On 5 July 2015 23:19:52 BST, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Pedro Neves <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>> But do metric divers really prefer "21m/24m" to "20m/25m"?
>>
>> I sure do...
>> .. but maybe that's just me...
>
>The metric PADI tables do something odd, and go in two-meter
>increments from 10m to 22m, and then they switch to 5m increments
>(well, except for that least entry, which is at 42m).
>
>I'd guess that tech divers don't care too much about the PADI
>recreational tables, but presumably a lot of divers learnt to dive
>that way.
>
>Trying to find any metric dive plans with google and failing pretty
>badly. But the V-Planner FAQ seems to have examples that seem to be
>more along the lines of a mixture of "round metric numbers, except at
>the shallower end".
>
>So it looks like there's not much of a real rule. I guess 3m is as
>good as anything.
>
> Linus
>_______________________________________________
>subsurface mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
The BSAC 88 tables work in 3m increments, as do the tables that ScotSAC use
IIRC. I guess most are a result of the original USN work.
--
David Tillotson
_______________________________________________
subsurface mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
