Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers?

**Gill Envy** · 8th June 2007, 18:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

... I heartily agree that in CCR design simple is better and I wish manufacturers would put more effort into refining the basic systems and not so much into bells and whistles. But we live in a world where personal responsibility is decreasing and the manufacturers are responding in kind and trying to make CCR diving easier for the masses, something I think is fundamentally a mistake and a lethal one for those who trust the controller to "think" of everything for them....
-Andy

Andy, I think the real reason for the push for more bells in whistles is driven by two things.

1. it helps the, new to rebreathers, perspective client feel that a unit is more safe than another. In the case of the vision, who knows, the numbers of fatalities are very low vs other eCCR's (considering how many thousands of vision units are out there) and they may have actually achieved something there, but at the cost of reliability, or as you say: Nannyism.

2. If you look at the American Auto market, it does not take too long to realize that industry has encouraged a market shift in thinking, that bigger is better. Why would auto makers encourage the expansion of an unnecessary market beyond real need? Because the profit margine for such things is much higher. I'm pretty sure eCCR's are more profitable than mCCR's.

In eCCR design, meeting true needs seems to be trumped by perception of need by the consumer and profit motive by the manufacturer.

ISC, is the only manufacturer I know of that I see offering different tools to match the differing needs (at least in terms of eCCR and mCCR). And perhaps unintentionally offering a very robust Copis platform for those mCCR hard liners who want to add redundancy to it for more technical applications.

**Dave Sutton** · 8th June 2007, 19:00

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Hi Dave I am running 11bar on the KISS. Under normal work load it seems pretty good but there was a bit of work and some stress today. I haven't down loaded the print out yet but i am confident it will be embarrassing.

I try and run between 1.2 and 1.3 on these bigger dives and 1.3-1.4 on small ones. Today i hit 1.0 far too often. Nothing life threatening but I had to stop what I was doing immediately and deal with it a couple of times.

ATB

Mark Chase

What flow in LPM does that give you? And one thing to consider: Each diver ought to bias the flow according to his/her general diving profiles. Photogs ought to bias it low, hard-working wreck divers bias it high. If at rest you burn 0.7, if you're a photog you might set yourself to 0.6, and if you are a cold-water wrecker you might set it to 0.9. My own flow setting is higher than my basal resting 02 use, as I am NEVER resting. If I went to the tropics, I'd reduce it a bit.

A transient drop to 1.0 is no biggie, but it's the normal bottom of my personal "slide". I target 1.2 to 1.4, am quite happy at 1.1, make sure I normally add at 1.0, get a little (not a lot) anxious at 0.8 and if it slides thru overshoot to 1.5... so what? It just makes the next add cycle a little further away. Anything between these limits is just deco, not anything else.

PP02 between 0.8 and 1.4? Don't worry. Be happy.

Dave

silent running · 8th June 2007, 20:48

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

Andy, I think the real reason for the push for more bells in whistles is driven by two things.

1. it helps the, new to rebreathers, perspective client feel that a unit is more safe than another. .

No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

2. I'm pretty sure eCCR's are more profitable than mCCR's. In eCCR design, meeting true needs seems to be trumped by perception of need by the consumer and profit motive by the manufacturer.

I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy

silent running · 8th June 2007, 21:02

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Despite all the problems with my ECCR units I have to admit they are much easier to dive with greatly reduced task loading than the MCCR

Today I did a 65m dive for just under three hours run time. I laid the guide line and I had a camera with a large arm and strobe with me to take picks. We found the china room and collected china and then I bagged it up, cut the waster, collected my strobe and clip unclipped the station and dealt with a buddy who had a total unit flood and bailed to OC at 40m. Then I checked the gas sent up the yellow bag and kept a close eye on things and managed the drop tank when it arrived.

All this time I ran the unit manually and I can tell you it was hard work and the PP02 track will NOT look pretty. Had I been on the Inspo the PP02 track would have not altered a jot.

Hi Mark, this is the reason I'm glad I have an ECCR, most of my dives are stressful for some period and I know that I would not be any better at holding SP than you are and under stress, I'd never be as steady as my SP controller.

The other thing I think worth mentioning is that it seems clear to me that if you're going to dive MCCR, an inline sensor/computer to calc deco on the fly is manditory, especially for high task load diving. Which of course means a level of complexity that's not much less than an SP only ECCR and stand alone constant PO2 comp, and you still have more work to do than ECCR.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that on average MCCRs are safer and more reliable and maybe you wind up with only a little more deco for having your PO2 wander all over the place. But I'd still rather have less task loading and be able to get out of the water sooner...

**Gill Envy** · 8th June 2007, 21:13

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR.

very well said! I do have to say that for a prospective Rebreather diver looking into rebreathers, it is all too tempting to get sucked into the marketing. I don't know what it would take to get the prospective diver to really get that taking %100 responsibility is required either way, it's just that with eCCR there is an illusion of greater safety at least in the recreational realm. Also, though it's premature for me to say, it sounds like manual addition with CFO is just not nearly a gnarly as it sounded when I first started looking into the a year and a half ago.

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy

I hate to admit it, but the danger issue has only been a driver of this pursuit on a theoritical level. The thing that has really hit home and actually become foremost is the desire to not miss a whole trip's worth of dives. I can handle the idea of bailing or missing a dive here and there, it's just comes with the territory of using relying on complex systems, but missing entire trips is totally unnacceptible.

I will always have a thing for the vision electronics, having used them for a year, it's a pretty amazing kit, it just needs redundancy to avoid the main pitfals of an all in one system that my wife experienced. I actually think this is best fulfilled by a third party, aftermarket modification, I'd prefer it to a second vision handset. this way it's left up to the user to have choice about total isolation vs shared cells and all. Using a system from a different manufacturer to cross check seems to have it's advantages (less likely to have the same vulnerabilities, etx). Aside from making the OTU supressible, adding a fourth cell threading to the head and an extra port for the addition of back up electronics would be cover most of what I found to be the shortcomming of the EVO. Again, it's what we'd be doing if we were sticking with eCCR's.

I do believe the vision has enough redundancy to get you safely out of a dive where you experience a malfunction. In that way I applaud the design. however it does not have enough redundancy to continue diving on repeat dives safely if an unresolvable problem occurs in the all in one system... redundancy is key for recreational divers to enjoy this unit fully, that is my ultimate point.

**Dave Sutton** · 8th June 2007, 21:37

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that on average MCCRs are safer and more reliable and maybe you wind up with only a little more deco for having your PO2 wander all over the place.

Time for a reality check: PP02's do not "wander all over the place" on a mCCR, certainly not enough to add any deco. MANY THOUSANDS of mCCR dives have been done with non-integrated deco computers and/or cut tables. The normal deviations from "average desired PP02" (as there is no "setpoint") are *completely* irrelevent to deco obligations, and in fact average themselves out quite nicely over the time base of a dive. I'll be happy to show my VR-3 PP02 logs if I can ever figure out how to extract them from the damned thing.... maybe I'll just take some photos of the screen.

Guys: Simple = Good. Don't muck up an excellent and *simple* system by adding hugely complex electronics to the matrix. Stick to a pair of cells (3 max), isolate them into at least two independant packages, and go diving. All the rest is nonsense.

PP02 between 0.2 and 1.8? Be happy, your body is! (for a long while anyhow....)
PP02 between 0.8 and 1.6 with a deco calc based on 1.2? Be even happier!

It'll all average out in the end...........

Dave

***schford*** · 8th June 2007, 21:55

When it comes to cell count for me it is 3 minimum.

I don't view it from an Eccr view point of allowing some algorithm to work out which cell is bad by comparing readings etc. As If I have a cell go south I would check the mv on my Eccr than verify with a dil flush to be safe, no....

It is simply that the odds of 3 cells failing low are significantly less than 2 cells failing low.

As we all know if your cells fail low at the same time you can die - unfortunately it has happened.

One or Two displays *shrugs* I guess it is an individual thing - for me less kit = less failure points so I would go with one as if anything fails I am going to bail out on anything but the gnarliest of dives.

PS I agree with Dave on the averaging of PPO2

Mark Chase · 8th June 2007, 21:55

[quote]

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR.

A very good point. Running a MCCR gives you a real insight into how the thing actually works. Its a great way to learn CCR.

Quote:

I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy

Good points again but newbe CCR divers who haven't done the research will go for the one with the most toys.

I recently bought a digital camera. My friend Andyp told be not to get the IXUS 900 but to get the much cheeper 750. I couldn't work this out as the spec for the 900 was far better. However he explained about pixel lines on chip sensor surfaces and blurred over load and in the end I bowed to his vastly superior knowledge and got the 750.

This is it If a punter compared a KISS to a Vision he is going to opt for the Vision every time. IF he had done the research, he might have chosen the KISS, but on paper the Vision has it.

ATB

Mark Chase

**Gill Envy** · 8th June 2007, 22:35

Quote: (Originally Posted by schford)

One or Two displays *shrugs* I guess it is an individual thing - for me less kit = less failure points so I would go with one as if anything fails I am going to bail out on anything but the gnarliest of dives.

PS I agree with Dave on the averaging of PPO2

I certainly don't have a problem aborting a dive. that's not my big concern here. My issue is that if/when the one screen I have goes, i'm done for the whole trip. Safety is of course paramount, but it's apparent to me that one screen creates vulnerability when in remote places on long trips, maybe not so much in terms of safety but certainly in terms of reliability. As rare as this scenario may turn out to be in the larger community, ever experiencing a loss of an entire trip, let alone two in a row, is worth avoiding.

maybe i'm a little unique as a vacation rebreather diver, but it would suprise me if there weren't qutie a few people out there routinely going away for 10 days at a time, at least once or twice a year to east jesus. Why leave it up to luck?

**Dave Sutton** · 8th June 2007, 22:53

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

Safety is of course paramount, but it's apparent to me that one screen creates vulnerability when in remote places on long trips, ?

Yup.

Hate to keep harping on the rEvo, but, since I have one:

Loss of one handset and HUD? Continue the trip and fix it when you get home.

Dave

8th June 2007, 18:46	#51 (permalink)
Gill Envy Shearwater Copis Diver Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Evolution Other CCR Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: seattle Posts: 1,302	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) ... I heartily agree that in CCR design simple is better and I wish manufacturers would put more effort into refining the basic systems and not so much into bells and whistles. But we live in a world where personal responsibility is decreasing and the manufacturers are responding in kind and trying to make CCR diving easier for the masses, something I think is fundamentally a mistake and a lethal one for those who trust the controller to "think" of everything for them.... -Andy Andy, I think the real reason for the push for more bells in whistles is driven by two things. 1. it helps the, new to rebreathers, perspective client feel that a unit is more safe than another. In the case of the vision, who knows, the numbers of fatalities are very low vs other eCCR's (considering how many thousands of vision units are out there) and they may have actually achieved something there, but at the cost of reliability, or as you say: Nannyism. 2. If you look at the American Auto market, it does not take too long to realize that industry has encouraged a market shift in thinking, that bigger is better. Why would auto makers encourage the expansion of an unnecessary market beyond real need? Because the profit margine for such things is much higher. I'm pretty sure eCCR's are more profitable than mCCR's. In eCCR design, meeting true needs seems to be trumped by perception of need by the consumer and profit motive by the manufacturer. ISC, is the only manufacturer I know of that I see offering different tools to match the differing needs (at least in terms of eCCR and mCCR). And perhaps unintentionally offering a very robust Copis platform for those mCCR hard liners who want to add redundancy to it for more technical applications. __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 19:00	#52 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Living on Animal Farm Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss MK 15.X rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Narragansett, Rhode Island and Hackettstown, New Jersey Posts: 2,613	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future? Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Hi Dave I am running 11bar on the KISS. Under normal work load it seems pretty good but there was a bit of work and some stress today. I haven't down loaded the print out yet but i am confident it will be embarrassing. I try and run between 1.2 and 1.3 on these bigger dives and 1.3-1.4 on small ones. Today i hit 1.0 far too often. Nothing life threatening but I had to stop what I was doing immediately and deal with it a couple of times. ATB Mark Chase What flow in LPM does that give you? And one thing to consider: Each diver ought to bias the flow according to his/her general diving profiles. Photogs ought to bias it low, hard-working wreck divers bias it high. If at rest you burn 0.7, if you're a photog you might set yourself to 0.6, and if you are a cold-water wrecker you might set it to 0.9. My own flow setting is higher than my basal resting 02 use, as I am NEVER resting. If I went to the tropics, I'd reduce it a bit. A transient drop to 1.0 is no biggie, but it's the normal bottom of my personal "slide". I target 1.2 to 1.4, am quite happy at 1.1, make sure I normally add at 1.0, get a little (not a lot) anxious at 0.8 and if it slides thru overshoot to 1.5... so what? It just makes the next add cycle a little further away. Anything between these limits is just deco, not anything else. PP02 between 0.8 and 1.4? Don't worry. Be happy. Dave __________________ . "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" Professional Small Boy: Never Successfully Cubicled.
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 20:48	#53 (permalink)
silent running Mature mouth breather Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: U.S.A. Brooklyn, New York Posts: 1,810	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) Andy, I think the real reason for the push for more bells in whistles is driven by two things. 1. it helps the, new to rebreathers, perspective client feel that a unit is more safe than another. . No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR. Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) 2. I'm pretty sure eCCR's are more profitable than mCCR's. In eCCR design, meeting true needs seems to be trumped by perception of need by the consumer and profit motive by the manufacturer. I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy
(Online)

8th June 2007, 21:02	#54 (permalink)
silent running Mature mouth breather Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: U.S.A. Brooklyn, New York Posts: 1,810	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future? Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Despite all the problems with my ECCR units I have to admit they are much easier to dive with greatly reduced task loading than the MCCR Today I did a 65m dive for just under three hours run time. I laid the guide line and I had a camera with a large arm and strobe with me to take picks. We found the china room and collected china and then I bagged it up, cut the waster, collected my strobe and clip unclipped the station and dealt with a buddy who had a total unit flood and bailed to OC at 40m. Then I checked the gas sent up the yellow bag and kept a close eye on things and managed the drop tank when it arrived. All this time I ran the unit manually and I can tell you it was hard work and the PP02 track will NOT look pretty. Had I been on the Inspo the PP02 track would have not altered a jot. Hi Mark, this is the reason I'm glad I have an ECCR, most of my dives are stressful for some period and I know that I would not be any better at holding SP than you are and under stress, I'd never be as steady as my SP controller. The other thing I think worth mentioning is that it seems clear to me that if you're going to dive MCCR, an inline sensor/computer to calc deco on the fly is manditory, especially for high task load diving. Which of course means a level of complexity that's not much less than an SP only ECCR and stand alone constant PO2 comp, and you still have more work to do than ECCR. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that on average MCCRs are safer and more reliable and maybe you wind up with only a little more deco for having your PO2 wander all over the place. But I'd still rather have less task loading and be able to get out of the water sooner...
(Online)

8th June 2007, 21:13	#55 (permalink)
Gill Envy Shearwater Copis Diver Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Evolution Other CCR Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: seattle Posts: 1,302	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR. very well said! I do have to say that for a prospective Rebreather diver looking into rebreathers, it is all too tempting to get sucked into the marketing. I don't know what it would take to get the prospective diver to really get that taking %100 responsibility is required either way, it's just that with eCCR there is an illusion of greater safety at least in the recreational realm. Also, though it's premature for me to say, it sounds like manual addition with CFO is just not nearly a gnarly as it sounded when I first started looking into the a year and a half ago. Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy I hate to admit it, but the danger issue has only been a driver of this pursuit on a theoritical level. The thing that has really hit home and actually become foremost is the desire to not miss a whole trip's worth of dives. I can handle the idea of bailing or missing a dive here and there, it's just comes with the territory of using relying on complex systems, but missing entire trips is totally unnacceptible. I will always have a thing for the vision electronics, having used them for a year, it's a pretty amazing kit, it just needs redundancy to avoid the main pitfals of an all in one system that my wife experienced. I actually think this is best fulfilled by a third party, aftermarket modification, I'd prefer it to a second vision handset. this way it's left up to the user to have choice about total isolation vs shared cells and all. Using a system from a different manufacturer to cross check seems to have it's advantages (less likely to have the same vulnerabilities, etx). Aside from making the OTU supressible, adding a fourth cell threading to the head and an extra port for the addition of back up electronics would be cover most of what I found to be the shortcomming of the EVO. Again, it's what we'd be doing if we were sticking with eCCR's. I do believe the vision has enough redundancy to get you safely out of a dive where you experience a malfunction. In that way I applaud the design. however it does not have enough redundancy to continue diving on repeat dives safely if an unresolvable problem occurs in the all in one system... redundancy is key for recreational divers to enjoy this unit fully, that is my ultimate point. __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°> Last edited by Gill Envy : 8th June 2007 at 22:26.
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 21:37	#56 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Living on Animal Farm Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss MK 15.X rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Narragansett, Rhode Island and Hackettstown, New Jersey Posts: 2,613	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future? Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that on average MCCRs are safer and more reliable and maybe you wind up with only a little more deco for having your PO2 wander all over the place. Time for a reality check: PP02's do not "wander all over the place" on a mCCR, certainly not enough to add any deco. MANY THOUSANDS of mCCR dives have been done with non-integrated deco computers and/or cut tables. The normal deviations from "average desired PP02" (as there is no "setpoint") are completely irrelevent to deco obligations, and in fact average themselves out quite nicely over the time base of a dive. I'll be happy to show my VR-3 PP02 logs if I can ever figure out how to extract them from the damned thing.... maybe I'll just take some photos of the screen. Guys: Simple = Good. Don't muck up an excellent and simple system by adding hugely complex electronics to the matrix. Stick to a pair of cells (3 max), isolate them into at least two independant packages, and go diving. All the rest is nonsense. PP02 between 0.2 and 1.8? Be happy, your body is! (for a long while anyhow....) PP02 between 0.8 and 1.6 with a deco calc based on 1.2? Be even happier! It'll all average out in the end........... Dave __________________ . "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" Professional Small Boy: Never Successfully Cubicled. Last edited by Dave Sutton : 8th June 2007 at 21:41.
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 21:55	#57 (permalink)
*schford* Despotic Overlord Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,671	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? When it comes to cell count for me it is 3 minimum. I don't view it from an Eccr view point of allowing some algorithm to work out which cell is bad by comparing readings etc. As If I have a cell go south I would check the mv on my Eccr than verify with a dil flush to be safe, no.... It is simply that the odds of 3 cells failing low are significantly less than 2 cells failing low. As we all know if your cells fail low at the same time you can die - unfortunately it has happened. One or Two displays shrugs I guess it is an individual thing - for me less kit = less failure points so I would go with one as if anything fails I am going to bail out on anything but the gnarliest of dives. PS I agree with Dave on the averaging of PPO2 __________________ Bailout and Kit Management account for Murphy's Law The only bad question is one you did not ask and later wish you had. Use of Rebreather World is subject to the Rebreather World Terms & Conditions of Use
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 21:55	#58 (permalink)
Mark Chase I go down for ages Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,539	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? [quote] Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) No offense intended to the new folks, but IMHO promoting an integrated ECCR as being more safe than one that is not, is really a bad idea, especially for an entry level diver. I know it's a bit intimidating to some prospective divers that you're taking your life in your hands every time you dive CCR, but if you can't handle the idea that you're responsible for verifying your unit is working properly before the dive and responsible for frequent PO2 checks during the dive, you shouldn't be diving CCR. A very good point. Running a MCCR gives you a real insight into how the thing actually works. Its a great way to learn CCR. Quote: I don't doubt this at all and actually, I think that to a degree, some bells and whistles are added to help justify the high price of integrated ECCRs. Not so bad if we're talking about adding a distance sensor to the rear bumper of a big pick-up truck. If it works, great, if it breaks, you can still back the thing up the hard way. But if we're talking about features on an ECCR that simultaneously promise more safety yet are unreliable and even limit/nanny your behavior, we have a potentially very dangerous situation, more so if the diver is a beginner. -Andy Good points again but newbe CCR divers who haven't done the research will go for the one with the most toys. I recently bought a digital camera. My friend Andyp told be not to get the IXUS 900 but to get the much cheeper 750. I couldn't work this out as the spec for the 900 was far better. However he explained about pixel lines on chip sensor surfaces and blurred over load and in the end I bowed to his vastly superior knowledge and got the 750. This is it If a punter compared a KISS to a Vision he is going to opt for the Vision every time. IF he had done the research, he might have chosen the KISS, but on paper the Vision has it. ATB Mark Chase __________________ Is it supposed to make that noise ? I took my unit to the dive shop and demanded they bolt on every thing that would fit. Join my elite diving teem and get a Tshirt "Doing It Chasey"Hammerhead Eccr Advanced Diving System
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 22:35	#59 (permalink)
Gill Envy Shearwater Copis Diver Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Evolution Other CCR Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: seattle Posts: 1,302	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? Quote: (Originally Posted by schford) One or Two displays shrugs I guess it is an individual thing - for me less kit = less failure points so I would go with one as if anything fails I am going to bail out on anything but the gnarliest of dives. PS I agree with Dave on the averaging of PPO2 I certainly don't have a problem aborting a dive. that's not my big concern here. My issue is that if/when the one screen I have goes, i'm done for the whole trip. Safety is of course paramount, but it's apparent to me that one screen creates vulnerability when in remote places on long trips, maybe not so much in terms of safety but certainly in terms of reliability. As rare as this scenario may turn out to be in the larger community, ever experiencing a loss of an entire trip, let alone two in a row, is worth avoiding. maybe i'm a little unique as a vacation rebreather diver, but it would suprise me if there weren't qutie a few people out there routinely going away for 10 days at a time, at least once or twice a year to east jesus. Why leave it up to luck? __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>
(Offline)

8th June 2007, 22:53	#60 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Living on Animal Farm Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss MK 15.X rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Narragansett, Rhode Island and Hackettstown, New Jersey Posts: 2,613	Re: Maybe eCCR's really aren't the wave of the future for recreational divers? Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) Safety is of course paramount, but it's apparent to me that one screen creates vulnerability when in remote places on long trips, ? Yup. Hate to keep harping on the rEvo, but, since I have one: Loss of one handset and HUD? Continue the trip and fix it when you get home. Dave __________________ . "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" Professional Small Boy: Never Successfully Cubicled.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode