KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing

jtoorish · 11th October 2007, 03:19

Kim Smith is traveling but she asked me to pass along this announcement:

Jetsam Technologies, manufacturer of the Classic KISS and Sport KISS
rebreathers is delighted to announce the results of recent scrubber
duration testing. The testing reinforces our previous beliefs regarding
how long scrubber will remain effective during diving. This is great news for KISS rebreather divers everywhere!

Testing was done at ANSTI Test Systems who are based in the United
Kingdom. This independent testing agency, utilizing established, strict scientific standards tested both the Classic KISS and theSport KISS rebreathers. The criterion below utilizes a constant rate of CO2 which
is well beyond what any human could produce, for the duration of time
listed below. These tests were conducted in accordance with the EN14143 European CE Standard and utilized Sofnolime 797 grade.

When comparing this data with information provided by other rebreather
manufacturers, it is important to ensure you are comparing “apples to
apples.” It is vital that the durations are based on the same depth,
temperature, CO2 generation and breathing rate.

Why is Jetsam releasing its data? Because we believe all divers should
have as much information as possible to ensure their safety.

Best regards,

Kim Smith

The attached .pdf files show the actual data as well as the testing methodology.

Jeff

bendomatic · 11th October 2007, 03:44

Thanks!

rachel

koputai · 11th October 2007, 05:00

Great stuff. Now we just need ALL the other Rebreather manufacturers to follow suit.

Cheers,
Jason.

Mark Chase · 11th October 2007, 05:12

What I find frustrating about these numbers is they provide a base line but no general information.

If the figures are correct I have dived with a ghost, because I have done much deeper (65m) much longer (120min+) longer dives with a Sport Kiss diver. Come to think of it i have done 40mins at 70m and 195min run on a classic so i shouldn't be looking too perky either.

I look at these numbers then I look back at my experience on the unit and i am just confused. I know why i am confused. Obviously because of the variables involved, but thats not the point.

What would be really useful to me would be a test figure in 10c water with a normal avg 20SAC at say 50m and 30m

Ideally id like to see a test for 60mins at 50m then breakthrough at 6m. Something that could relate to an actual dive.

ATB

Mark Chase

jtoorish · 11th October 2007, 16:27

Mark,

Agreed.

In this case, the testing was independent, so the methodology was in conformance with CE standards. The testing organization writes their own protocols--which is what makes the test results so significant.

We also know these are paramaters that on one could really dive to so your point is well made.

Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world."

I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data.

Jeff

lizardland · 11th October 2007, 16:39

I must admit I'm a bit confused as well, the figures are a bit meaningless. The only thing it proves is that a diver under those conditions would have a good chance of surviving 2h37m. For practical diving it's a bit useless. Without knowing how those criteria can be traded off and interpolated e.g. if I go deeper in warmer water than the tests, how do I guesstimate what I can do in the shallows?

It's not a criticism of the test specifically, well done Jetsam for releasing it but without the means of applying that in the real world then it isn't really doing us any good. And, as I said, that's nothing to do with Jetsam, it's just the current state of our knowledge.

I'll keep sticking to my 3hr(ish) limit.

Mark Chase · 11th October 2007, 16:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by jtoorish)

Mark,

Agreed.

In this case, the testing was independent, so the methodology was in conformance with CE standards. The testing organization writes their own protocols--which is what makes the test results so significant.

We also know these are paramaters that on one could really dive to so your point is well made.

Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world."

I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data.

Jeff

Don't get me wrong I am both grateful and pleased that these tests were carried out and Jetsum/Kim should be applauded for doing them.

At least the base lines are comparable with other known units. Id like to see the test data for a Meg and rEvo beside this and the Inspo & Boris data.

My comments are aimed at the value of the test dater on ALL units. When i dived an Inspo we all knew the Three hour and staggered depth rules but most of the divers doing my kind of diving were happy to push 5-6hours on the scrubber with one big dive or multiple shallow ones.

There were enough people doing it to form a sort of acceptable limit for the scrubber.

Now I am on a KISS I don't have the benefit of the same level of empirical data but we kind of accept the scrubber is a similar (slightly more in fact) load of Sofnalime so we can expect similar results.

But lets face it, were just guessing.

ATB

Mark Chase

EDIT: I should point out I hardly ever go over three hours on a scrubber but on a red sea liveaboard id probably do 4 60ish min dives down to 25-30m with a third the dive in the shallows

On big dives I am obviously doing most of the time at 6m

***caveseeker7*** · 11th October 2007, 17:36

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Come to think of it i have done 40mins at 70m and 195min run on a classic so i shouldn't be looking too perky either.

You don't.

You saw that coming, didn't you, inviting it like that.

Seriously though, I applaud Kim for getting the scrubbers tested.
Doing it to CE protocol more so as it does give comparative figures.
How many senseless discussions about Inspo (CE) vs PRISM (USN) results.
Besides, maybe mCCR can or will be able to pass CE after all.

Anyway, divers now have some real numbers, and from a known protocol.
Did you know what the previous 3hr and 2 1/2 hr ratings were based on?
I never knew.

And I agree with all of you, EVER UNIT ought to get the scrubber tested.
Preferably at the same protocol, only that way data is comparable.

Personally, I would like to see data for 40m, 75m and 100m (and max rated depth if it's deeper than that). At 1.0 lpm and 1,6 lpm CO2 addition.
As well as a semingly insane 3 lpm. Iain's testing with the quick breakthrough is still on my mind, it would be good to know if a scrubber can take some insane breathing or not.

silent running · 11th October 2007, 17:43

Quote: (Originally Posted by jtoorish)

Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world."

I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data.

Jeff

Hello Jeff, thanks for posting the tests, good to see other manufacturers going to the trouble/expense of independent testing.

I think that a good starting point for an apples to apples comparision is to look at how much CO2 it absorbs before reaching say a .5% SEV or surface equivilant value, the threshold used in USN testing. Going by 1.6lpm for 157 minutes in the CK test, we get 251.2 lts of CO2 absorbtion before the 50 milibar threshold. Based on my frequently faulty math, I think 50 milibar is almost the same as .5% at 1 ata, right? -Andy

***jradomski*** · 11th October 2007, 18:03

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

Hello Jeff, thanks for posting the tests, good to see other manufacturers going to the trouble/expense of independent testing.

I think that a good starting point for an apples to apples comparision is to look at how much CO2 it absorbs before reaching say a .5% SEV or surface equivilant value, the threshold used in USN testing. Going by 1.6lpm for 157 minutes in the CK test, we get 251.2 lts of CO2 absorbtion before the 50 milibar threshold. Based on my frequently faulty math, I think 50 milibar is almost the same as .5% at 1 ata, right? -Andy

the one thing to note on the classic is that the duration is stated at 40m.. most of the other rigs tested state the max duration based on ~20m testing..

11th October 2007, 03:44	#2 (permalink)
bendomatic it's a girl due 20th May Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brisbane Australia Posts: 198	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Thanks! rachel __________________ why deal with idiots on the net when you have to spend all day dealing with them at work.
(Offline)

11th October 2007, 05:00	#3 (permalink)
koputai Subsea Systems Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Other CCR Other SCR Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other CCR Other SCR Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 309	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Great stuff. Now we just need ALL the other Rebreather manufacturers to follow suit. Cheers, Jason.
(Offline)

11th October 2007, 05:12	#4 (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: 2,470	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing What I find frustrating about these numbers is they provide a base line but no general information. If the figures are correct I have dived with a ghost, because I have done much deeper (65m) much longer (120min+) longer dives with a Sport Kiss diver. Come to think of it i have done 40mins at 70m and 195min run on a classic so i shouldn't be looking too perky either. I look at these numbers then I look back at my experience on the unit and i am just confused. I know why i am confused. Obviously because of the variables involved, but thats not the point. What would be really useful to me would be a test figure in 10c water with a normal avg 20SAC at say 50m and 30m Ideally id like to see a test for 60mins at 50m then breakthrough at 6m. Something that could relate to an actual dive. 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
(Online)

11th October 2007, 16:27	#5 (permalink)
jtoorish New Member Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Maine Posts: 23	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Mark, Agreed. In this case, the testing was independent, so the methodology was in conformance with CE standards. The testing organization writes their own protocols--which is what makes the test results so significant. We also know these are paramaters that on one could really dive to so your point is well made. Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world." I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data. Jeff __________________ www.advanceddivermagazine.com
(Offline)

11th October 2007, 16:39	#6 (permalink)
lizardland Yak Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: North... Posts: 1,189	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing I must admit I'm a bit confused as well, the figures are a bit meaningless. The only thing it proves is that a diver under those conditions would have a good chance of surviving 2h37m. For practical diving it's a bit useless. Without knowing how those criteria can be traded off and interpolated e.g. if I go deeper in warmer water than the tests, how do I guesstimate what I can do in the shallows? It's not a criticism of the test specifically, well done Jetsam for releasing it but without the means of applying that in the real world then it isn't really doing us any good. And, as I said, that's nothing to do with Jetsam, it's just the current state of our knowledge. I'll keep sticking to my 3hr(ish) limit. __________________ Can you imagine drifting along in the sea with your mouth open and a load of f***ing plankton going in? You'd like it, would you? www.westons-cider.co.uk Azerbaijani Association of Technical Divers Publicity Officer and Goat Wrangler
(Offline)

11th October 2007, 16:45	#7 (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: 2,470	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Quote: (Originally Posted by jtoorish) Mark, Agreed. In this case, the testing was independent, so the methodology was in conformance with CE standards. The testing organization writes their own protocols--which is what makes the test results so significant. We also know these are paramaters that on one could really dive to so your point is well made. Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world." I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data. Jeff Don't get me wrong I am both grateful and pleased that these tests were carried out and Jetsum/Kim should be applauded for doing them. At least the base lines are comparable with other known units. Id like to see the test data for a Meg and rEvo beside this and the Inspo & Boris data. My comments are aimed at the value of the test dater on ALL units. When i dived an Inspo we all knew the Three hour and staggered depth rules but most of the divers doing my kind of diving were happy to push 5-6hours on the scrubber with one big dive or multiple shallow ones. There were enough people doing it to form a sort of acceptable limit for the scrubber. Now I am on a KISS I don't have the benefit of the same level of empirical data but we kind of accept the scrubber is a similar (slightly more in fact) load of Sofnalime so we can expect similar results. But lets face it, were just guessing. ATB Mark Chase EDIT: I should point out I hardly ever go over three hours on a scrubber but on a red sea liveaboard id probably do 4 60ish min dives down to 25-30m with a third the dive in the shallows On big dives I am obviously doing most of the time at 6m __________________ 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 Last edited by Mark Chase : 11th October 2007 at 16:50.
(Online)

11th October 2007, 17:36	#8 (permalink)
*caveseeker7* Who loves ya, baby Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Too far from Neverland Posts: 5,325	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Come to think of it i have done 40mins at 70m and 195min run on a classic so i shouldn't be looking too perky either. You don't. You saw that coming, didn't you, inviting it like that. Seriously though, I applaud Kim for getting the scrubbers tested. Doing it to CE protocol more so as it does give comparative figures. How many senseless discussions about Inspo (CE) vs PRISM (USN) results. Besides, maybe mCCR can or will be able to pass CE after all. Anyway, divers now have some real numbers, and from a known protocol. Did you know what the previous 3hr and 2 1/2 hr ratings were based on? I never knew. And I agree with all of you, EVER UNIT ought to get the scrubber tested. Preferably at the same protocol, only that way data is comparable. Personally, I would like to see data for 40m, 75m and 100m (and max rated depth if it's deeper than that). At 1.0 lpm and 1,6 lpm CO2 addition. As well as a semingly insane 3 lpm. Iain's testing with the quick breakthrough is still on my mind, it would be good to know if a scrubber can take some insane breathing or not. __________________ Cheers Stefan "It is still a good day if you are on the green side of the grass! Su amigo Roberto!" Sponsor Lou in Race For Life! Last edited by caveseeker7 : 11th October 2007 at 17:39.
(Offline)

11th October 2007, 17:43	#9 (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: 1,778	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Quote: (Originally Posted by jtoorish) Hopefully if and when other Rebreather manufacturers release their testing data, it will be to the same standards so we will have a good baseline of comparison --essentially comparing all apples as has been mentioned. I suspect that's the reason the testing data is not as 'real world." I am impressed with KISS that they undertook to have their units tested and they released the data. Jeff Hello Jeff, thanks for posting the tests, good to see other manufacturers going to the trouble/expense of independent testing. I think that a good starting point for an apples to apples comparision is to look at how much CO2 it absorbs before reaching say a .5% SEV or surface equivilant value, the threshold used in USN testing. Going by 1.6lpm for 157 minutes in the CK test, we get 251.2 lts of CO2 absorbtion before the 50 milibar threshold. Based on my frequently faulty math, I think 50 milibar is almost the same as .5% at 1 ata, right? -Andy
(Online)

11th October 2007, 18:03	#10 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 2,817	Re: KISS Announces Results of Scrubber Duration Testing Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) Hello Jeff, thanks for posting the tests, good to see other manufacturers going to the trouble/expense of independent testing. I think that a good starting point for an apples to apples comparision is to look at how much CO2 it absorbs before reaching say a .5% SEV or surface equivilant value, the threshold used in USN testing. Going by 1.6lpm for 157 minutes in the CK test, we get 251.2 lts of CO2 absorbtion before the 50 milibar threshold. Based on my frequently faulty math, I think 50 milibar is almost the same as .5% at 1 ata, right? -Andy the one thing to note on the classic is that the duration is stated at 40m.. most of the other rigs tested state the max duration based on ~20m testing.. __________________ Joe Radomski CCR Trimix Instructor Trainer ANDI Instructor Trainer Director #10 All posts are personal opinions and DO NOT reflect any affiliated agency unless specifically stated. Last edited by jradomski : 11th October 2007 at 21:17.
(Offline)

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