SCUBA-Air Integrated Computer choice---Which one of these three?

"Popeye" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109783084.087811.224420@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Greg Mossman wrote:
>
>> The most expensive isn't necessarily the worst.
>
> Nor is it the most practical.

Of course not. Ferraris are incredibly impractical cars, but they sure are
fun to drive. I believe AI computers are more fun to dive than analog
gauges and I'm in it for the fun.

> I've seen a lot more batteries fail than HP hoses, plus, a hose
> failure doesn't preclude the funtion of the guage while you egress.

Battery failure is simply a maintenance failure. There's no excuse. All my
AI computers give readouts of remaining battery life and I haven't had one
lie to me yet. When I change the battery, it also changes the battery for
my dive computer, depth gauge, and bottom timer, so it's an all-in-one
battery change. Very convenient and I get more for my battery expense so
it's economical as well.

> So it's more convenient to lose all that information at once, as
> opposed to part of it?

Irrelevant. If I've already lost depth and time and NDC computations, I'm
heading up. Since I had enough gas to get me to the point where my computer
fried, I certainly have enough gas to ascend. Knowing my tank pressure at
that point is superfluous.

Greg Mossman wrote:

> Abacuses and slide rules were proven over many years to be very reliable,
> but the modern electronic calculator has completely replaced them.

Not with me. I still use a 11" slide rule. It has never turned blue yet.
Actually I am contemplating designing a mechanical divetime/depth
interface equivalent to a mixture between a dive computer and a runtime
table.

Matthias

Greg Mossman wrote:

> "Popeye" <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1109783084.087811.224420@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Greg Mossman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The most expensive isn't necessarily the worst.
>>
>> Nor is it the most practical.
>
>
> Of course not. Ferraris are incredibly impractical cars, but they sure are
> fun to drive. I believe AI computers are more fun to dive than analog
> gauges and I'm in it for the fun.

Yep. You can sit at 200 ft and make bets wether it will send you up
because of NDC-limit or air autonomy first.

> Battery failure is simply a maintenance failure. There's no excuse. All my
> AI computers give readouts of remaining battery life and I haven't had one
> lie to me yet.


Lucky one. Did they ever show you the difference between a safe reading
like 65% at the surface, and shutting down below the thermocline?
While the manual says you can have it down to zero, and still finish 2-5
dives?

Matthias

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > Having electronically delivered tank pressure gauges more problems
> > than it eliminates -- and they are more likely to actually occure.
> >
> > HP hoses and analog pressure gauges have been prooven over many
years
> > to be *VERY* reliable...
>
> Abacuses and slide rules were proven over many years to be very
reliable,
> but the modern electronic calculator has completely replaced them...

They're merely different tools to do similar jobs.


> Also, I've never had reliability issues with my AI computers.

For most people, the same can be said about their hose reliability too.


But what this doesn't resolve is that if there are any differences in
their failure modes that makes the one a better choice over the other:
of two otherwise equally reliable systems, a difference in how it fails
may result in a logical objective criteria for why one may be preferred
over the other.

Indeed, this factor may even be significant enough to overrule
reliability differences such that the less reliable could become the
preferred choice!



> Analog gauges can't compensate for bad dive planning.

And neither can fancy electronics.


FWIW, my short answer to the OP is "none of the above". Generally
speaking, many rec divers use dive computers because it allows a way to
increase bottom time through easy multi-level diving. As such, this
can boil down to a "bang for the buck" pragmatic approach, where if a
$200 non-AI dive computer allows a +X% gain in bottom time, an AI dive
computer that costs twice as much would have to deliver twice as much
of a gain in bottom time to proverbially "break even".


-hh

In article <42260bea$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com>,
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> writes:

> ... AI computers are much more compact and convenient than
>analog. No hose that has to be clipped off ... Streamlined.

If you are unable to route the HP hose from your tank to your SPG,
you have some learning to do.

This is simply NOT an issue -- other than working your way up a
learning curve that is a lot shorter and less steep that then learning
curve for an electronic SPG or air-itegrated computer.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Matthias Voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:d055t6$rho$01$1@news.t-online.com...

> Lucky one. Did they ever show you the difference between a safe reading
> like 65% at the surface, and shutting down below the thermocline?
> While the manual says you can have it down to zero, and still finish 2-5
> dives?

I've had computers crap out completely and that's caused me to abort dives,
but that doesn't have anything to do with AI vs. non-AI computers.

Greg Mossman wrote:

>>Not with me. I still use a 11" slide rule. It has never turned blue yet.
>>Actually I am contemplating designing a mechanical divetime/depth
>>interface equivalent to a mixture between a dive computer and a runtime
>>table.
>
>
> I should know better and avoid absolute statements like that. There's
> always one in every bunch. A few of my neighbors still ride horses. Talk
> about obsolete.

How long does it take to power up the horses?
Matthias

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Matthias Voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:d055t6$rho$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> > Lucky one. Did they ever show you the difference between a safe
reading
> > like 65% at the surface, and shutting down below the thermocline?
> > While the manual says you can have it down to zero, and still
finish 2-5
> > dives?
>
> I've had computers crap out completely and that's caused me to abort
dives,
> but that doesn't have anything to do with AI vs. non-AI computers.

Not me.

I've still got my SPG.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:oHpVd.867$ZI4.703@news.cpqcorp.net...

> If you are unable to route the HP hose from your tank to your SPG,
> you have some learning to do.

Not me. I don't have an HP hose.

"Charlie Hammond" <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:ApkVd.843$8x4.584@news.cpqcorp.net...
> In article <Eq9Vd.626$OS5.2859@news.uswest.net>,
> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Or a Suunto Vyper, if you must.
>
> How does the NDL time on a Vyper with the RBGM model compare to NDL from
> computers that use a Haldane-type model?
>

There was a good review of this on www.scubadiving.com with NDL times for the various
computers, and I recall the RBGM Suunto model was the more conservative.

Adam