Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

That guy has a point it was always my question and i didn't get clear answers
when
i post it 2 months ago.

Can we have some light here pls ?
I personally use ( ON NITROX DIVES ONLY  ) a Nitek3 ( 3 Mix computer i
decompress on O2 )
and an Uwatec as a backup. Computers give me a hell of a lot of
time on NON SQUARE DIVES.

And i explain lets say i plan a dive at 40meters for 40minutes but at the actual
dive
im at the  deepest point  for only for 10 minutes . That means I have to sit
there on the deco bars as i originally planed  even if my computers show
the half deco time.



Manos


Ben Wiseley wrote:

> List,
>
> There was recently a post on the number of bottom timers to carry.
>
> Please explain.  I’ve read the archives and don’t get this one.  This is the
> only thing I really can’t agree with yet on the whole DIR philosophy.  I
> know it’s not open to discussion… but can you at least explain?  : )
>
> I'm confused about the whole computer issue with DIR.  Assuming that deco is
> just math (if it was something more JJ's program and all the other deco
> software programs would be pretty much useless) then what's the deal with NO
> COMPUTER (which the bottom timer ultimately is).  Tracking all your stops,
> bottom time, multi level, etc. is at best a pain in the ass and at worse
> really dangerous if you screw up.  I know that the records that George is
> breaking change things... I'm wondering about more "normal" deco dives.  Or
> algorithms with parameters to take superman and average-man into
> consideration.  Parameters can be entered into a computer.
>
> >From what I gather from the techdiver list it's mostly 1) you can't trust
> computers, 2) they're too conservative and 3) you don't learn deco... you
> just rely on the computer.
>
> Responses
> 1) that's absurd... carry two/three/etc. computers if you don't trust the
> battery.  If you don't trust computers than you can't possibly trust the mix
> you're breathing unless you have "Smillas sense of oxygen" :)
> 2) too conservative:  then why not put an algorithm that works in it?
> someone, somewhere has a process that works for deco... George isn't
> reinventing the wheel everytime he dives... he's using some sort of process.
>   It's not rocket science to put a process in a submersible computer.
> 3) you don't learn: well - then you can use tables, etc and use the computer
> as a backup... I learned fractal geometry in college -doesn't mean I still
> do it by hand.  It seems obvious that all dives are planned (well - I don't
> sit up at night planning a 30 minute dive to 50 feet... but you get my
> point).  So you're still planning your dives on tables (or using software)
> but you have the added safety of having a computer doing all the
> calculations for you if you, for some reason, fuck up (the human brain is
> relatively useless under massive levels of stress – i.e. panic kills).  If
> in panic it'd be better to have a computer telling you "move to 30 feet"
> than a human brain telling you "ascend immediately... I'm fucking dying".
> In an element where minutes mean hours in deco it seems that precision is
> the best way to go - and nothing (especially the human brain) is as precise
> as a computer when it comes to counting seconds.
>
> I’ve also heard some stuff on legal issues.  Well – then make them
> completely user programmable... you can’t sue someone for shooting yourself
> in the head (or at least those cases have a LOW success rate).
>
> George’s comment that the best computer is between your ears is possibly
> true for NO TIME limit situations.  I completely agree... locked in a room
> for hours/days on end with a library I could out think Deep Blue on chess...
> but given 5 seconds... I’ll loose every time (this is a hypothetical
> example... I've never actually gone against Deep Blue).  Unless you can do
> this equation faster than the human brain can read there's an obvious place
> for computers:  256*3/2+88^2*1.3=10451.2
>
> I know that WKPP has used tables and achieved amazing results.  But I
> haven't heard a well thought out argument against computers yet (and I've
> read the archives).  Given all the shit that can happen during a dive I'd
> think that having a computer tell you what to do (and what you’ve done)
> would be a nice addition to life.  If NASA can go to the moon in 69 (which
> was really just the world’s most complicated diving trip) then we can
> probably learn to use the much newer computers diving.
>
> If you:
> 1) Plan your dive
> 2) Bring the gas you think you need for the dive
> 3) Enter the gas you have on you for the dive into the computer
> 4) Go diving
> 5) Enter in parameters that are appropriate (fitness, temperature, etc.)
>
> Given that there’s no reason why a computer couldn’t come up with an active
> dive plan that would be as good or better than the table version.
>
> Again… not trying to tell anyone how to do anything.  But – if there’s
> something in the archives that covers this I couldn’t find it.  I’m just
> curious as to why technology isn’t DIR.
>
> -ben
>
> ps.  BS/MS in computer science has probably skewed my thought process on
> this.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]