mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world?

Scuba_Vixen · 10th July 2006, 01:38

Quote: (Originally Posted by uri)

Technically not problematic but not conceptually pure. So what you might say, if there's a place for it?

I view Rebreather divers as falling into two distinct camps. Those who want full control and to rely on themselves and those who ideally don't want to know unless there's a problem. Usually compromises are made on the latter and some degree of active monitoring required but the Diver doesn't want to but accepts some degree of monitoring as safe due to technical limitations of Rebreather equipment.

Those IMHO represent the two 'pure' camps.

What you're suggesting crosses the boundary between the camps. It doesn't work for eCCR divers because they accept regular monitoring but don't want manual control except under unusual conditions. Does it work for mCCR divers? My guess is that it takes away the very basis for their happiness with their choice ie they are in control.

I wonder what percentage of the KISS style market would seriously consider an approach based on losing that?

U.

From what I read here on the forum, there are a lot of eCCR divers who often fly their units in manual mode, leaving the electronics to ride watchdog should they become distracted or temporarily overly task loaded.

While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many. I'm equally sure there are CK or other mCCR divers who'd be happy to have some level of electronic PO2 control, if it didn't nearly doube the initial cost of the unit.

I think the planned introduction (as in regular production) of the COPIS Meg is based on the concept that there is a lot more overlap, than seperation between e and m CCR divers. I think the relative cost of each is a much greater factor than mindset.

As a homebuilder who's project started as a KISS style mCCR, I found that it would be quite helpfull to have electronic PO2 control when I run short of hands, managing a scooter, camera, shot line, etc. To that end, I've now nearly completed the electronic controlled O2 addition system, while retaining the fully functioning KISS manual system.

For my unit, the best implementation was to add a second first stage for the solenoid controlled O2 injection circuit. It lets me run m or e CCR or both, by turning on the valve(s) for the respective 1st stage(s).

As far as there being more possible things to go wrong, the same can be said for a twinset over a single tank, but much the same way, there are more plusses than minuses that still make it a practicle way to go.

Once it's all up and running, I'll do a full write up, pros and cons.

Darlene

decoweenie · 10th July 2006, 09:21

Quote: (Originally Posted by Scuba_Vixen)

...While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many...

I disagree with your percentages here.

Of all of the eCCR divers I know/met in person, all of them are using the controller to maintain SP.

The only eCCR divers whom I heard are diving their units in manual mode and keeping the controller as parachute are from the Internet forums.

I am not saying which method should be preferrable, just simply not agreeing with your break-down percentages. Representation of a few people on RBW is a very small percentages in the global eCCR market.

Yes, I dive my eCCR using the controller and my KISS on manual mode.

If I am paranoid about the controller, I will stop using it. And I have a few hundred hours on manual mode with the KISS so don't need to learn how...

As far as what you want to combine mCCR and eCCR, it was the reason why KISS-HH and KISS-Shearwater projects were started as far back as 4 years ago.

Based on past experience, depending on which method the controller is adding O2, it is not a straight forward algorithm as pure eCCR since the loop O2 is also being added via the orifice.

Marc T · 10th July 2006, 10:45

[quote=decoweenie

As far as what you want to combine mCCR and eCCR, it was the reason why KISS-HH and KISS-Shearwater projects were started as far back as 4 years ago.

Based on past experience, depending on which method the controller is adding O2, it is not a straight forward algorithm as pure eCCR since the loop O2 is also being added via the orifice.[/quote]

Using a voting logic as a parachute is certainly overkill, too complex and expensive so probably not a good commercial and perhaps nor technical way.
A simplest system wich look like HH parachute for kiss could be great if very simple to add to the system.
I was thinking about something like uri's hud or rEVO dream, witch could be used with several Rebreather

.

On the other hand, including a parachute into a kiss like Rebreather could perhaps be a way for CE approval.

Any thought?

paulraymaekers · 10th July 2006, 12:39

Quote: (Originally Posted by Marc T)

On the other hand, including a parachute into a kiss like Rebreather could perhaps be a way for CE approval.

no :-(

the CE asks min and max PPO2, with testing as low as .3 or .4 l/min CO2 production!

and,

there are issues about maintaining a certain setpoint withing certain margins..

regards
paul

uri · 10th July 2006, 13:13

Quote: (Originally Posted by Scuba_Vixen)

From what I read here on the forum, there are a lot of eCCR divers who often fly their units in manual mode, leaving the electronics to ride watchdog should they become distracted or temporarily overly task loaded.

While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many. I'm equally sure there are CK or other mCCR divers who'd be happy to have some level of electronic PO2 control, if it didn't nearly doube the initial cost of the unit.

I think the planned introduction (as in regular production) of the COPIS Meg is based on the concept that there is a lot more overlap, than seperation between e and m CCR divers. I think the relative cost of each is a much greater factor than mindset.

As a homebuilder who's project started as a KISS style mCCR, I found that it would be quite helpfull to have electronic PO2 control when I run short of hands, managing a scooter, camera, shot line, etc. To that end, I've now nearly completed the electronic controlled O2 addition system, while retaining the fully functioning KISS manual system.

For my unit, the best implementation was to add a second first stage for the solenoid controlled O2 injection circuit. It lets me run m or e CCR or both, by turning on the valve(s) for the respective 1st stage(s).

As far as there being more possible things to go wrong, the same can be said for a twinset over a single tank, but much the same way, there are more plusses than minuses that still make it a practicle way to go.

Once it's all up and running, I'll do a full write up, pros and cons.

Darlene

I too have heard about people running eCCR's on low setpoint as parachute and manually maintaining high S.P. I've also never met one.

If it was 'safe', why wouldn't any eCCR diver want the unit to do everything for them? ie get on with it and tell them reliably if there's a problem.

I fully accept your point that cost is a major contribution to decisions made in this area but I think cost is a red herring in that if one needed a car and couldn't afford one with 4 wheels and found a legal one with 3, nice and cheap, one would use it without worrying too much about ones best suited vehicle.

If low cost is a high priority, Kiss style will be purchased/made. If one doesn't want full control and still wants relatively cheap then some may buy/make Kiss with parachute. A small(/nonexistent?) premium on that and one can purchase an eCCR.

Is that an attractive market space?

rgds

U.

10th July 2006, 01:38	#11 (permalink)
Scuba_Vixen e/mCCR Dolphin Pilot Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Home Build Join Date: May 2005 Location: St. Croix USVI Posts: 557	Re: mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world? Quote: (Originally Posted by uri) Technically not problematic but not conceptually pure. So what you might say, if there's a place for it? I view Rebreather divers as falling into two distinct camps. Those who want full control and to rely on themselves and those who ideally don't want to know unless there's a problem. Usually compromises are made on the latter and some degree of active monitoring required but the Diver doesn't want to but accepts some degree of monitoring as safe due to technical limitations of Rebreather equipment. Those IMHO represent the two 'pure' camps. What you're suggesting crosses the boundary between the camps. It doesn't work for eCCR divers because they accept regular monitoring but don't want manual control except under unusual conditions. Does it work for mCCR divers? My guess is that it takes away the very basis for their happiness with their choice ie they are in control. I wonder what percentage of the KISS style market would seriously consider an approach based on losing that? U. From what I read here on the forum, there are a lot of eCCR divers who often fly their units in manual mode, leaving the electronics to ride watchdog should they become distracted or temporarily overly task loaded. While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many. I'm equally sure there are CK or other mCCR divers who'd be happy to have some level of electronic PO2 control, if it didn't nearly doube the initial cost of the unit. I think the planned introduction (as in regular production) of the COPIS Meg is based on the concept that there is a lot more overlap, than seperation between e and m CCR divers. I think the relative cost of each is a much greater factor than mindset. As a homebuilder who's project started as a KISS style mCCR, I found that it would be quite helpfull to have electronic PO2 control when I run short of hands, managing a scooter, camera, shot line, etc. To that end, I've now nearly completed the electronic controlled O2 addition system, while retaining the fully functioning KISS manual system. For my unit, the best implementation was to add a second first stage for the solenoid controlled O2 injection circuit. It lets me run m or e CCR or both, by turning on the valve(s) for the respective 1st stage(s). As far as there being more possible things to go wrong, the same can be said for a twinset over a single tank, but much the same way, there are more plusses than minuses that still make it a practicle way to go. Once it's all up and running, I'll do a full write up, pros and cons. Darlene Last edited by Scuba_Vixen : 10th July 2006 at 01:48.
(Offline)

10th July 2006, 09:21	#12 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world? Quote: (Originally Posted by Scuba_Vixen) ...While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many... I disagree with your percentages here. Of all of the eCCR divers I know/met in person, all of them are using the controller to maintain SP. The only eCCR divers whom I heard are diving their units in manual mode and keeping the controller as parachute are from the Internet forums. I am not saying which method should be preferrable, just simply not agreeing with your break-down percentages. Representation of a few people on RBW is a very small percentages in the global eCCR market. Yes, I dive my eCCR using the controller and my KISS on manual mode. If I am paranoid about the controller, I will stop using it. And I have a few hundred hours on manual mode with the KISS so don't need to learn how... As far as what you want to combine mCCR and eCCR, it was the reason why KISS-HH and KISS-Shearwater projects were started as far back as 4 years ago. Based on past experience, depending on which method the controller is adding O2, it is not a straight forward algorithm as pure eCCR since the loop O2 is also being added via the orifice. __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

10th July 2006, 10:45	#13 (permalink)
Marc T hell is in the details Current Rebreather/s: RB80 / Clone Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet RB80 / Clone Home Build Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: FRANCE Carcassonne Posts: 498	Re: mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world? [quote=decoweenie As far as what you want to combine mCCR and eCCR, it was the reason why KISS-HH and KISS-Shearwater projects were started as far back as 4 years ago. Based on past experience, depending on which method the controller is adding O2, it is not a straight forward algorithm as pure eCCR since the loop O2 is also being added via the orifice.[/quote] Using a voting logic as a parachute is certainly overkill, too complex and expensive so probably not a good commercial and perhaps nor technical way. A simplest system wich look like HH parachute for kiss could be great if very simple to add to the system. I was thinking about something like uri's hud or rEVO dream, witch could be used with several Rebreather . On the other hand, including a parachute into a kiss like Rebreather could perhaps be a way for CE approval. Any thought?
(Offline)

10th July 2006, 12:39	#14 (permalink)
paulraymaekers rEvo's daddy Current Rebreather/s: rEvo Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: rEvo Other CCR Home Build Join Date: May 2005 Location: belgium Posts: 1,638	Re: mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world? Quote: (Originally Posted by Marc T) On the other hand, including a parachute into a kiss like Rebreather could perhaps be a way for CE approval. no :-( the CE asks min and max PPO2, with testing as low as .3 or .4 l/min CO2 production! and, there are issues about maintaining a certain setpoint withing certain margins.. regards paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)

10th July 2006, 13:13	#15 (permalink)
uri Uri Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sandhurst UK Posts: 37	Re: mixing eCCR and mCCR for a best world? Quote: (Originally Posted by Scuba_Vixen) From what I read here on the forum, there are a lot of eCCR divers who often fly their units in manual mode, leaving the electronics to ride watchdog should they become distracted or temporarily overly task loaded. While I'm sure there are eCCR divers who would like to have the machine do everything for them, I doubt there are many. I'm equally sure there are CK or other mCCR divers who'd be happy to have some level of electronic PO2 control, if it didn't nearly doube the initial cost of the unit. I think the planned introduction (as in regular production) of the COPIS Meg is based on the concept that there is a lot more overlap, than seperation between e and m CCR divers. I think the relative cost of each is a much greater factor than mindset. As a homebuilder who's project started as a KISS style mCCR, I found that it would be quite helpfull to have electronic PO2 control when I run short of hands, managing a scooter, camera, shot line, etc. To that end, I've now nearly completed the electronic controlled O2 addition system, while retaining the fully functioning KISS manual system. For my unit, the best implementation was to add a second first stage for the solenoid controlled O2 injection circuit. It lets me run m or e CCR or both, by turning on the valve(s) for the respective 1st stage(s). As far as there being more possible things to go wrong, the same can be said for a twinset over a single tank, but much the same way, there are more plusses than minuses that still make it a practicle way to go. Once it's all up and running, I'll do a full write up, pros and cons. Darlene I too have heard about people running eCCR's on low setpoint as parachute and manually maintaining high S.P. I've also never met one. If it was 'safe', why wouldn't any eCCR diver want the unit to do everything for them? ie get on with it and tell them reliably if there's a problem. I fully accept your point that cost is a major contribution to decisions made in this area but I think cost is a red herring in that if one needed a car and couldn't afford one with 4 wheels and found a legal one with 3, nice and cheap, one would use it without worrying too much about ones best suited vehicle. If low cost is a high priority, Kiss style will be purchased/made. If one doesn't want full control and still wants relatively cheap then some may buy/make Kiss with parachute. A small(/nonexistent?) premium on that and one can purchase an eCCR. Is that an attractive market space? rgds U.
(Offline)

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