<html><head></head><body><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 July 2015 23:19:52 BST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Pedro Neves <nevesdiver@gmail.com> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> But do metric divers really prefer "21m/24m" to "20m/25m"?<br /></blockquote><br /> I sure do...<br /> .. but maybe that's just me...<br /></blockquote><br />The metric PADI tables do something odd, and go in two-meter<br />increments from 10m to 22m, and then they switch to 5m increments<br />(well, except for that least entry, which is at 42m).<br /><br />I'd guess that tech divers don't care too much about the PADI<br />recreational tables, but presumably a lot of divers learnt to dive<br />that way.<br /><br />Trying to find any metric dive plans with google and failing pretty<br />badly. But the V-Planner FAQ seems to have examples that seem
to be<br />more along the lines of a mixture of "round metric numbers, except at<br />the shallower end".<br /><br />So it looks like there's not much of a real rule. I guess 3m is as<br />good as anything.<br /><br /> Linus<br /><hr /><br />subsurface mailing list<br />subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org<br /><a href="http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface">http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br clear="all">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.<br>
-- <br>
David Tillotson</body></html>