Thread: ISC posts test data
View Single Post
Old 27th March 2008, 16:21   #11 (permalink)
paulraymaekers
rEvo's daddy
 
paulraymaekers's Avatar

Current Rebreather/s:
rEvo
Other CCR
Home Build

Other Rebreather/s:
rEvo
Other CCR
Home Build
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 1,423
paulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud ofpaulraymaekers has much to be proud of
Re: ISC posts test date
Quote: (Originally Posted by gtzavelas) View Original Post
Its also important to note that the standars were a bit diferant than other testing. (75 RMV, 25bpm) so comparissions are not easy to make.
Question: doesnt EN specify RMV and BMM? Why each manufacturer is testing at diferant specs???
the worst CE test is exactly that: 75 RVM, tidal 3l, so 25 bpm

clear that in the wob test they all fail!! :-)

not only the WOB must be below 2.75 j/liter, but also the inhale pressure and exhale pressure must be less then 25 mbar (and they all exceed that value)

and what we surele miss it the CO2 test of the MEG scrubbers according to CE specs!

paul
__________________
www.rEvo-rebreathers.com

.... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)
  		Reply With Quote