A devices usefullness is limited by the users faith in that device. Trust in the reliability and process of any device is as much a prerequsite to the use of that device as knowing the devices limitaions and where it excells. Tables can be complicated in thier many forms and layouts. Tables have severe limitaions the most being the non square profile. when to round up and down. And then all the deco stuff that is be definition not needed because recreational diving deos not involve deco. Every weekness in tables is a strength in the computer and vice versa. I would never go to my computer to see what ndl is for 80 ft. I would use a chart or. table. The very exposure to tables in class problems often show that 3 poeple will get 3 solutions through various errors in the use of the table. I think it is well exablished that computers are pretty reliable in giving the same results for the same inputs. The only ???? is whether you can believe the results. And that is once again a reliability issue. For the majority of divers the computer is a black box recorder operating in background, with a common display of environmental input conditions and clocks. Most divers use no more than the depth readout, time left, and tank presure if integrated. Once the student experiences the level of difficulty in such tasks as determinating time remaining calculations based on gas supply and consumption vs. ndl, the real value of computers will not become apparent. As i see it, teaching use of tables serves most to build the case for computer use. Once the computer concept is sold tables have minimal purpose. Table teaching is a necessary evil in building confidence in the use of the dynamic tools (computers) commonly available to the diver.
Dive Computer or Tables - which is safer for a newer diver?
- Thread starter Lopez116
- Start date
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
Tables, yeah, I learned them when I started diving in '92. Since I got my first computer hadn't used them till I arrived on Okinawa. The dive shop here used them exclusively, I had to learn to use them all over.
The dive shop I dealt with in Canada taught exclusivley computer courses, they had rentals for the students to use for all classes. Guess how many students bought computers? Geez, just about every one. Good for business too!
The dive shop I dealt with in Canada taught exclusivley computer courses, they had rentals for the students to use for all classes. Guess how many students bought computers? Geez, just about every one. Good for business too!
PfcAJ
Contributor
A common theme I see here is that tables don't work well if the profile isn't square, since you round up and treat the entire dive as of it was at max depth.
What of that assumption is not accurate? What if you can use the average depth of a dive to determine your ndl/ inert gas exposure?
Many divers are doing just that and having good results, ranging from simple ow ndl dives to long, deep, sawtooth profiles (and shallow sawtooth, too).
What of that assumption is not accurate? What if you can use the average depth of a dive to determine your ndl/ inert gas exposure?
Many divers are doing just that and having good results, ranging from simple ow ndl dives to long, deep, sawtooth profiles (and shallow sawtooth, too).
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
The common theme is that tables don't work because people make mistakes. Fat fingers and fatigued brains are the root of these mistakes and frankly, PDCs never have those problems. They don't get narced, they don't forget to set the watch to start the dive, they don't forget when they came up from a dive. This is exacerbated by having a really exciting dive.
While bottom timers won't forget, they don't eliminate fat finger mistakes that will amplify during a day or week of diving. The common theme among table users is that PDCs sometimes break and that they can't trust them. Shenanigans. I have seen more SPGs fail than PDCs. Whether you attribute it to human pride, technophobia or just being a Luddite, they abhor the use of a PDC. What they often fail to realize is that the tables they are using came from some computer somewhere. They're still relying on computers whether they want to admit it or not. Its funny, but a few of them show their ignorance when they suggest that you can't understand deco theory if you don't understand tables. How whack is that?
While bottom timers won't forget, they don't eliminate fat finger mistakes that will amplify during a day or week of diving. The common theme among table users is that PDCs sometimes break and that they can't trust them. Shenanigans. I have seen more SPGs fail than PDCs. Whether you attribute it to human pride, technophobia or just being a Luddite, they abhor the use of a PDC. What they often fail to realize is that the tables they are using came from some computer somewhere. They're still relying on computers whether they want to admit it or not. Its funny, but a few of them show their ignorance when they suggest that you can't understand deco theory if you don't understand tables. How whack is that?
You bring up another benefit to having a computer over tables. Timing. Simple as that.
How many times have you seen divers enter or exit the water with absolutely no timing device?
I've seen dozens if not hundreds of divers without watches or timers or computers.
They just guess.
If you have a dive computer, chances are pretty good it'll come attached to your 1st stage, or at least it'll be so cool to have a computer that it'll always be used.
Tables are useless without proper time.
How many times have you seen divers enter or exit the water with absolutely no timing device?
I've seen dozens if not hundreds of divers without watches or timers or computers.
They just guess.
If you have a dive computer, chances are pretty good it'll come attached to your 1st stage, or at least it'll be so cool to have a computer that it'll always be used.
Tables are useless without proper time.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
I always use wrist mount in my classes. When they are not on your arm, they are clipped to your BC. If you splash without putting it back on your wrist, you still have it as you dive.
Dive the World
Contributor
Perfectly said.
@ my club everyone is more or less required to have a computer.
The only time a dive computer is dangerous is when the diver doesn't know how to use it.
As a back up - take your computer down with you; while planning the dive on paper using tables. That way if anything happens you will known what dive plan to follow.
So far my computer has never failed me. Altough I might have failed it a couple of times.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
I think so.
I don't think there is any question that computers are the mainstream and they are here to stay. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the use of a dive computer, particularly for people who do very little diving, and therefore aren't getting the practice to calculate their own average depth, or keep tables in memory.
The trap that's important not to fall into is the one where you make no attempt to understand what the computer is doing. Then you don't know if what it's telling you is hogwash (as it was, the day Peter's Suunto gave him 20 minutes of deco on a dive where no one else in the water had any deco at all), and you don't know what to do if you have different computers within your buddy group that are saying different things.
It is not the use of computers that the people who trained me decry; it is the intellectual laziness of simply ceding responsibility for that portion of dive planning and execution to a device, without understanding what the device is doing, and what its capacities and limitations are.
The trap that's important not to fall into is the one where you make no attempt to understand what the computer is doing. Then you don't know if what it's telling you is hogwash (as it was, the day Peter's Suunto gave him 20 minutes of deco on a dive where no one else in the water had any deco at all), and you don't know what to do if you have different computers within your buddy group that are saying different things.
It is not the use of computers that the people who trained me decry; it is the intellectual laziness of simply ceding responsibility for that portion of dive planning and execution to a device, without understanding what the device is doing, and what its capacities and limitations are.
Similar threads
