Suunto zoop question

[yle]

Well, if it threatens to lock you out for 24 hours and you don't have a backup, you just might have to listen.

If you're that dependent on your computer to tell you what to do during a dive... that your decisions are affected by the "threats" it makes... you might find further training useful and enlightening. There was a time when people dove without computers. And some people still do.

I'll modify my previous statement: the computer should not be the boss of you. Of course if you allow it to be... that's between you and your computer.

 

[rek_diver]

If you're that dependent on your computer to tell you what to do during a dive... that your decisions are affected by the "threats" it makes... you might find further training useful and enlightening. There was a time when people dove without computers. And some people still do.

I'll modify my previous statement: the computer should not be the boss of you. Of course if you allow it to be... that's between you and your computer.

You're totally misquoting me. If you paraphrase me please take care to do it correctly.

A computer that locks a diver out because of it's conservative algorithm cannot simply be ignored because the diver has a high level of experience and training. Once the computer has determined there is a violation, it's going to render itself useless for a period of time, usually 24 hours. And other than reseting it or pulling the battery there's nothing a diver is going to be able to do about it even if they did everything right as far as staying within what they deem to be safe no decompression limits.

Take those 2 divers using Zoops on that wreck trek we did recently in Key Largo. They may have had a ton of experience, but if they stayed down as long as the rest of us did, their computers would have indicated a violation and they would have locked them out for the rest of the dive trip.

 

[KenGordon]

Take those 2 divers using Zoops on that wreck trek we did recently in Key Largo. They may have had a ton of experience, but if they stayed down as long as the rest of us did, their computers would have indicated a violation and they would have locked them out for the rest of the dive trip.

Only if they skip the stops.

 

[rek_diver]

Only if they skip the stops.

These were no decompression dives.

 

[KenGordon]

These were no decompression dives.

If they have stops they are definitely deco dives.

 

[rek_diver]

If they have stops they are definitely deco dives.

What I'm saying is the 3-tank wrek trek we did in Key Largo, on the Duane, Bibb, and Speigel Grove are no decompression dives. There were about 20 divers on the boat, and the divers with the Zoops had significantly shorter dives simply because their computers have a much more conservative algorithm. I suppose they could have done deco stops to satisfy the computer but that really isn't the point.

 

[KenGordon]

Then say that, not that if they stay long enough to get stops they will be locked out.

How deep and how long were these dives? Would the Zoop users have had significant deco?

And who would care? If you are all against the computer being the boss on the dive but are afraid to be scolded for doing stops then who is the boss? Not the diver by the sound of things? Some DM with a schedule to keep? A boat operator keen to get the next load of punters out?

 

[rek_diver]

Then say that, not that if they stay long enough to get stops they will be locked out.

How deep and how long were these dives? Would the Zoop users have had significant deco?

And who would care? If you are all against the computer being the boss on the dive but are afraid to be scolded for doing stops then who is the boss? Not the diver by the sound of things? Some DM with a schedule to keep? A boat operator keen to get the next load of punters out?

Sorry if my posts are ambiguous. I'm simply stating that out of about 20 divers on the 3 tank wrek trek, the 2 divers using Zoops were limited to significantly shorter dives, doing similar profiles to the rest of us, because Zoops are much more conservative.

You asked about depth and bottom times- The Spiegel Grove sits at 130', our average depth was in the 60-80' range because there's a lot of superstructure and good stuff to see at that depth, the Duane is upright in about 120' and our average depth was about 80' spending our time at or above the main deck, and the Bibb lays on its side at 135' which makes the average depth closer to 90-100'.

Dive times were about 25 minutes on the Duane, 20 minutes on the Bibb and 45 minutes on the Spiegel Grove.


Who would care? I would care if I was using a computer that -to me- has a rather arbitrary limiting algorithm that chopped significant amounts of time off of my dives or forced me to sit on the line, doing deco stops that are not necessary when diving other computers with less conservative algorithms. Also- we're all diving AL80s so if a diver is forced to do deco stops they're going to have less bottom time on the wreck because they need the extra gas for those deco stops.

 

[KenGordon]

School boy error not taking enough gas. Looking at the numbers though, 10 minutes of stops is about 240l (assuming 16l/minute and doing the stops at 5m - all pessimistic assumptions). This is enough gas for about 3 minutes at 30m. It is also the kind of difference that a good current will make, somewhat less than the difference between a small female and a large male.

You didn't answer the depth and time question. Often you are limited by either gas or no stop time. It is a special case where both line up.

Also you claim that the limit is arbitrary. By that logic all NDL are arbitrary, which to choose? People still get bent within NDL, even Suunto ones, it is a matter of probability. Deco models generally (all?) say that the chances of getting bent are lower with more stops.

I think the real deal here is that divers are often not trained to do stops and respond by looking for computers which do not require them.

 

[rek_diver]

School boy error not taking enough gas. Looking at the numbers though, 10 minutes of stops is about 240l (assuming 16l/minute and doing the stops at 5m - all pessimistic assumptions). This is enough gas for about 3 minutes at 30m. It is also the kind of difference that a good current will make, somewhat less than the difference between a small female and a large male.

It's not a "school boy error" to not take enough gas. When you dive in the tropics, the only available gas is in the form of single tanks, sure you could only dive with ops that provide larger tanks if you can even find one but in the context of this "conservative algorithm" discussion it's unnecessary- it would only be done to satisfy the computer not provide a statistically significant extra measure of safety.

You didn't answer the depth and time question. Often you are limited by either gas or no stop time. It is a special case where both line up.

Sure I did, in great detail.

Also you claim that the limit is arbitrary. By that logic all NDL are arbitrary, which to choose? People still get bent within NDL, even Suunto ones, it is a matter of probability. Deco models generally (all?) say that the chances of getting bent are lower with more stops.

Algorithms are at best, an educated guess based on theoretical models. That's why they differ so widely between various computer manufacturers. Think about the dual algorithm computers marketed nowadays. It's up to the diver. Go ahead, pick one. Do I want more NDL bottom time or do I want an extra safety margin? Who knows?

I think the real deal here is that divers are often not trained to do stops and respond by looking for computers which do not require them.

You might think that but you're thinking is not applicable to dive trips in tropical destinations where the dives are clearly stated to be no deco dives as per the rules of the boat op and the boat captain.