 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2005Computer Question..
I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. I am thinking I should get a computer for my dive buddy (wife) as well.. Are there benefits to having two different make/modles of computers or is it OK to stick with one that I (we) are am happy with.. > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are there benefits to having two different make/modles of computers or > is it OK to stick with one that I (we) are am happy with.. I'd think that there are huge benefits from having the same gear as your buddy. You'd both know exactly how to operate each others gear and you wouldn't need 2 complete sets of spares and repair kits. Cam > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are there benefits to having two different make/modles of computers or > is it OK to stick with one that I (we) are am happy with.. Two divers with diff computers...OK...but the dive will always be controlled by the more conservative of the two computers..unless one of you can leave your buddy while the other ascends. Therefore...buddies should have the same computer. > > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Therefore...buddies should have the same computer. There you have it folks. Short, sweet, and to the point. I'm ready to go out and buy two computers right now. > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are there benefits to having two different make/modles of computers or > is it OK to stick with one that I (we) are am happy with.. It's not only OK to stick with one model, or at least one algorithm, it's highly advisable. Different algorithms give different results, sometimes, after several dives in the same day, very different. That can make planning the next dive a real pain in the rear. Lee > It's not only OK to stick with one model, or at least one algorithm, it's > highly advisable. Different algorithms give different results, sometimes, > after several dives in the same day, very different. That can make > planning the next dive a real pain in the rear. Planning? What's that? I prefer the opposite, using computers with two different algorithms. That way you have a back up in case one algorithm fails. >> It's not only OK to stick with one model, or at least one algorithm, it's >> highly advisable. Different algorithms give different results, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I prefer the opposite, using computers with two different algorithms. > That way you have a back up in case one algorithm fails. so when do you know an algorithm has failed...on your way to the chamber? >> It's not only OK to stick with one model, or at least one algorithm, it's >> highly advisable. Different algorithms give different results, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I prefer the opposite, using computers with two different algorithms. > That way you have a back up in case one algorithm fails. Don't confuse the boy with jokes. The planning problem can be a real bother, particularly when one computer's saying a longer surface interval is needed before you can do the next dive the way you want to while the other says, sure, go ahead. Match a Suunto with my old Monitor I, and I'd probably get at least one more dive in during the day. Lee > The planning problem can be a real bother, particularly when one > computer's saying a longer surface interval is needed before you can do > the next dive the way you want to while the other says, sure, go ahead. > > Match a Suunto with my old Monitor I, and I'd probably get at least one > more dive in during the day. Spoken as if it's the computer that decides if you're clean or not, instead of your body. Screw the computers. Curtis ""Magilla"" wrote >> The planning problem can be a real bother, particularly when one >> computer's saying a longer surface interval is needed before you can do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Spoken as if it's the computer that decides if you're clean or not, > instead of your body. > Screw the computers. Not at all. The computer is simply a tool. It's simply best for the tools used by buddies be the same. Seems to me that buddies with a common configuration, which is what I'm talking about, is one of the major principals of the DIR system. Am I wrong? You don't depend on your body to tell you if you're clean or not either. You depend on tools just like the rest of us. You use a depth gauge and bottom timer, just like we do. Your bottom timer is, in fact, a computer. It just doesn't give you as much information as ours do. Your tables were based on the bodies of goats and pigs, no those of humans. They were later modified based on computer controlled testing and on formulas that were developed from that testing, also on computers. They were produced by computer controlled manufacturing systems. Just because you don't carry those computers with you, doesn't mean you're not relying on computers to plan your dive. I'd bet a lot that, on one of your technical dives, you and your buddy use the same computer generated information to plan your dives. I suggested that people who take their computers on the dive with them, do the same. Am I wrong? Lee >> Spoken as if it's the computer that decides if you're clean or not, >> instead of your body. >> Screw the computers. > You don't depend on your body to tell you if you're clean or not either. Let me put it in simpler words. If you're bent, and your computer says you're clean, which one is right? Talking about being allowed more time with another commputer as if the computer is in control is just plain dumb. ***Choosing one that follows your intentions would make more sense.*** You, and others of your skills levels, know that and should know the difference. > You depend on tools just like the rest of us. Of course. > You use a depth gauge and bottom timer, just like we do. Not at all. I use the data to control my own dive, you're talking about letting your computer calculate your dive plan. > Your bottom timer is, in fact, a computer. It does not tell me when I'm out of NDL time, how much deco time I have, nor how long or where I must stop. It's only similiar type function is it does warn about too high an ascent rate. Yours tells you when to fart, when to pee and when to brush your teeth. I'm flying the plane, you're on cruise control taking directions over the radio. So yeah, AFAIC, screw the dive 'puter, it's in the same gear bag as the snorkel and six foot hose. (wow, one out of three) ;-) Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > Yours tells you when to fart, when to pee Integrated gas management and buoyancy control... Wow, you guys have much more advanced computers than we do... > and when to brush your teeth. Ok, now I get why they're not sold here. Cheers, Froggy € > and when to brush your teeth. € € Ok, now I get why they're not sold here. Because you don't brush your teeth?  Signature"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg. Some of us didn't come back. If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman > The planning problem can be a real bother, particularly when one > computer's saying a longer surface interval is needed before you can do > the next dive the way you want to while the other says, sure, go ahead. > > Match a Suunto with my old Monitor I, and I'd probably get at least one > more dive in during the day. Can your Monitor I handle nitrox? My Suunto on 36% will likely trump your Monitor I. Obviously you go with the more restrictive algorithm for dive planning purposes. Yours isn't an argument against two different types of computers, it's an argument against conservative computers in general. Greg writes: > Can your Monitor I handle nitrox? It handles 21% Nitrox. >My Suunto on 36% will likely trump your Monitor I. Hopefully, but having seen how quickly the Suunto diverged from the old USD M-1, I wouldn't be surprised if by 3-4 days into a trip, the M-1 is allowing better bottom times even if you were to be diving it on 32%...and maybe 36% too, if you have the Suunto's conservatism factors cranked up. And if we want to go even more liberal, let me see if my Edge is still amongst the living. -hh > Greg writes: >> Can your Monitor I handle nitrox? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And if we want to go even more liberal, let me see if my Edge is still > amongst the living. . . . and my Monitor I doesn't mind a PPO2 of 1.6. Try that with your Suunto in any conservative mode you prefer. Lee > > Greg writes: > >> Can your Monitor I handle nitrox? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Lee Both Suunto Stinger and Vyper accept a PPO2 limit of 1.6, so not a difference in this case. Stan >> . . . and my Monitor I doesn't mind a PPO2 of 1.6. Try that with your >> Suunto in any conservative mode you prefer. > > Both Suunto Stinger and Vyper accept a PPO2 limit of 1.6, so not a > difference in this case. They'll take a setting of 1.6, but they won't go to 1.6. They calculate MOD based on 1 percentage point higher O2 level than what is set. When set to a PPO2 of 1.6, they log a violation before they get there . . . and penalize you for all subsequent dives. Lee > >> . . . and my Monitor I doesn't mind a PPO2 of 1.6. Try that with your > >> Suunto in any conservative mode you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee Interesting...I'll have to investigate that one. Stan >> The planning problem can be a real bother, particularly when one >> computer's saying a longer surface interval is needed before you can do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Can your Monitor I handle nitrox? My Suunto on 36% will likely trump your > Monitor I. Sure it can. I know you've heard of EAD. > Obviously you go with the more restrictive algorithm for dive planning > purposes. Yours isn't an argument against two different types of > computers, it's an argument against conservative computers in general. Actually, it's an argument against both. You do not go with the more restrictive algorithm. Every manufacturer of every computer ever marketed clearly states that you do not dive two people on one computer. Lee > Every manufacturer of every computer ever marketed > clearly states that you do not dive two people on one > computer. Yeah, but they're in the business of selling dive computers... They have a vested interest in getting you to purchase multiple computers... Grace doesn't dive enough to really need a computer... We let my computer work for both of us... I'm always deeper and I stay down longer, so she'll always have less absorbed N2 than I will... If I've still got plenty of air, I'll bring her up to 20 ft for her safety stop and watch her as she ascends to the boat... Once she is out of the water, I go back down... >> Every manufacturer of every computer ever marketed >> clearly states that you do not dive two people on one >> computer. > Yeah, but they're in the business of selling dive computers... They have > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bring her up to 20 ft for her safety stop and watch her as she ascends to > the boat... Once she is out of the water, I go back down... Historically, I was usually deeper than Jayna too, but not always and, except for when she gets cold, our bottom times tend to be very similar. She's got low consumption too. These days, I dive with other people a lot more than I dive with her. None of these people make a significant effort to coordinate their profile with mine and visa versa. Lee > Historically, I was usually deeper than Jayna too, but not always and, > except for when she gets cold, our bottom times tend to be very similar. > She's got low consumption too. Grace doesn't dive enough to get really comfortable with it... She also has a problem with the concept of doing a dive where there's nothing to see just to work on her buoyancy control... As such, I figure that it's my job to basically watch over her... I ensure that I'm always the deepest so that her N2 levels will always be less than what is shown on my computer... I escort her to the safety stop and watch over her as she ascends to the surface... Once she's safely aboard, I can continue my dive... She gets cold easily and is not truly comfortable with diving, so her air consumption isn't that great... My air consumption might not be optimal either, but I cheat by carrying 2 tanks... > These days, I dive with other people a lot more than I dive with > her. None of these people make a significant effort to coordinate > their profile with mine and visa versa. As such, no one would be depending upon someone else's computer... All I'm saying is that in *some* situations, using one computer for two divers is an acceptable scenario... Lee Bell a écrit : > > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > after several dives in the same day, very different. That can make planning > the next dive a real pain in the rear. OTOH if two computers give vastly different results after a serie of similar dives, this probably means that there's a lot of uncertainty in the underlying model, and therefore would going with the most conservative profile make sense? Cheers, Froggy > Lee > OTOH if two computers give vastly different results after a serie of > similar dives, this probably means that there's a lot of uncertainty in > the underlying model, and therefore would going with the most > conservative profile make sense? Not necessarily. For example, such a divergence could be due to one buddy of the team consistently diving slightly deeper than the other. Similarly, (and alternatively), since a good number of dive computers have user-adjustable conservatism/altitude settings, it could be that the two computers are technically running the same model, but diverge due to different effective M-value limits or other similar criteria due to user-controllable settings. In any event, staying together as a buddy team and following the more conservative profile effectively will mean that the "shallower" buddy gets an additional safety margin. -hh > > OTOH if two computers give vastly different results after a serie of > > similar dives, this probably means that there's a lot of uncertainty in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > due to different effective M-value limits or other similar criteria due > to user-controllable settings. Agreed. But divergence due to the above factors is not relevant (in the context of Lee's response) as it might occur regardless of whether the computers are identical or not. Let's imagine the case of a diver using two computers, having done a serie of dives and planning his next one. If the results of the computers differ significantly, to me that would act as a warning that the diver is in some "grey area", in which case choosing the conservative view would make most sense. > In any event, staying together as a buddy team and following the more > conservative profile effectively will mean that the "shallower" buddy > gets an additional safety margin. Yes, but I cannot think of a way to (safely) avoid this, whatever the computers. Cheers, Froggy >> In any event, staying together as a buddy team and following the more >> conservative profile effectively will mean that the "shallower" buddy >> gets an additional safety margin. > Yes, but I cannot think of a way to (safely) avoid this, whatever the > computers. Some look at it the other way around. The shallower buddy, or the one using the more conservative dive computer, gets a shorter dive. Differences in profiles is a buddy team decision. When one dives significantly differently than the other, everybody knows that differences are being introduced. There are penalties for those differences. Somebody has to end the dive earlier or spend more surface interval time than his buddy. If that's not acceptable to both buddies, they should not be buddies in the first place. The issue of different computers includes similar issues, but goes beyond that. Differences in computers introduces non dive related differences in perceived risks and what you do about them. This first came up when Jayna first started diving. I was using a Monitor I computer at the time. I bought her an Oceanic. While one computer was more conservative than the other on every dive, it was not always the same computer being more conservative. One would allow a longer dive time on a single dive while the other allowed longer dive times on subsequent dives. By the end of an active day of diving, one or the other of us was always extending the surface interval until the other computer said it was ready to do the next dive. A few minutes is no problem, but, the more dives we did, the greater the difference became. I upgraded to computers with the same algorithm that hers used. As Greg, I think, pointed out, my problem is not just with two different computers. It's with overly conservative computers. This does not mean I don't support conservative profiles. I do. It does mean that I want to start with the "standard" baseline and add conservatism myself. I judge how conservative to be, not the computer. My computer, for example, has loading bars that include green, yellow and red portions. Red means deco, yellow means I'm getting close and green suggests that no abnormal measures are necessary. Whether I incur a deco obligation or not, I normally chose an ascent profile that puts me in the green zone before I leave my last stop. That, in my opinion, is plenty safe enough. A different computer, with the same loading bar zones, that is more conservative, does nothing but cut my dive shorter or extend my safety interval beyond what I believe to be safe enough. Since I bought a computer to gain bottom time, not to limit it, I do not prefer more conservative computers. Having said all of that, one of my computers is much more conservative than the others. I have a Nytek Duo for multigas diving. On a single gas, it's considerably more conservative than my Oceanic computers. On a multigas dive, however, it gives time back by crediting the effects of a higher PPO2 deco gas. I put up with it's conservatism in return for its ability to switch gas in mid dive. I only use this computer when one or more multi gas dives are planned. Lee > Differences in profiles is a buddy team decision. (rest of explaination post snipped) OK, time to leave one of my ocean buddies alone. Curtis OTOH if two computers give vastly different results after a serie of similar dives, this probably means that there's a lot of uncertainty in the underlying model, and therefore would going with the most conservative profile make sense? You know there's uncertainty and you also know that the most conservative profile is to stay out of the water. What you chose between dry and dead is personal choice. ajames54@hotmail.com a écrit : > I Recently bought a computer .. Oceanic Veo 180 and i like it.. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are there benefits to having two different make/modles of computers or > is it OK to stick with one that I (we) are am happy with. I can think of one drawback with having similar ones: confusion (inadvertently swapping them between dives, which computer's battery was changed when etc). Cheers, Froggy I can think of one drawback with having similar ones: confusion (inadvertently swapping them between dives, which computer's battery was changed when etc). You have a good point. It's not a risk in my case. While my wife and I both have Oceanic computers, hers is very different from mine. Our regulators are also very different. Since her computer and my primary computer are in consoles, it would be hard to confuse them. I probably would confuse my primary and secondary computer if they neither was in a console, but not easily. They have the same algorithm and are made by the same manufacturer, but they are not the same brand. Remembering when I last changed the batteries is easy. If I change one, I change them all. Lee > I can think of one drawback with having similar ones: confusion > (inadvertently swapping them between dives, which computer's battery [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > same manufacturer, but they are not the same brand. Remembering when I last > changed the batteries is easy. If I change one, I change them all. I just bought myself an Oceanic. The dive shop owner tells me it's the last one she had and that they aren't being made anymore. Also, that it's the best one. :^) > The shop owner tells me it's the last > one she had and that they aren't being made anymore. Also, that it's the > best one. :^) They've been telling that for years. What is is that you bought, BTW? ;-) Cheers, Froggy > > The shop owner tells me it's the last > > one she had and that they aren't being made anymore. Also, that it's the > > best one. :^) > > They've been telling that for years. :^) > What is is that you bought, BTW? Versa Pro > > > The shop owner tells me it's the last > > > one she had and that they aren't being made anymore. Also, that it's the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Versa Pro Any tips or things to watch out for? > > I can think of one drawback with having similar ones: confusion > > (inadvertently swapping them between dives, which computer's battery > > as changed when etc). > > You have a good point. It's not a risk in my case. While my wife and I > both have Oceanic computers, hers is very different from mine. I've seen divers gearing up for a repetitive dive get wrist mount computers mixed up. One that I still recall from seveal years ago (egads, 1992!) was where Diver#1 had accidentally picked up #2's computer on and was nearly off the boat, when #2 went to put on #1's and commented out loud (sic): "oh, bugger: there's a broken tab in my strap, right at the hole I want to use". The comment gave Diver#1 a momentary pause, whereupon he realized: "hey, my strap LOST its broken tab!"), and he aborted his water entry and they sorted things out. Granted, such errors are propogated by more than one diver having the identical make/model, but we should also recognize that wrist-mounts also generally have to be be repeatedly taken on & off, based on your thermal protection - - most are still chunky enough such that you're not going to be able to pull a wetsuit sleeve over them. As such, there's an increased number of statistical opportunities for some sort of error to occur. > Since her computer and my primary computer are in consoles, it would > be hard to confuse them. Which is yet another reason to not yet obsolete the console :-) FWIW, while I've seen full rigs break loose on diveboats, sometimes damaging stuff, I've also seen wristmount computers fall to the deck in very mild roll and go skittering across the deck at speed heading for the transom exit to make a solo dive without their owner attached. -hh |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.