Rebreather World - View Single Post

gtzavelas · 8th June 2007, 16:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by sotongking)

Hi All,

I'm planning to take up rebreather but I have mixed comments on these two and I don't know will I get flamed for this?
Of the two (Megalodon & Inspiration Vision), which one is most recommended in terms of life span, maintenance and user-friendliness?

Thanks!

As I was in the same position a few months ago allow me to add some more points:

1. I found that one important differentiation of the two units is the important (at least for me) item of what happens if the controller “fails”
A. In the case of the vision (that has 2 set poni controllers) if the primary fails then it will pass control over to the secondary (read tinos article http://www.rebreatherworld.com/inspiration-evolution-rebreather-articles/10514-closer-look-vision.html it explains how it works very well)#
B. In the case of the Meg in case of failure of the primary then you have to take control and fly the unit manually
Personally I prefer B to A as:
The “failover” code is quite complex and a failure point (read the relevant posts in RBW)
When electronics are involved Simplicity is best
From my industrial automation experience I have realised that the “failover” code/mechanism/checks are more complex than the actual control functions...
(I hope Apecs 3 retain this feature...)

2. modularity (choice of scrubber canisters, tank sizes, etc)
I believe this has already been covered extensively in RBW

good luck with your choise

8th June 2007, 16:42	#33 (permalink)
gtzavelas RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon RB80 / Clone Other Rebreather/s: RB80 / Clone Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens,Greece Posts: 284	Re: Recommendation On Rebreather Quote: (Originally Posted by sotongking) Hi All, I'm planning to take up rebreather but I have mixed comments on these two and I don't know will I get flamed for this? Of the two (Megalodon & Inspiration Vision), which one is most recommended in terms of life span, maintenance and user-friendliness? Thanks! As I was in the same position a few months ago allow me to add some more points: 1. I found that one important differentiation of the two units is the important (at least for me) item of what happens if the controller “fails” A. In the case of the vision (that has 2 set poni controllers) if the primary fails then it will pass control over to the secondary (read tinos article http://www.rebreatherworld.com/inspiration-evolution-rebreather-articles/10514-closer-look-vision.html it explains how it works very well)# B. In the case of the Meg in case of failure of the primary then you have to take control and fly the unit manually Personally I prefer B to A as: The “failover” code is quite complex and a failure point (read the relevant posts in RBW) When electronics are involved Simplicity is best From my industrial automation experience I have realised that the “failover” code/mechanism/checks are more complex than the actual control functions... (I hope Apecs 3 retain this feature...) 2. modularity (choice of scrubber canisters, tank sizes, etc) I believe this has already been covered extensively in RBW good luck with your choise
(Offline)