Quote: (Originally Posted by iain-hsm)
Mike. Now I don’t give a jot for the conspiracy but it happened months ago.
However the use of membranes in rebreathers is a very interesting area and being offered as an option with the Boris deserves a better response.
A clear transparent peer reviewed discussion from the original request for information in this post and the subsequent claims have left omissions.
I for one would now like to know if this new latest membrane offered on the Boris web site is Quote:
(Closed Circuit Research has now perfected a 'plastic style' hydrophobic membrane system. The membrane can be retro-fitted to the existing canister and is positioned by replacing the outer mesh ring. The positioning stops the migration of absorbent dust and moisture on long dives, into the inhale counterlung. Should a temporary flood occur in the inhale circuit, then water is prevented from accessing the absorbent. The membrane can simply be flushed with fresh water and dried.) End Quote
Is it as claimed in this post the same as the USN Mark 16 yes or no?
Was it as claimed in the post: Tested with the original EN CE submission and was the membrane tested found to have the same WOB as has been claimed?
This is an ideal opportunity to discuss membranes. use it of loose it.
Whats the issue here? MK15.6/16/27 have been using Porex for decades. It works - nothing new. To my eyes at least it looked and felt just like porex.
what is there to discuss?
In the case of Boris the membrane is there more to stop dust than to keep water out.
if kevin says its wob is still within CE levels why dont you believe him?
if you want to know the details of its WOB testing and if it was CE'd why ask users? - ask Kevin.