[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Dive computer (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/2/2015 1:38:43 PM EDT
|
I am getting back into diving and slowly accumulating gear. One item I need to decide on is a computer. I think a wrist computer may be more useful that one on a console. My brother got some good deals on 3 Oceanic Geo 2 computers. How are these? |
|
The only computers I even bother recommending are the Geo 2.0, Shearwater Petrel, or just recently the Zeagle N2ition that DGX has on blowout.
Really, everything else is just more money for features you don't want or don't need. The Geo 2.0 does all a recreational diver wants for a good price. The Petrel is the gold standard in technical diving computers, and many people purchase these even as recreational divers because they foresee growing as divers beyond the fall of a boat and swim around approach. It offers many many things that a recreational diver will never use, however it does have a recreational mode for divers looking to buy now and grow into the computer. The Zeagle N2ition is a random fantastic buy, and it only happens to be on the list because Dive Gear Express is blowing them out for $170. Realistically I'd recommend this one for a new recreational diver over the Oceanic, because it's full-featured and is even cheaper. It's just not a wrist watch style if that's your thing. It all comes down to personal preference, but you'd have to get a screaming deal on the Oceanic to make it more worthwhile than the Zeagle from DGX. Really, unless the Geo is free up to maybe $100, I can't justify not going with the Zeagle until they sell out of stock. Then the market will get back to parity and the Geo 2.0 will be the best buy for a recreational computer. |
|
Can't speak of the Oceanic computers. I have a Mares Puck. Does everything I need it to do.
I prefer wrist mount. It's a lot easier to track, for me at least. I have a tendancy to push ndl's. Whatever you buy, if it comes with plastic buckle, ditch the strap and install bungee cord in its place. Another consideration is your eyes.....I am getting old-guy eyes so make sure you can read it. At this point, I am not going to go for lenses etc and the water magnification is enough for me. Do you want to download your dives from the computer? I don't, but if you do, check to see how much the cable is. This is the biggest rippoff in the dive computer market. |
|
Quoted:
The only computers I even bother recommending are the Geo 2.0, Shearwater Petrel, or just recently the Zeagle N2ition that DGX has on blowout. Really, everything else is just more money for features you don't want or don't need. The Geo 2.0 does all a recreational diver wants for a good price. The Petrel is the gold standard in technical diving computers, and many people purchase these even as recreational divers because they foresee growing as divers beyond the fall of a boat and swim around approach. It offers many many things that a recreational diver will never use, however it does have a recreational mode for divers looking to buy now and grow into the computer. The Zeagle N2ition is a random fantastic buy, and it only happens to be on the list because Dive Gear Express is blowing them out for $170. Realistically I'd recommend this one for a new recreational diver over the Oceanic, because it's full-featured and is even cheaper. It's just not a wrist watch style if that's your thing. It all comes down to personal preference, but you'd have to get a screaming deal on the Oceanic to make it more worthwhile than the Zeagle from DGX. Really, unless the Geo is free up to maybe $100, I can't justify not going with the Zeagle until they sell out of stock. Then the market will get back to parity and the Geo 2.0 will be the best buy for a recreational computer. When I looked it up on DGX it shows it to be a wrist computer. edited to add: I read a review from 2009 that says it's wrist or console mount. |
|
Quoted:
When I looked it up on DGX it shows it to be a wrist computer. edited to add: I read a review from 2009 that says it's wrist or console mount. Quoted:
Quoted:
The only computers I even bother recommending are the Geo 2.0, Shearwater Petrel, or just recently the Zeagle N2ition that DGX has on blowout. Really, everything else is just more money for features you don't want or don't need. The Geo 2.0 does all a recreational diver wants for a good price. The Petrel is the gold standard in technical diving computers, and many people purchase these even as recreational divers because they foresee growing as divers beyond the fall of a boat and swim around approach. It offers many many things that a recreational diver will never use, however it does have a recreational mode for divers looking to buy now and grow into the computer. The Zeagle N2ition is a random fantastic buy, and it only happens to be on the list because Dive Gear Express is blowing them out for $170. Realistically I'd recommend this one for a new recreational diver over the Oceanic, because it's full-featured and is even cheaper. It's just not a wrist watch style if that's your thing. It all comes down to personal preference, but you'd have to get a screaming deal on the Oceanic to make it more worthwhile than the Zeagle from DGX. Really, unless the Geo is free up to maybe $100, I can't justify not going with the Zeagle until they sell out of stock. Then the market will get back to parity and the Geo 2.0 will be the best buy for a recreational computer. When I looked it up on DGX it shows it to be a wrist computer. edited to add: I read a review from 2009 that says it's wrist or console mount. It is a wrist computer. It is not wrist watch form factor. The Oceanic is around wrist watch sized. The Zeagle (and other Seiko OEM computers) are wrist mount but in a larger form factor. Physical dimension is the difference when people talk about wrist mounted computers and they reference "watch." I apologize, I should have been more clear. ETA: found a picture that sort of demonstrates the size difference between some similar computers. Neither is the Geo 2.0 or Zeagle, but they the same size. 
|
|
Dumb question but I am about to buy the ZeGle and want to confirm something. The descriptions all mention setting it for one of 3 nitrox gas mixes. I can use it for normal air also-right? I will use it as a basic dive computer for now but I like the ability to do more with it when I do start more involved diving like nitrox. |
|
Quoted:
Only thing I've heard is that the manual sucks, and a couple acted a little wonky until the battery was replaced. Being new-old stock and all, I'd just throw a new battery in right away and save the hassle of worrying about it. Sounds like a smart thing to do. |
|
Quoted: I like air integrated diver computers. I have the Oceanic Pro plus 2. No complaints. Big screen and durable. I did somehow manage to break the compass though. Edit - having two computers as an instructor is great because i usually dive nitrox for my safety on the console with the nitrox mix but I leave the puck on air. |
|
Quoted:
I like air integrated diver computers. I have the Oceanic Pro plus 2. No complaints. Big screen and durable. I did somehow manage to break the compass though. Ditto on the Oceanic Pro Plus 2. My wife and I both have one. Both ha en't been great, and no issues with the compass. :) |
|
Quoted:
For the price I didn't even check to see if it was air integrated. Not even worth worrying about. Air Integration is sort of a silly addition, unnecessary really, and only of minor convenience. Anyone who solely relies on air integration shouldn't be diving, and if you've got an SPG backup, then you're simply adding an additional set of failure points to the system by having AI. I've seen them lose signal, I've seen them flooded, I've seen dead batteries, I've even seen DM's pick up a tank by them instead of the valve. Not to mention they're generally expensive (even more so when you start diving doubles, with stages, and deco). Fairly anecdotal I agree, but I can count AI failures on more than one hand, I have seen exactly 1 failure of an SPG, and it was easily remedied by a new spool. Convenient? Sure. Worth the convenience? Not in my mind. Certainly not worth it for the type of diving I do, and a significant addition of failure points in a situation where that is not an option. The cheapest AI computer is a Mares for $500, and it's pretty meh, and you're losing out on useful features like you would get with a better non-AI computer. Realistically the only reason for AI that holds any water is "because I want it." And that's a perfectly valid reason. They just don't have any tangible benefit that allows any real argument for them. |
|
Quoted:
I checked the USPS tracking for my package. They show it as undeliverable as addressed and being returned. I checked my order info on DGX and it is correct. Frikkin postal service. I think the guy who was supposed to deliver it yesterday was lazy. It came today in the mail by my regular carrier. I go to the dive shop tomorrow and pick up my regulator- fresh from a rebuild, and a tank. Hopefully going diving Sunday. Life is good! 
|
|
Quoted:
Not even worth worrying about. Air Integration is sort of a silly addition, unnecessary really, and only of minor convenience. Anyone who solely relies on air integration shouldn't be diving, and if you've got an SPG backup, then you're simply adding an additional set of failure points to the system by having AI. I've seen them lose signal, I've seen them flooded, I've seen dead batteries, I've even seen DM's pick up a tank by them instead of the valve. Not to mention they're generally expensive (even more so when you start diving doubles, with stages, and deco). Fairly anecdotal I agree, but I can count AI failures on more than one hand, I have seen exactly 1 failure of an SPG, and it was easily remedied by a new spool. Convenient? Sure. Worth the convenience? Not in my mind. Certainly not worth it for the type of diving I do, and a significant addition of failure points in a situation where that is not an option. The cheapest AI computer is a Mares for $500, and it's pretty meh, and you're losing out on useful features like you would get with a better non-AI computer. Realistically the only reason for AI that holds any water is "because I want it." And that's a perfectly valid reason. They just don't have any tangible benefit that allows any real argument for them. Quoted:
Quoted:
For the price I didn't even check to see if it was air integrated. Not even worth worrying about. Air Integration is sort of a silly addition, unnecessary really, and only of minor convenience. Anyone who solely relies on air integration shouldn't be diving, and if you've got an SPG backup, then you're simply adding an additional set of failure points to the system by having AI. I've seen them lose signal, I've seen them flooded, I've seen dead batteries, I've even seen DM's pick up a tank by them instead of the valve. Not to mention they're generally expensive (even more so when you start diving doubles, with stages, and deco). Fairly anecdotal I agree, but I can count AI failures on more than one hand, I have seen exactly 1 failure of an SPG, and it was easily remedied by a new spool. Convenient? Sure. Worth the convenience? Not in my mind. Certainly not worth it for the type of diving I do, and a significant addition of failure points in a situation where that is not an option. The cheapest AI computer is a Mares for $500, and it's pretty meh, and you're losing out on useful features like you would get with a better non-AI computer. Realistically the only reason for AI that holds any water is "because I want it." And that's a perfectly valid reason. They just don't have any tangible benefit that allows any real argument for them. I don't think go. It help you monitor the amount of air you are using during dives. By watching my air consumption I was able to extend my dive times. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think go. It help you monitor the amount of air you are using during dives. By watching my air consumption I was able to extend my dive times. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For the price I didn't even check to see if it was air integrated. Not even worth worrying about. Air Integration is sort of a silly addition, unnecessary really, and only of minor convenience. Anyone who solely relies on air integration shouldn't be diving, and if you've got an SPG backup, then you're simply adding an additional set of failure points to the system by having AI. I've seen them lose signal, I've seen them flooded, I've seen dead batteries, I've even seen DM's pick up a tank by them instead of the valve. Not to mention they're generally expensive (even more so when you start diving doubles, with stages, and deco). Fairly anecdotal I agree, but I can count AI failures on more than one hand, I have seen exactly 1 failure of an SPG, and it was easily remedied by a new spool. Convenient? Sure. Worth the convenience? Not in my mind. Certainly not worth it for the type of diving I do, and a significant addition of failure points in a situation where that is not an option. The cheapest AI computer is a Mares for $500, and it's pretty meh, and you're losing out on useful features like you would get with a better non-AI computer. Realistically the only reason for AI that holds any water is "because I want it." And that's a perfectly valid reason. They just don't have any tangible benefit that allows any real argument for them. I don't think go. It help you monitor the amount of air you are using during dives. By watching my air consumption I was able to extend my dive times. Truth. I use a Suunto D6I with the air integration. Watching it while diving is fine and handy with all the info in one place, but where it really shines is downloading the info and looking at the dive profile. I've learned a lot about my own diving from doing this. Is it a techno gadget gimmick? Maybe, but it's useful too. |
|
There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school.
There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. |
|
Quoted: There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. then you might as well just go back to using tables, because having a visual indication at my fingertips of all aspects of my dive is very beneficial. |
|
Quoted:
There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. |
|
Quoted:
So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. The reality is that JohnnyC is correct. The addition of wireless adds needless and unnecessary complexity to your diving. He's not saying don't use a computer; he's saying that wireless AI isn't there in terms of reliability, adds nothing to the dive, and few things that it does add can easily be compensated for with a little bit of math and decent log keeping. It's an unnecessary failure point and most divers on the recreational side of diving don't emphasize redundancy when it comes to their gear. You're putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. Batteries wear down, o-rings flood, transmitters fail to communicate to receivers, and so on and so on. A plain old SPG can and sometimes does fail, but the rate of failure on that very simple device is significantly less than on a wireless AI computer. The only advantage that a wireless AI computer has is that it can calculate your air consumption rate, but I can do that by keeping a decent log book, and using a calculator. And if you're not already computing your RMV/SAC rate then it really doesn't matter because that's a number that you're going to get a lot more use out of in the planning and gas management phase. A computer is a tool, nothing more. It's a tool that provides you information so you can make the best decision regarding your dive. If you're comfortable using a wireless AI computer then dive it and enjoy. However, do be aware that there are compelling arguments against specific pieces of dive gear, wireless AI being one of those arguments. As always do what the gas in your tanks allows you to. |
|
Quoted:
The reality is that JohnnyC is correct. The addition of wireless adds needless and unnecessary complexity to your diving. He's not saying don't use a computer; he's saying that wireless AI isn't there in terms of reliability, adds nothing to the dive, and few things that it does add can easily be compensated for with a little bit of math and decent log keeping. It's an unnecessary failure point and most divers on the recreational side of diving don't emphasize redundancy when it comes to their gear. You're putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. Batteries wear down, o-rings flood, transmitters fail to communicate to receivers, and so on and so on. A plain old SPG can and sometimes does fail, but the rate of failure on that very simple device is significantly less than on a wireless AI computer. The only advantage that a wireless AI computer has is that it can calculate your air consumption rate, but I can do that by keeping a decent log book, and using a calculator. And if you're not already computing your RMV/SAC rate then it really doesn't matter because that's a number that you're going to get a lot more use out of in the planning and gas management phase. A computer is a tool, nothing more. It's a tool that provides you information so you can make the best decision regarding your dive. If you're comfortable using a wireless AI computer then dive it and enjoy. However, do be aware that there are compelling arguments against specific pieces of dive gear, wireless AI being one of those arguments. As always do what the gas in your tanks allows you to. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. The reality is that JohnnyC is correct. The addition of wireless adds needless and unnecessary complexity to your diving. He's not saying don't use a computer; he's saying that wireless AI isn't there in terms of reliability, adds nothing to the dive, and few things that it does add can easily be compensated for with a little bit of math and decent log keeping. It's an unnecessary failure point and most divers on the recreational side of diving don't emphasize redundancy when it comes to their gear. You're putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. Batteries wear down, o-rings flood, transmitters fail to communicate to receivers, and so on and so on. A plain old SPG can and sometimes does fail, but the rate of failure on that very simple device is significantly less than on a wireless AI computer. The only advantage that a wireless AI computer has is that it can calculate your air consumption rate, but I can do that by keeping a decent log book, and using a calculator. And if you're not already computing your RMV/SAC rate then it really doesn't matter because that's a number that you're going to get a lot more use out of in the planning and gas management phase. A computer is a tool, nothing more. It's a tool that provides you information so you can make the best decision regarding your dive. If you're comfortable using a wireless AI computer then dive it and enjoy. However, do be aware that there are compelling arguments against specific pieces of dive gear, wireless AI being one of those arguments. As always do what the gas in your tanks allows you to. This guy gets it. |
|
Quoted:
This guy gets it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. The reality is that JohnnyC is correct. The addition of wireless adds needless and unnecessary complexity to your diving. He's not saying don't use a computer; he's saying that wireless AI isn't there in terms of reliability, adds nothing to the dive, and few things that it does add can easily be compensated for with a little bit of math and decent log keeping. It's an unnecessary failure point and most divers on the recreational side of diving don't emphasize redundancy when it comes to their gear. You're putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. Batteries wear down, o-rings flood, transmitters fail to communicate to receivers, and so on and so on. A plain old SPG can and sometimes does fail, but the rate of failure on that very simple device is significantly less than on a wireless AI computer. The only advantage that a wireless AI computer has is that it can calculate your air consumption rate, but I can do that by keeping a decent log book, and using a calculator. And if you're not already computing your RMV/SAC rate then it really doesn't matter because that's a number that you're going to get a lot more use out of in the planning and gas management phase. A computer is a tool, nothing more. It's a tool that provides you information so you can make the best decision regarding your dive. If you're comfortable using a wireless AI computer then dive it and enjoy. However, do be aware that there are compelling arguments against specific pieces of dive gear, wireless AI being one of those arguments. As always do what the gas in your tanks allows you to. This guy gets it. Not really. You can use an AI diver computer and an SPG at the same time. Usually there are plenty of connections on the first stage. I had both hooked up along with a dive watch. The wireless systems are over complicated with a simple hose attachment is all that is needed. I have seen on several occasions the Wireless systems go down. Not good for anyone. Never on a direct hose connected AI dive computer. Back up is always good. You will still do better on dives, time wise with and AI Computer. |
|
Quoted: Not really. You can use an AI diver computer and an SPG at the same time. Usually there are plenty of connections on the first stage. I had both hooked up along with a dive watch. The wireless systems are over complicated with a simple hose attachment is all that is needed. I have seen on several occasions the Wireless systems go down. Not good for anyone. Never on a direct hose connected AI dive computer. Back up is always good. You will still do better on dives, time wise with and AI Computer. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is nothing added by having air integration that you shouldn't already be aware of as a good, thinking diver. If you're unaware of your SAC rate for different phases of the dive, and if you're relying on your air integration to give you vital information about your air consumption during a dive, you need to go back to school. There's a certain place for technology in diving, and there's a certain place where it is a gimmick. This is a case where it's a gimmick. There is no valid argument other than "because I want it," because any argument FOR AI, is already trumped by logic and reasoning and actual history of reliable use by the alternative. If you are RELYING on air integration to make you a better diver, you're already behind the curve. I'll put it this way, there's no technical agency that promotes the use of AI in their courses. If it were this whiz-bang solution to life's problems it would certainly be in the curriculum. Now before anyone gets upset about the difference between recreational and technical diving, keep in mind that the skill set required to be a successful diver is the exact same as a recreational diver, however the precision with which those skills are executed is an order of magnitude more important. Now let's correlate this concept to one of the great themes about this site, firearms training. How many people try and get training by guys like LAV, Kyle Defoor, Pat Rogers, etc. It's because their job requires that mastery of skills, that excellency of execution. The idea that you would discount the tenets of someone at the top of one pyramid, but worship the tenets from someone at the top of a different pyramid is silly. You know what none of those guys promote? Gimmicks. You use the right tool for the right job, and don't try and implement a hardware solution to a software problem. Does everyone need to be a technical cave diver? Not at all. Should everyone aspire to attain that skill level as a diver? Absolutely. Even a vacation diver rolling off the boat on a shallow reef would benefit from attaining mastery of those same skills. Again, if you want wireless air integration? By all means get it. But you shouldn't try and justify it as anything other than a simple desire to have it, because it doesn't nothing advantageous that isn't already covered by other, more reliable means. It's a gimmick, enjoyable to some, but nothing more. If your idea of gas planning is to rely on what is, at best, a wild ass guess for air time remaining, you either need to get some education, or get another hobby, because one day it will bite you in the ass. It's your money, but don't try and push a dubious argument that's clearly and soundly been beaten to death since wireless AI first came on to the market. So you're saying a computer making calculations using actual information and formulas backed up by decades of research is LESS accurate than hand figuring the same information yourself? Not so sure I'm gonna toss out my gadgets just yet. If anything, the graphing and time slices of the profile created in the computer makes it easier to learn how things are working. I may be a bit off here, but this almost sounds like someone who has only cooked on a gas range commenting on how those newfangled microwaves HAVE to be evil. The reality is that JohnnyC is correct. The addition of wireless adds needless and unnecessary complexity to your diving. He's not saying don't use a computer; he's saying that wireless AI isn't there in terms of reliability, adds nothing to the dive, and few things that it does add can easily be compensated for with a little bit of math and decent log keeping. It's an unnecessary failure point and most divers on the recreational side of diving don't emphasize redundancy when it comes to their gear. You're putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak. Batteries wear down, o-rings flood, transmitters fail to communicate to receivers, and so on and so on. A plain old SPG can and sometimes does fail, but the rate of failure on that very simple device is significantly less than on a wireless AI computer. The only advantage that a wireless AI computer has is that it can calculate your air consumption rate, but I can do that by keeping a decent log book, and using a calculator. And if you're not already computing your RMV/SAC rate then it really doesn't matter because that's a number that you're going to get a lot more use out of in the planning and gas management phase. A computer is a tool, nothing more. It's a tool that provides you information so you can make the best decision regarding your dive. If you're comfortable using a wireless AI computer then dive it and enjoy. However, do be aware that there are compelling arguments against specific pieces of dive gear, wireless AI being one of those arguments. As always do what the gas in your tanks allows you to. This guy gets it. Not really. You can use an AI diver computer and an SPG at the same time. Usually there are plenty of connections on the first stage. I had both hooked up along with a dive watch. The wireless systems are over complicated with a simple hose attachment is all that is needed. I have seen on several occasions the Wireless systems go down. Not good for anyone. Never on a direct hose connected AI dive computer. Back up is always good. You will still do better on dives, time wise with and AI Computer. |
|
Quoted:
Just purchased the Zeagle N2ition from DGX. They shipped it 75 mins later  seemed like a good buy for a beginner rec diver. At $170 can't go wrong.They shipped mine fast too. I chose 2 day priority mail. If ghe USPS hadn't screwed up the label I would have had it a day earlier. |
|
yeah , I'm definitely not going wireless AI yet. but both my hose AI comps have been flawless. I thought I made it clear that wireless AI was what I took issue with. Bad move on my part to not make that more clear. Either way, a redundant SPG is necessary. The problem without an SPG while running hosed-AI really only presents itself if the computer dies, in which case you've lost ALL of your information. At least with an SPG you can do a simple min deco ascent to get you out of the water provided you've been keeping track of your depth reasonably well. Not hard to shoot a bag and count off seconds and it's easy to estimate 3m between your stops. Not ideal, but at least you have an idea of how you can get out of trouble. Without at least having reliable air estimation (which your consumption without an indicator you should know well enough if you're a good diver), it can be a rough ride. As far as using your AI to change your breathing, not such a great idea without understanding why your body needs that specific consumption rate. If you just need a reminder to relax, that's one thing. If you're exerting yourself or you're at a depth deeper than you're used to or something and start skip-breathing or holding your breath or some other such nonsense to conserve air, you can get in trouble with CO2 retention, etc. by starving your body of the oxygen your brain knows it needs. It's the old argument that simply riding your computer without understanding what it's telling you or why can get you in big trouble fast. |
|
Quoted:
I thought I made it clear that wireless AI was what I took issue with. Bad move on my part to not make that more clear. Either way, a redundant SPG is necessary. The problem without an SPG while running hosed-AI really only presents itself if the computer dies, in which case you've lost ALL of your information. At least with an SPG you can do a simple min deco ascent to get you out of the water provided you've been keeping track of your depth reasonably well. Not hard to shoot a bag and count off seconds and it's easy to estimate 3m between your stops. Not ideal, but at least you have an idea of how you can get out of trouble. Without at least having reliable air estimation (which your consumption without an indicator you should know well enough if you're a good diver), it can be a rough ride. As far as using your AI to change your breathing, not such a great idea without understanding why your body needs that specific consumption rate. If you just need a reminder to relax, that's one thing. If you're exerting yourself or you're at a depth deeper than you're used to or something and start skip-breathing or holding your breath or some other such nonsense to conserve air, you can get in trouble with CO2 retention, etc. by starving your body of the oxygen your brain knows it needs. It's the old argument that simply riding your computer without understanding what it's telling you or why can get you in big trouble fast. Quoted:
yeah , I'm definitely not going wireless AI yet. but both my hose AI comps have been flawless. I thought I made it clear that wireless AI was what I took issue with. Bad move on my part to not make that more clear. Either way, a redundant SPG is necessary. The problem without an SPG while running hosed-AI really only presents itself if the computer dies, in which case you've lost ALL of your information. At least with an SPG you can do a simple min deco ascent to get you out of the water provided you've been keeping track of your depth reasonably well. Not hard to shoot a bag and count off seconds and it's easy to estimate 3m between your stops. Not ideal, but at least you have an idea of how you can get out of trouble. Without at least having reliable air estimation (which your consumption without an indicator you should know well enough if you're a good diver), it can be a rough ride. As far as using your AI to change your breathing, not such a great idea without understanding why your body needs that specific consumption rate. If you just need a reminder to relax, that's one thing. If you're exerting yourself or you're at a depth deeper than you're used to or something and start skip-breathing or holding your breath or some other such nonsense to conserve air, you can get in trouble with CO2 retention, etc. by starving your body of the oxygen your brain knows it needs. It's the old argument that simply riding your computer without understanding what it's telling you or why can get you in big trouble fast. The majority of your post read as a bash on AI as a whole. Wireless wasn't even mentioned until the last bit. I agree that wireless can be a potential failure point, but I do like having the information right there on my wrist. I also do use the hell out of the logging in the computer to see how my dive went, look for things to improve on. The air integration helps with that. I'm no tech diver. I'm just a hobbyist with a couple hundred dives under my belt. I don't claim to be an expert. I just like to dive. I personally have seen improvement in my diving from being able to look at the charts and graphs and correlate them, going back and reviewing like an AAR. Not only has it led to better air consumption overall, but it serves as a very visual reminder to pay better attention to what I'm doing while diving, not just all the pretty stuff around. |
|
You don't need to be a technical diver to cultivate positive diving habits and a desire to improve as a diver. The problem lies in most divers reliance on hardware solutions to solve a software problem. Giving a guy a $12,000 bolt gun with S&B optics isn't going to make him a better shooter if he can't even shoot a .22 without a flinch. AI is putting the gun on a lead sled and pulling the trigger while still being able to sip your tea. AI doesn't cultivate good diving skills, it just teaches reliance on some information that could easily be misinterpreted or misused. However, I understand peoples desire for things. And there's nothing wrong with that, and admitting that.
It sounds like (admittedly an assumption) it's improving your air consumption not because you're practicing proper breathing, buoyancy, trim, and propulsion. You do not use AI to "adjust" your air consumption over the course of a dive. Your biological requirement for oxygen is fixed and not adjustable over the course of a dive unless you plan to restrict your breathing, thus producing a hypoxic condition.You'd be better off improving as a diver than relying on a piece of hardware that drives a conscious choice to do something like skip breathe. It has a host of potential issues, hopefully something as innocuous as a headache, but potentially causing loss of consciousness or contributing to DCS. Ultimately, it's the same idea as overweighting a diver and putting 20 pounds worth of lift in their BCD instead of properly weighting. You're piling on something that masks an issue instead of improving on the hard skills required. If you cannot conclude that you need to relax without a piece of hardware telling you that you need to relax, there's a disconnect that should be rectified. Like I said previously, if you want AI, get it, enjoy the gadget factor, but don't argue that it is doing anything other than masking inadequate skill, planning, and thinking. It's gas management, it requires active involvement and preemptive action, it should not be a reactionary response to given information. As for your point about not being an expert, why would you discount expert opinion simply because you're a hobbyist? Plenty of experts (I am not one of them, but I'm definitely on the right side of that bell curve) agree about the use of AI in general, and they universally pan the concept. That means something. It's not about being a technophobe, it's about mitigating risk in all forms. |
|
Quoted:
You don't need to be a technical diver to cultivate positive diving habits and a desire to improve as a diver. The problem lies in most divers reliance on hardware solutions to solve a software problem. Giving a guy a $12,000 bolt gun with S&B optics isn't going to make him a better shooter if he can't even shoot a .22 without a flinch. AI is putting the gun on a lead sled and pulling the trigger while still being able to sip your tea. AI doesn't cultivate good diving skills, it just teaches reliance on some information that could easily be misinterpreted or misused. However, I understand peoples desire for things. And there's nothing wrong with that, and admitting that. It sounds like (admittedly an assumption) it's improving your air consumption not because you're practicing proper breathing, buoyancy, trim, and propulsion. You do not use AI to "adjust" your air consumption over the course of a dive. Your biological requirement for oxygen is fixed and not adjustable over the course of a dive unless you plan to restrict your breathing, thus producing a hypoxic condition.You'd be better off improving as a diver than relying on a piece of hardware that drives a conscious choice to do something like skip breathe. It has a host of potential issues, hopefully something as innocuous as a headache, but potentially causing loss of consciousness or contributing to DCS. Ultimately, it's the same idea as overweighting a diver and putting 20 pounds worth of lift in their BCD instead of properly weighting. You're piling on something that masks an issue instead of improving on the hard skills required. If you cannot conclude that you need to relax without a piece of hardware telling you that you need to relax, there's a disconnect that should be rectified. Like I said previously, if you want AI, get it, enjoy the gadget factor, but don't argue that it is doing anything other than masking inadequate skill, planning, and thinking. It's gas management, it requires active involvement and preemptive action, it should not be a reactionary response to given information. As for your point about not being an expert, why would you discount expert opinion simply because you're a hobbyist? Plenty of experts (I am not one of them, but I'm definitely on the right side of that bell curve) agree about the use of AI in general, and they universally pan the concept. That means something. It's not about being a technophobe, it's about mitigating risk in all forms. Regarding the buoyancy trim propulsion and such, that's where the visual graphing comes into play. It's nice to see in a way that makes sense how depth directly affects air consumption. I understand the math behind it, but I'm a visual thinker. I can explain how pressure and volume relate to each other but being able to see it just does something for me. Again, not a pro, but I've received lots of compliments from instructors, dive guides and such on my buoyancy control and how I manage myself in the water. One of the strangest discussions I've ever had regarding buoyancy was with my rescue diver instructor. He was giving me a little shit for not using my BCD as much as he thought I should. That kinda threw me for a loop. I explained to him that I use my lungs to manage buoyancy. By varying the amount I inhale an exhale, I'm able to maintain neutral buoyancy remarkably easily. He said that in his experience it's physically impossible to manage buoyancy the way I do it, especially on deeper dives. That led into a little demonstration on a fun dive that went on a sloping reef to a max depth of 30ish meters. He was completely dumbfounded when the dive was complete and I had only used my BCD on the surface. He said he didn't understand how I was able to completely control my buoyancy that way and mentioned most divers see a minor change in buoyancy on inhale or exhale. I can't really explain it either, truth is I've never really thought much about it... that's just how I've always done in the water. Even before I started diving, I figured out that more air in my lungs = float, less air = sink. He couldn't think of any reasons that it would be harmful, since I'm not holding my breath and more or less keeping the air moving in and out and maintaining ambient pressure levels or something. He also can't replicate it. He tried. Maybe I've just got my weighting spot on or something. I really don't know how to explain the way it works. That said, I've found that my biggest drag on air consumption comes in periods that I was either chasing something, or actively hunting for something that I suspected to be in an area. This makes sense, more activity = more air used. You might not know this about me but every dive for me I've got my head buried in a video or still camera. With both hands full and up in front of my face, having all my info on my wrist where I can get to it at a glance without having to reach for anything is a huge bonus. What it boils down to is for the diving I do, I think my skills are adequate. I try to learn something any chance I get and I don't disagree with your general view of gadgets = crutches but I also present the counter argument that it's useful, convenient, and works pretty well for ME. I'm not advocating that everyone do it. 
|
|
Sounds like your rescue diver instructor isn't a great instructor. There's no great secret to controlling buoyancy, and truth be told, most instructors and dive guides have horrible buoyancy, but they're great at talking up their students. Ask an instructor to hover in proper trim without moving and see what happens. The number one thing I hear from divers is "oh I have great buoyancy, soandso told me so." My first open water dive my instructor told me I had fantastic buoyancy, guess what, he was lying. I had an brand new IDC graduate tell me he had great buoyancy, as he floated up 3m shooting an SMB. Find a cave instructor if you really see what true mastery of buoyancy looks like. Check out videos of Patrick Widmann doing his exploration dives in the Dominican Republic (I think it's El Toro something on youtube). Take day 1 of a GUE Fundies class and I bet you'd be in for a surprise.
As far as your breathing, it's as I suspected, you are not breathing correctly. What you're doing is limiting your air intake to unreasonable levels. I too can maintain perfect buoyancy at any depth with just the air in my lungs, however it promotes poor breathing habits, can lead to CO2 retention, and the problems I listed in my previous post. Just a word of caution as what's "working for you" in this instance could be dangerous. PADI really needs to spend more time talking about the dangers of improper breathing and CO2 retention. The biggest causes of that are skip breathing and breathing shallow to prevent ascent or to sink. Your sloping reef demonstration is a perfect example. This sort of breathing might work kind of ok for photography right now, but you would be much better off learning the proper techniques for breathing and buoyancy that don't compromise your oxygen intake. It's a physiological thing, and it's even more important when you're task loading yourself like with a camera. An argument for AI because you want it, is valid. Any other argument for is demonstrably false unless it's simply giving you a pressure reading, in essence an integrated spg. I still think that you need good instruction, and even within the PADI system it can be found, although it's usually through a distinctive specialty taught by a singular instructor. As a rule PADI's buoyancy and trim instruction at all recreational levels is piss poor at best, and there are very few that actually teach it correctly. I'm not saying you're a shit diver, what I'm saying is you don't know what you don't know. Every diver has been there, and PADI/SSI/SDI/NAUI/etc keep cranking those types of divers out on a daily basis and tell them they're great, and realistically turning every dive into a "trust me" dive. If you like diving in the Philippines, call up Andy Davis and ask him to do a buoyancy skills day or two like his "Pre-Tec" course. I bet you'll learn a ton, and be very surprised at how much better you will be as a diver after good instruction in proper technique. You'll also be surprised at how much easier it is to take good photos when you're doing thing correctly, instead of doing a weird breathing trick to keep off the bottom. Your hit rate will go way up, and then it becomes a choice as to which of a ton of photos you'll display, not which photo of the bunch is acceptable. Check out Becky Kagan Schott's stuff and Wes Skiles' stuff (RIP poor guy). The "it works for me" thing only goes so far. It only works for you until it doesn't work for you anymore, and lacking gills, when it stops working for you, underwater is a bad place to be. There is a reason the best divers in the world do things a certain way, it's because it works and it's safe. You don't need to be a tech diver to |
|
I usually try to stay out of these arguments, but here is my two cents.
1- I would never recommend that someone rely solely on wireless AI, that is an unnecessary risk, however it wasn't too long ago when we dove without SPG, just a j-valve, and knowledge of our SAC rates. 2- To say that wireless AI, (or AI in general) offers no merit is short sited. In wireless, it can add redundancy, which is always good, and can increase situational awareness. Also (AI in general) you can see your sac rate in at any point in the dive, sure, you can figure out what the rate for the whole dive was, but can you see where you shot the average up by chasing after this or that? I've not seen an AI dive computer that tells you what your SAC rate is in real time, and certainly would not try to adjust my breathing because of it. But you cannot say that it isn't helpful to be able to go back and see, wow, I must have been really exerting some energy at that point because the spike in my SAC rate. Cruise control, auto-pilots, dive computers in general, and many other things can be used as a crutch for poor skills, but all offer benefits to others, but to throw those out because the don't promote good driving, hand flying, or proper dive planning skills, is ludicrous. 3- The catastrophic failures of wireless AI, are few, and with the brass and glass SPG (or console) backing it up, is a moot point. Again, see no.1 4-To say that because tech agencies don't teach, or recommend them is a dubious argument against them, as the dive industry is VERY slow to accept change of any sort. (much the same as in the aviation industry, and many others) Remember when NITROX , or using any type of dive computer (of any sort) was the devil? Hell, I see people prefacing their use of dive computers, as backing up the tables, that they primarily dive with, as though they are apologizing for not solely using tables. 5- Diving IS technology, the bottles full of compressed gas, didn't grow on trees, and technology doesn't keep progressing without trying new things. The bad will go away on their own, the invisible hand and all, but should be tried all the same. The vitriol against using something different, or not sanctioned by this agency, or that group, is terrible in diving. The BPW against the jacket BCD people, tables VS dive computers, tech VS rec, as a rabid hippie hater, it pains me to say, can't we all just get along?  
6- Obviously, AI, of any sort is going to either expensive, difficult, or too unwieldy, for staged deco (or even most dives on doubles), but to write off a system, as a whole, that has the ability to increase situational awareness, because of that, is wrong. On a side note. I don't use wireless AI. I use an atomic aquatics cobalt for singles, and brass and glass on my sidemount, and stage regs. As a pilot, I love redundancy though, and see wireless AI as a way to achieve more of it, and is my argument to justify it, that is other than my desire for it. |
|
It's a false redundancy though. Aside from one which will simply show remaining PSI in your tank, AI is making assumptions about the way you are consuming gas and the way you are diving. So-called "Air Time Remaining" calculations are guesses at best, and ti's too easy for it to be incorrect and get a diver in trouble, or for a diver to change their diving habit at the behest of their computer and get themselves in trouble. This is not redundant.
Your mixed gas analogy is flawed as divers have been using mixed gas in a commercial and technical environment long before the recreational environment, and that was solely driven by liability concerns (remember certifying agencies are corporations). Tech divers are often the first to embrace PROVEN technology. They were the first using scooters, rebreathers, etc. However, there is much in the technical diving world that has no need to advance as the current status quo trumps all of the new technology on the market. If a diver is so situationally unaware that they are relying on AI to keep them safe and alive, they should not be diving. Period. Full stop. I don't care if someone dives in a stab jacket and split fins with an Air2 and a DiveAlert, but there are assumptions that can be made when encountering a diver such as that, they are negative assumptions, and they are almost always spot on. Redundancy only works if it is redundant. AI is not, and wireless AI sure as hell isn't. |
|
Quoted:
It's a false redundancy though. Aside from one which will simply show remaining PSI in your tank, AI is making assumptions about the way you are consuming gas and the way you are diving. So-called "Air Time Remaining" calculations are guesses at best, and ti's too easy for it to be incorrect and get a diver in trouble, or for a diver to change their diving habit at the behest of their computer and get themselves in trouble. This is not redundant. Your mixed gas analogy is flawed as divers have been using mixed gas in a commercial and technical environment long before the recreational environment, and that was solely driven by liability concerns (remember certifying agencies are corporations). Tech divers are often the first to embrace PROVEN technology. They were the first using scooters, rebreathers, etc. However, there is much in the technical diving world that has no need to advance as the current status quo trumps all of the new technology on the market. If a diver is so situationally unaware that they are relying on AI to keep them safe and alive, they should not be diving. Period. Full stop. I don't care if someone dives in a stab jacket and split fins with an Air2 and a DiveAlert, but there are assumptions that can be made when encountering a diver such as that, they are negative assumptions, and they are almost always spot on. Redundancy only works if it is redundant. AI is not, and wireless AI sure as hell isn't. You are just wrong. The AI computers are programmed with the tables. You must enjoy getting less bottom time per dive with the clock and SPG. That being said. I have seen some divers who disregard all of the tables and seem to do just fine. Every human is different. |
|
Quoted:
You are just wron]g. The AI computers are programmed with the tables. You must enjoy getting less bottom time per dive with the clock and SPG. That being said. I have seen some divers who disregard all of the tables and seem to do just fine. Every human is different. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a false redundancy though. Aside from one which will simply show remaining PSI in your tank, AI is making assumptions about the way you are consuming gas and the way you are diving. So-called "Air Time Remaining" calculations are guesses at best, and ti's too easy for it to be incorrect and get a diver in trouble, or for a diver to change their diving habit at the behest of their computer and get themselves in trouble. This is not redundant. Your mixed gas analogy is flawed as divers have been using mixed gas in a commercial and technical environment long before the recreational environment, and that was solely driven by liability concerns (remember certifying agencies are corporations). Tech divers are often the first to embrace PROVEN technology. They were the first using scooters, rebreathers, etc. However, there is much in the technical diving world that has no need to advance as the current status quo trumps all of the new technology on the market. If a diver is so situationally unaware that they are relying on AI to keep them safe and alive, they should not be diving. Period. Full stop. I don't care if someone dives in a stab jacket and split fins with an Air2 and a DiveAlert, but there are assumptions that can be made when encountering a diver such as that, they are negative assumptions, and they are almost always spot on. Redundancy only works if it is redundant. AI is not, and wireless AI sure as hell isn't. You are just wron]g. The AI computers are programmed with the tables. You must enjoy getting less bottom time per dive with the clock and SPG. That being said. I have seen some divers who disregard all of the tables and seem to do just fine. Every human is different. Huh? No I'm not wrong, you are confused by some basic terminology, so I'll explain. Put your learnin' hat on. First, Air Time Remaining calculations and No Decompression Limits are two entirely different things. I'll give you the kindergarten explanation, NDL specifically deals with nitrogen levels dissolved into your tissues. As pressure increases the amount of nitrogen dissolved into your tissues increases. NDL is the theoretical amount of time you can stay at a specific depth and make a direct ascent to the surface without the nitrogen perfusing into your blood stream to the degree where you get decompression sickness. Shake a soda bottle and open it right away, that's getting bent, that's what happens when you don't decompress. Open a soda bottle slowly, that's what happens when you properly decompress. Theoretically, and NDL should let you open the soda bottle right away without the explosion of deliciousness all over the place. Air Time Remaining is a calculation where by air integrated computers try and extrapolate how much air you have left in your tank in minutes. It's is a best guess scenario based on the current tank pressure, an extrapolated consumption rate, your current depth. and an ascent rate of some unknown quantity. These are two entirely different concepts and now that you understand the difference maybe you can figure out for yourself why ATR is a potentially bad idea. Although if you don't understand that concept, I'm not sure I can put it any more simply. Second, computers don't use "tables." Period. Full stop. Tables are based on tissue models (Buhlmann, Haldanian, etc). Computers use these models to develop decompression algorithms. Computers use algorithms that are constantly calculating tissue loading based on pressure (not depth, an important caveat). They are constantly calculating no decompression limits, and in the case of capable computers, decompression stops based on this information. There is no "table" involved. Tables are exactly that, a table of no decompression limits for a given depth, or a decompression schedule. That you don't know the difference is startling, This is Open Water level stuff here. "Disregarding the tables" means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Considering you don't give any context I can only assume that you're as ignorant of what they were doing as you are about the basic terminology and operation of the equipment being discussed. You're right, every human is different, except the laws of physics aren't. A better way to put it would be "some people are luckier than others." Just out of curiosity, what level of certification do you have and where were you trained? I think it's safe to say that I get much more bottom time than you do, that much is obvious. |
|
I never said anything about air time remaining, and certainly wouldn't base anything on it. No, dive computers don't use tables, they use one of the algorithms that the tables came from, depending on the table. So AI is wrong because it has one data point you don't like? The argument that "for a diver to change their diving habit at the behest of their computer and get themselves in trouble" could be made for any dive computer, AI or Non-AI. ATR makes assumptions, no differently than how the petrel makes assumptions for time to surface and @+5 (or NDL and deco times for that matter). They are there as a tool.
A second method to read tank pressure is by definition redundant, how is this wrong? If I have both, a brass and glass gauge, AND a wireless AI wrist mount dive computer, both of which are telling me actual pressure readings of gas left in the tank, if either should fail, the other remains. Why would that be bad? To me, having 2 wrist mount dive computers, one being wireless AI, the other not, and an SPG, is great. redundant computers, and redundant gas supply info.I already dive with a backup computer why not have gas info on the wrist too? Personally, I don't even look at the gas time remaining on my cobalt, just depth, no deco time, and PSI. As much as I love my petrel, it would be nice to see how much gas is in the tank. Hopefully the wrist mount cobalt will. My mixed gas analogy was spot on, and you made my point for me. While sure tech has been using mixed gas for longer than rec, it took close to 70 years to before its use started to even be remotely common. It was still uncommon in the early 90's. You say that tech divers are the first to adopt proven technology, but how can technology be proven if it isn't tried? It is now rec that is the proving grounds for tech. Tech shunned the use of dive computers, it was rec that furthered that technology, and those who went against the vocal majority in the tech side that brought about the computers we enjoy today. You mention the laws of physics, but decompression algorithms are only based on theories, the basis for them, and the tables derived from them, are still based solely on theory. I don't care if you don't want an AI computer, I just hate the "my rig configuration is the best, and if you can't see that/don't agree, your stupid/a bad diver/unsafe/whatever" mentality that is prevalent in diving, be it the BPW vs jacket, AI or no AI, split fins vs not split fins, and on and on. |
|
Quoted:
I don't care if you don't want an AI computer, I just hate the "my rig configuration is the best, and if you can't see that/don't agree, your stupid/a bad diver/unsafe/whatever" mentality that is prevalent in diving, be it the BPW vs jacket, AI or no AI, split fins vs not split fins, and on and on. The problem is that it's not about "this is the best and if you don't agree you're stupid." The problem is that proponents keep trying to make specious arguments promoting it as if it has some real value, when in fact it's just masking their lack of skill. I said right from the get go, if you want it, have it, and loudly and proudly say you bought it because you wanted it. But don't tell me that you've got all these great reasons for having it when I can soundly discount every one with a superior argument against. You don't argue with LAV over a Barska pellet gun red dot, I don't understand why every inexperienced diver feels the need to argue AI. As for the rest, the difference between something like ATR that promotes potentially dangerous behavior is completely different from a computer running a decompression algorithm. The argument that they are the same because they both predict "something" doesn't hold water. Re: decompression theory, you're right in that it is a theory, but said theory is based on the laws of physics. Of course gravity is also a theory. Don't try and make an argument based on, "it's just a theory." There are enough arguments that already cover that idea that I won't waste my time rehashing them. Your mixed gas analogy was flawed. The delay in its entrance to market was simply driven by liability concerns by the certifying agencies, nothing more (I still think I have some voodoo gas stickers floating around somewhere). And you assume that technology must be fully vetted before it's disregarded? What's the old adage about a shit sandwich? Not to mention that tech divers were running deco computers in the early days before most recreational divers had ever heard of them. Hell, John Chatterton et. al. was doing deco on a computer back in 1991 on the U-Who. Of course the difference is you can give any tech diver a bottom timer and a depth gauge and he'll safely make it back on the boat from a solo dive to 65m. No computer necessary. Most open water divers are lost without a DM holding their hand in the first place. Which is just as scary when you look at most DM's, but that's another issue altogether. If your assertion that rec truly drives tech, every tech diver would be diving Air2's with wireless AI and split fins and stab jackets, and it's just not the case. Those things exist because recreational divers generally have neither the skills, nor the inclination to obtain said skills, and the dive equipment industry is driven by profit. It's hard to markup $2 worth of 2" webbing and a steel plate, and most recreational divers don't have the desire to spend the time it takes to properly fit a harness, or build muscle in their legs so they can use proper finning techniques. Ergo a one-size-fits-all jacket than anybody can throw on, and split fins that don't tire your legs out. Yet at the same time, tech diving is growing faster than ever as people see the benefits of having the skills that come with being a technical diver. Hell, even PADI wants a piece of that pie. If PADI is involved, there's money to be made. Just look at recreational rebreathers and sidemount as an example. You've got it backwards, tech drives rec, and then rec gives it the market share. Very little comes from the rec side of the house and is accepted on the tech side. Also, split fins will kill you. (yes, that is my tongue planted firmly in my cheek) |
|
How does having a second way to read tank pressure mask a skill? Soundly discount how having a second method for reading tank pressure is good thing. Forget ATR.
John Chatterton may have used a DC in 1991, but I could have bought on at my dive shop in Phoenix in 1984 or 85, before there was a "tech" industry. He was also still diving air on the Doria at that time, even though helium had been kicked around since the 1920's? Skills are no doubt refined by people doing dives with smaller margins of safety, yes, however when it comes to new technology, they are also the most resistant to change, therefore it is the rec side that will drive the advances in technology. Scopes on rifles may mask poor skills with iron sights, yet I don't argue scopes are the devil. Auto pilots in aircraft may mask skills to fly the plane straight and level, yet I wouldn't argue that they are the devil. AI is a tool you may choose to use or not use, but don't argue that everyone who chooses to use it is not as skilled as you, or is an unsafe diver, that's just asinine. I'd be willing to bet there are far better divers than you (or I) who use AI, just as there are those who don't. And in closing, your argument always comes back to lack of skill, or every inexperienced diver argues this, yet I'm still waiting for a an answer to the first line of this post. Maybe you have never seen a dive computer that has tank pressure info on it. I've certainly never seen one that tells you only ATR, so I can't understand why you are hung up on ATR. Picture your shearwater, with one data point that tells you, without having to reach back to your SPG, (I don't know about you, but my wrists are in front of me when diving) your tank pressure. How can this be bad? |
|
I just finished accumulating the dive gear I need. There are still a few small items I will need- such as a light, and I will probably replace my old 6" U S Divers knife. I bought my regulator used with a fresh rebuild. It's an Oceanic Delta second stage, a Genesis octopus and full console of Oceanic gauges with an SPG, depth gauge and compass. I picked up the regulator and a tank Friday. Between the gauges and the Zeagle N2ition dive computer I should be good to go. |
|
Quoted:
I just finished accumulating the dive gear I need. There are still a few small items I will need- such as a light, and I will probably replace my old 6" U S Divers knife. I bought my regulator used with a fresh rebuild. It's an Oceanic Delta second stage, a Genesis octopus and full console of Oceanic gauges with an SPG, depth gauge and compass. I picked up the regulator and a tank Friday. Between the gauges and the Zeagle N2ition dive computer I should be good to go. Better make sure that stuff is approved for use by tech divers, and preferably frequently used by them.
|
|
Quoted:
Better make sure that stuff is approved for use by tech divers, and preferably frequently used by them. Quoted:
Quoted:
I just finished accumulating the dive gear I need. There are still a few small items I will need- such as a light, and I will probably replace my old 6" U S Divers knife. I bought my regulator used with a fresh rebuild. It's an Oceanic Delta second stage, a Genesis octopus and full console of Oceanic gauges with an SPG, depth gauge and compass. I picked up the regulator and a tank Friday. Between the gauges and the Zeagle N2ition dive computer I should be good to go. Better make sure that stuff is approved for use by tech divers, and preferably frequently used by them. If they start making noise I will tell them what it was like when I started back in '68. Regulators with 2 hoses, backpacks on the tanks with straps that chafed like hell, no BCDs- just a Mae West floatation vest, weights on a belt that many of us cast ourselves, and yes- Rocket fins were the shit!
Our masks were a large oval with purge valves in the glass, that didn't work very well. 72 cubic feet steel tanks. We dove using a watch, depth gauge we wore on our wrist and the tables. It might be a cliche now but we did plan the dive and dive the plan. Some of the new divers would have a stroke if they knew what we used to do. Hell, the basic class back then taught deco stops. |
|
Quoted:
We dove using a watch, depth gauge we wore on our wrist and the tables. It might be a cliche now but we did plan the dive and dive the plan. Some of the new divers would have a stroke if they knew what we used to do. Hell, the basic class back then taught deco stops. Because they taught divers to be thinking divers, not fall off a boat and ride a computer or have their hands held by a DM saying, "trust me!" ;) Truth be told, most technical divers dive much closer to that than the other posters in this thread. |