What difference would knowing the model inside and out do for the regular diver? Most people don't know exactly how their car works but they drive millions of miles anyway.
Diving tables
- Thread starter TSandM
- 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
When you're out of gas in a car it's a bit less of a problem than when you're out of gas diving.
I agree that the question isn't whether you use a computer or a table...the question is do you know what you're looking at. Understanding at least something about decompression theory is better than knowing how to use a computer (what's to know) or a table.
Many people do know something about how their car works even if they don't know enough to do the repairs themselves. If you are driving on a long trip and the engine temp light goes on most people will know to stop, let the car cool off, add more water if necessary rather than just continuing to drive until the radiator bursts.
I agree, but that's not what he said:
Any diver that has passed even the most rudimentary OW class and has some understanding of decompression and Nitrogen bubbles in their body.
If a diver has any clue and can at least read what their computer is telling them and follows its model, is very likely to just fine. Let's face it, if they are that clueless they just stop diving after a while, for whatever reason.
That's true, but how is that aspect of informed consent really any different with computers than it is with tables?
As an OW student, I learned PADI's tables. I had no idea where the numbers came from, I just trusted DSAT - trusted they were using good algorithms to calculate the numbers, trusted that the printer didn't transpose any numbers, trusted that the proofreader caught any they did, etc. How is trusting my computer significantly different?
Now, are you arguing that a computer should be open-sourced, with published (and perhaps user-modifiable) algorithms? That might indeed be a good argument. I think there are a few open-source computers on the market if that's a personal concern. A quick search found at least this one. But as long as there's at least one open-source computer out there, that means the diver has a choice.
Other than that, yes it's a web of trust, caveat emptor.
What's the alternative? Recommending that recreational divers learn the intricacies of RGBM - or Buhlmann or Thalmann or VPM - before they use a table or a computer based on those algorithms?
Hmmm... actually, come to think of it, at least a brief overview of the general history of deco theory going back to Haldane and touching on the major models would indeed probably be a better use of time than teaching tables. Since most dive computer manufacturers publish at least the model they based their calculations on (even if they don't publish their code or their modifications to the theory), such knowledge might at least give the beginning diver a greater level of "informed consent", a better understanding that the science is not exact, and better able to choose between differing computer models as well.
I bought my computer a year and a half after being certified, the dives I did before that were on tables. I got some really strange looks from other divers when I was planning a nitrox dive on a boat using an air table & EAD ; )
I don't know why I didn't buy one sooner, wasn't a money thing, and I find my wrist computer vastly more useful than the console I had. I'm also pretty sure my ascents are slower now than the ones I did without the computer since I was surprised by how slow I had to go to keep the computer happy (now that scares me a bit in retrospect).
I find tables trivial to use, but without the wheel or the eRDPml they're just as useless for planning multi-level dives than the computer. But the computer is more useful to execute them. But neither of em will make you understand the models behind nodec diving, you need to read 'Deco for Divers' for that (or some other text explaining it properly).
And since I'm in the process of starting a tech course, I guess my computer will be used mostly in gauge mode in the near future (at least for those kind of dives).
I don't know why I didn't buy one sooner, wasn't a money thing, and I find my wrist computer vastly more useful than the console I had. I'm also pretty sure my ascents are slower now than the ones I did without the computer since I was surprised by how slow I had to go to keep the computer happy (now that scares me a bit in retrospect).
I find tables trivial to use, but without the wheel or the eRDPml they're just as useless for planning multi-level dives than the computer. But the computer is more useful to execute them. But neither of em will make you understand the models behind nodec diving, you need to read 'Deco for Divers' for that (or some other text explaining it properly).
And since I'm in the process of starting a tech course, I guess my computer will be used mostly in gauge mode in the near future (at least for those kind of dives).
Perhaps here is a better car analogy: The algorithm behind your antilock brakes.
I worked for a company in the 90's that designed & built, among other things, a system for analyzing the efficiency of antilock brake systems. There are several of these algorithms out there, jealously guarded by their manufacturers, but all pretty arcane (and often tied specifically to the controller used).
Yet, this is an algorithm that is going to become life-dependingly important when you need it and you slam on those brakes - not just your own life, but your entire family in the car with you. Efficient antilock brakes can turn what would be a deadly crash into just a fender-bender, or even avoided altogether.
Do you know the specifics of your car's antilock brake algorithm? Do you even know much about the general differences in antilock brake theory and application? For most of us, the answer to both is "no", yet we trust those engineers, their algorithms and tests, and in the market itself. Does it bother you that you're entrusting your family to something so critical that you know little about? Probably not.
It's a web of trust. Same with dive computers, or tables for that matter.
seaducer
Contributor
It isn't so much about being able to mentally calculate the accuracy of the table or computer on the fly. I mean who can do that anyway? Einstein was no diver.
I was much like you when I first got certified. I simply trusted that the tables were safe and accurate. I knew my calculations using them were correct, I needed to trust the table was. Then I got a computer and I had to trust that it was accurate as well.
I still do, since I have not the mathability to figure this crap out on my own. But I have learned much about decompression theory and bubble modeling, and while it has not changed my ability to use the tools of the trade, it has changed the way I dive, and my attitude about diving.
I could be wrong, but I think that was Thas' point about knowing what the tool is telling you.
If it isn't, well, it is still my point, FWIW.
I agree, if a diver hasn't a clue he is much better just relying on a computer.
However when it comes to table and computers it's not about which one is better (in a sense) as they are both doing the same thing and what is more important is learning what's behind them...some basic deco theory.
Similar threads
