No Limit verses Remaining Bottom Time (RBT)
- Thread starter wreckdiversam
- 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
Dr. Lecter
Contributor
I saw this just the other weekend on a local wreck at 190'...poodle jackets, single AL80s of air, "slung" (basically hand-carried) AL80s of 32% for deco, and flying Suuntos...it was rather amusing to watch. To be fair, I can't knock them for their bottom gas choice, but at least my air was in doubles.
At least they brought some more gas than just a single 80...
OP
wreckdiversam
Registered
Hello All, OP here. Thanks for the comments that addressed the original question. After reading through the thread there are a few comments I'd like to address. For those that simply answered the question I say thanks. For the those that can't answer without being a smart-aleck, your arrogance is noted. For the crowd that thinks I was about to die I want to you to rest better knowing that I didn't die. Even though the MOD changed to 130' when the DM changed y setting to 1.6 I still had my alarm set to go off if I exceeded 111 (which was the MOD at 1.4). I also would have had trouble even exceeding 95' without my USMC e-tool because the ocean depth was only 95'. Granted, the DM was probably an idiot since he had a similar computer and figured that the the RBT was associated with saturation levels. For the RTFM chanting crowd, no worries, I've read the manual since my last post. I'd actually read the manual before this but I have since added the air integration with the transmitter. I had not done this on previous dives. I still use my SPG to watch my pressure but I obtained a transmitter for free from ScubaPro and wanted to check it out. Since the RBT had to do specifically with the air integration feature I hadn't read through that section of the manual. I imagine you guys go into coronary thinking about people renting computers for dives (especially beginning divers) and not being able to read the manual before using their rented computer.
R
redacted
Guest
No coronaries. Just head shaking when folks either lose dive time or take unwise risks because they do not understand what a dive computer is telling them. The way I see it, ATR is one of those features that is best turned off.
eelnoraa
Contributor
It isn't about reading or not reading the manual. It is about if the diver know what is going on vs blindly fly the computer. If a computer says you have 45 minutes NDL time at 100ft with air, will you go along with it?
We have online class and simulator for the Galileo Sol (that is very very very similar to the Luna).
To the OP I would also recommend our class Introduction to Dive Computers (extremely expensive -> $3.99) and Introduction to Nitrox ($4.99)
---------- Post added July 15th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ----------
Tell Doug to make up his mind
Yes, before each dive I know my NDL at MOD for my mix on a square profile before I splash. Gives me a sanity check. However, with rec multi-level diving, I have to say that following the computer is my "main" plan, with, like I said, a sanity check from square profile tables. An example, my favorite wreck has a profile of 120' in the sand and 75' at the top deck. There are interesting things to see at all levels, I have had dives where I hit the sand to see a ray, then went to a section at 90' to see cup corals and other macro stuff, then up to 75' to see schooling jacks, then some goliath grouper came in down at 100' and I go back down for a look at them, then up to the top again, then ascend. There is no way to "formally" make a plan for this dive and its yo-yo profile. The computer makes the NDL calculations on the fly, and also keeps track of my Po2, with alerts that I set to keep me within the "safe" calculations of the deco algorithm.
Now, I was trained "old school" in the late 1970s and dove straight table square-profile dive plans based only on max depth and time on every dive, until about 5 years ago when I got a computer (see, I'm an early adopter!). The computer has given me immensely longer and more enjoyable dives, for the type of rec multi-level dives that I do. When I do dive a square profile, the computer and the tables jibe. All of my research has shown that, statistically in terms of incidents of DCS, for my type of diving, this method of following the computer is every bit as "safe" as table diving.
I did not fault the OP for following his computer,--and in fact he did follow it as far as the gas warning, which was good--but only for not having a clear understanding of what it was showing him and what the information meant.
Now, I was trained "old school" in the late 1970s and dove straight table square-profile dive plans based only on max depth and time on every dive, until about 5 years ago when I got a computer (see, I'm an early adopter!). The computer has given me immensely longer and more enjoyable dives, for the type of rec multi-level dives that I do. When I do dive a square profile, the computer and the tables jibe. All of my research has shown that, statistically in terms of incidents of DCS, for my type of diving, this method of following the computer is every bit as "safe" as table diving.
I did not fault the OP for following his computer,--and in fact he did follow it as far as the gas warning, which was good--but only for not having a clear understanding of what it was showing him and what the information meant.
phoenix31tt
Contributor
agreed... i will also say that not because you don't plan to use a feature when you now get a computer means you should not read and be familiar with it. I had no plans to go into deco on my computer but i will read about it, what it looks like etc. So totally skipping the section RBT to me is irresponsible
Similar threads
