View Single Post
Old 28th March 2008, 09:44   #42 (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: 1,437
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 AD_ward9) View Original Post
ISC should be applauded by all divers for having their units tested and publishing the results.

I am surprised at the negative tone of a few posts here.

Alex
hm... mixed feelings here again: the results are clearly published in a 'biased' way..

and for people that are familiar with testing, Alex, you know you can 'tweek' tests so that they perform better or worse

simple example: take any unit, give it a big exhale lung, (like you can do on a KISS) run the unit on nealy max lungvolume during the CE test for scrubber performance: you will get far worse results than doing inverse: small exhale, running minimum lung volume...

why do you think the sentinel does publish good scrubber results?? it has no exhale lung :-) (and mark that I wrote publish, not has :-)

(it is clear that in warm water, say > 15°, the scrubber performance is far more linked to the amount of sorb in the scubber, and the dwell time)

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