Computers & DIR

[Meng_Tze]

..... which pretty much sums up why I think dive computers in technical diving are a bad idea. .....

.....dive recreationally now with a Suunto Vyper that is still in computer mode. Personally I think that stating a rule like "no computers" is short-sighted. ...

I think Lamont is right on the mark here. In technical diving the emphasis is on making sure you are able to adjust your deco profile as needed/dictated by circumstances. Knowing what deco you do is different from following guidance from a machine. Most computers out there do not allow for this adjustment. I have yet to see a computer credit deco time for adjusted (improved) deco profile. The bottom line is that the algorithems used/how implemented are pretty static. Saying this, there are some pretty good computers out there and VR3 now coming out with VPM is definitely intriguing......

Most computers are targeted to the recreational diver, where they do have their value and have proven their value. I find it comforting to see divers on boats sit out their SIT because the computer tells them to.

No bashing, just that somethings have more value in some places, less in others....but electonics and water will always be inherintly incompattible.... so always take two.

 

[RTodd]

However, my experience with my Vyper in computer mode is that its kind of annoying. ...

This probably sums up the main reason those of us that have learned how to dive without a computer never use them. We used to leave the computers hanging in the water so it could complete deco, use computers where we could remove the batteries between dives, and do all sorts of other things to shut them up. It turns out that it is easiest to simly use them in gauge mode. A single day of recreational diving for me would regularly lock out any compuer (even if programmed correctly) for deco violations by the second or third dive. And, I dive relatively conservatively for simple open water dives. But, computers don't give you credit for ascent and other practices that reduce your risk of DCS far more than rushing off the bottom to 15ft. five to ten minutes sooner. You won't learn how to do this if you continue to rely on a computer.

 

[lamont]

Another reason that GUE is opposed to computers is that you can't do experiments like taking 2 mins off one stop and redistributing them and seeing how you feel when you get out...

 

[JimC]

One of thing things I like about DIR is that if they teach you something, it never goes out of style. 3000 feet back in a cave, your still useing the same skills you learned on your DIR-F.

Computers don't work in technical diving, BT's work for all diving. Its simple as that for me.

 

[lamont]

No bashing, just that somethings have more value in some places, less in others....but electonics and water will always be inherintly incompattible.... so always take two.

And now you've got twice the buttons to push every time you switch gas or whatever...

If the computer could simply monitor your actual breathing gas and adjust on-the-fly like it can read depth and time, then UI issues would largely evaporate -- largely leaving the issues of deco-model stupidity and inflexibility, the user problem of reliance on them, and technology issues of them failing at depth. If such a computer was produced that had a flexible and tweakble deco model and they were reliable, I'd probably use it. At that point it *would* come down to GUE saying "but it'll make you stupid" and that's the point where I'd tell GUE to cram it. The available technology is a long way from that point though.

 

[wedivebc]

And now you've got twice the buttons to push every time you switch gas or whatever...

If the computer could simply monitor your actual breathing gas and adjust on-the-fly like it can read depth and time, then UI issues would largely evaporate -- largely leaving the issues of deco-model stupidity and inflexibility, the user problem of reliance on them, and technology issues of them failing at depth. If such a computer was produced that had a flexible and tweakble deco model and they were reliable, I'd probably use it. At that point it *would* come down to GUE saying "but it'll make you stupid" and that's the point where I'd tell GUE to cram it. The available technology is a long way from that point though.

You mean like this?
http://www.hs-eng.com/

 

[Meng_Tze]

And now you've got twice the buttons to push every time you switch gas or whatever...

If the computer could simply monitor your actual breathing gas and adjust on-the-fly like it can read depth and time, then UI issues would largely evaporate -- largely leaving the issues of deco-model stupidity and inflexibility, the user problem of reliance on them, and technology issues of them failing at depth. If such a computer was produced that had a flexible and tweakble deco model and they were reliable, I'd probably use it. At that point it *would* come down to GUE saying "but it'll make you stupid" and that's the point where I'd tell GUE to cram it. The available technology is a long way from that point though.

Dont disagree.... we are looking at things the same way. A clarification of my statement should be: If you are taking something electronic in water, given its incompatibility.... take two.

 

[lamont]

You mean like this?
http://www.hs-eng.com/

Well, that's sort of the direction I was thinking... But now you're buying a CCR rebreather with the deal, though, and you're going to lose your computer if you bailout and go onto OC. There's also still the issues of flexibility in the deco model, and reliability. As far as reliability goes, even with the redundant sensors, I don't trust that something can't go wrong with all of them -- like apparently recently happened at least prior to the recent fataility on a rebreather. I've seen too much dataloss on RAID arrays because even though you were running RAID 1+0 with pretty massive redundancy, the RAID controller **** the bed and you're screwed. Simiarly, three O2 sensors does not automatically give me warm fuzzy feelings due to redundancy.

Meng_Tze: yup, I wasn't disagreeing, I was just extending what you said further...

 

[wedivebc]

Well, that's sort of the direction I was thinking... But now you're buying a CCR rebreather with the deal, though, and you're going to lose your computer if you bailout and go onto OC. There's also still the issues of flexibility in the deco model, and reliability. As far as reliability goes, even with the redundant sensors, I don't trust that something can't go wrong with all of them -- like apparently recently happened at least prior to the recent fataility on a rebreather. I've seen too much dataloss on RAID arrays because even though you were running RAID 1+0 with pretty massive redundancy, the RAID controller **** the bed and you're screwed. Simiarly, three O2 sensors does not automatically give me warm fuzzy feelings due to redundancy.

Meng_Tze: yup, I wasn't disagreeing, I was just extending what you said further...

You're right about the CCR thing (am I alowed to speak like this on DIR forum?) but the computer actually allows you to switch to pre set gasses for OC bailout mode. It also does RGBM and GF so you have lots of deco options. But since we are unlikely to see an OC computer measuring gas mixes your argument is valid. I just wanted to demonstrate that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

 

[lamont]

You're right about the CCR thing (am I alowed to speak like this on DIR forum?) but the computer actually allows you to switch to pre set gasses for OC bailout mode. It also does RGBM and GF so you have lots of deco options. But since we are unlikely to see an OC computer measuring gas mixes your argument is valid. I just wanted to demonstrate that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Yeah, I've got a very high bar for simplicity of user interfaces and computers doing the right thing for you without screwing you up -- I'd like to see the OC computer that measured your gas mix for you so that it flew itself, or some kind of similar simplified UI. And that introduces more parts that can break, so I'd be worried about reliability.

Similarly, I found that going to doubles made me feel considerably less safe initially because it added two more valves that I could screw up and try to kill myself with.

And I think a good argument could be made by analogy that complexity of technology is not necessarily always bad, and that a refined technology such as manifolded doubles is worth the added complexity compared to the simpler (single tank) alternative. Similarly, there's nothing inherantly bad about computers, and I find the attitude of some DIR divers to be overly-simplistically technophobic. At the same time I'm going to agree with them that I don't know of any computers that I'd want to take with me on technical dives.

20 years from now we may all be diving on reliable CCRs with computers that can fly themselves and don't piss us off, but IMO we're not there yet...

YMMV.