Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!repete
From: repete@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.rec.scuba
Subject: Re: Null Statements (keywords: Casio Wat
Message-ID: <21200002@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 18:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.21200002
Posted: Wed Jul 31 18:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 20:37:04 EDT
References: <247@uwvax.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:uwvax:-24700:inmet:21200002:000:1200
Nf-From: inmet!repete    Jul 31 18:58:00 1985


[]
I agree with the basic sentiment that talking about water resistance at
50 meters and then saying that the watch is not even appropriate for
snorkeling seems a little odd. On the other hand, when I wanted to buy
an inexpensive diving watch 2 years ago (I *LOST* my 10-year-old USD Doxa
that always kept perfect analogue time :-( ), it seemed to me that something
rated at 50 meters wouldn't provide an adequate safety margin for
scuba; a factor of 2 (max 25 meters) is about the best that I would want
to count on. Therefore, I bought the Casio TS-1000, rated at 100M.
I've had it down to 50 meters with no problem other than narcosis (me,
not the watch). I guess I'm slightly surprised that Casio doesn't rate
it for scuba, but then again some people dive below 50 meters frequently,
which might well cause problems. Sport divers who frequently exceed the
halfway point for the 200 meter watches more often file obituaries than
complaints to Casio, so I guess Casio feels confident about that one.

       ihnp4				Rich Peterson
             \				Intermetrics, Incorporated
       harpo  --- !inmet!repete		733 Concord Avenue
             /				Cambridge, MA  02138
         ima				(617) 661-1840