also, People state no one square dives. Probably mostly true but the square dive profile is basically your worst case scenario dive (You absorb the most Nitrogen). If your multi level diving your absorbing less nitrogen so you are technically already being more conservative with your diving and the need for a computer to be conservative on top of that seems to be to limiting of my dive time. I didn't realize my question was so technical. I just wanted some conformity between my tables and my computer to remain safe. With the computers being programed differently so they don't correspond with the tables a new diver can't check them against each other which I see as unsafe and computers should be sold as corresponding to agency tables. (With the ability for the conservatism to be customized higher if the diver wants). I don't have my computer with me so I can't say what the conservative numbers are right now.
Have you actually done a dive to 100' with your computer to see actual results?
 
Steel 72 and J valve on tables here as well. It was pretty much unheard of to do more than 2 dives a day. Typically (as I recall) I viewed the shallower part of a non square profile as being an additional safety margin. Have not used a table in 20 years, and 5 dives a day was not uncommon for a number of years, now I am more about 4 longer dives in a day as I am getting a bit long in the tooth.
 
If someone suggesting table is more accurate than computer in all forms of recreational diving.
I am not in any position to argue with it!

Square profile only and stay away from multi-level because table cannot handle it. Learn how to use The Wheel! Probably never heard/seen of it.

What you don't know you don't know.
 
How was this handled in the pre-computer era? Did people dive more square profiles because they didn't get a time benefit for going shallower? I know there was a multilevel dive planner, but we didn't cover it in OW class for whatever reason.

I was certified in the late ‘70s and did my check out dives in Grand Cayman. It was very much “plan your dive” because you’re time was based on whatever the table said for the deepest part of the dive. If you hit 80’ you had 40 minutes total available. We surfaced at 60fpm, so coming up was quick. As others have said, 2 dives per day was pretty much the max. I did very few dives in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, then none until 2016, and a computer was the first piece of gear I bought. It was worth every penny in additional time.
Erik
 
If you're so concerned with a few minutes of extra bottom time that you're willing dive as close to the NDL limit as possible using the least conservative numbers you can find, it's probably time to take a deco course instead. I totally understand wanting those extra minutes underwater with all the effort that goes into making a dive happen. But it's not worth the risk of diving unsafely. Being able to properly plan and add even 5-10 minutes of deco would make your dives both longer and safer.

Also, a good deco course will teach you the answers to a lot of your questions about algorithms, planning, tables, and conservatism better than a scubaboard flame war will.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom