I'm not a statistician, but the bottom timers do, infact, enjoy a much 
greater reliability record than computers.


At 11:52 PM 2/29/2000 -0800, Sean T. Stevenson wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:38:51 -0500, Jarrod Jablonski wrote:
>
> >Below is a quick Bakers on computers. Can anyone come up with additional
> >issues?
>
>Perhaps the most important issue which seems to have been overlooked is
>that electronics can and will fail at any time, and if you are relying
>upon a computer for your decompression profile you are up the
>proverbial creek without a paddle.  An electronic bottom timer / depth
>gauge, while statistically just as likely to fail, provides you with
>depth and time information as accurate as the last time you looked at
>it, which can then be used to calculate a profile.  Since you really
>need to carry the tables (or understand deco well enough to calculate
>on the fly) anyway, the computer becomes an unnecessary redundancy.
>
>-Sean
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: quest-unsubscribe@gu*.co*
>For additional commands, e-mail: quest-help@gu*.co*


----------------------------------
  Kevin Connell <kevin@nw*.co*>

  NW Labor Systems, Inc
  http://www.nwls.com

  Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

----------------------------------

--
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]