ISC posts test data

mempilot · 28th March 2008, 06:01

I can't imagine anyone removing a BOV based on these tests. Personal breathing tests (litmus) mean a lot. Like Mike says, even if it only gets you good gas until you get a proper reg to the mouth, it has done it's job.

Matt,

Have you had any experience with it during an actual high stress episodes? If so, I'm currious how it performed then?

Thanks.

mempilot · 28th March 2008, 06:04

Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave)

Hey guys, when they're talking about WOB for BOV's, do you not think they're talking about the WOB with it in CC mode? Forget about the OC reg, as stated, its "sanity breaths" only...

I know from personal experience, the WOB (in Closed Circuit) of the KISS BOV is noticeably higher than most other DSV's...

I would have thought that was what the WOB tests were all about, the work of breathing of the rebreather, not of one part of it in Open Circuit mode.....

That's a good point, and I think that is what someone close to DR told me about the effect of the unit on the Optima loop as well over the standard DSV.

tecdivertraining · 28th March 2008, 06:07

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

I can't imagine anyone removing a BOV based on these tests. Personal breathing tests (litmus) mean a lot. Like Mike says, even if it only gets you good gas until you get a proper reg to the mouth, it has done it's job.

Matt,

Have you had any experience with it during an actual high stress episodes? If so, I'm currious how it performed then?

Thanks.

PM sent.

***jradomski*** · 28th March 2008, 06:51

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Results: The Juergensen Hammerhead CCR system failed the Electrostatic Discharge. Test. Unit lost dive data, calibration of the PO2, and millivolt output of the primary display. The primary hand set will not turn off unless the battery is removed. The unit failed to display proper PO2 and millivolt output after EMI/ESD testing and post pressure pot testing. It did not display the proper PO2 at corresponding depths. See pre and post

I told him but he wouldent listen

I am curious to know if my Primary was being knocked out by my HID

Cirtainly the end result was the same but I am asming from this test it totaly fried the hand set.

ATB

Mark

Personally I find the HH electronics test interesting, The test shows the primary failed and the secondary OK... This is VERY interesting considering the primary and the secondary are the same with the exception of the software thats loaded and that one is connected to a connector for the diva while the other gets connected to a connector for a solenoid..

A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement.. a normal random failiure rate of electronic components is usually a few percent... The failure exhibited should be 1 of 2 components (bit most likely the CPU) .. and thats easy enough to determine..

tecdivertraining · 28th March 2008, 07:13

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

Personally I find the HH electronics test interesting, The test shows the primary failed and the secondary OK... This is VERY interesting considering the primary and the secondary are the same with the exception of the software thats loaded and that one is connected to a connector for the diva while the other gets connected to a connector for a solenoid..

A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement.. a normal random failiure rate of electronic components is usually a few percent... The failure exhibited should be 1 of 2 components (bit most likely the CPU) .. and thats easy enough to determine..

The point is that the tested electronic failed, what would now be interesting is if more HH were put through the test to prove this one was a one off.

***jradomski*** · 28th March 2008, 07:33

Quote: (Originally Posted by tecdivertraining)

The point is that the tested electronic failed, what would now be interesting is if more HH were put through the test to prove this one was a one off.

I wouldn't disagree, but I doubt its a one of, I also doubt that you will find anything that passes 100% of the time either..

EMI/ESD testing needs alot of samples to find out what the real failure rate is.. I was involved with an industrial controller several years ago.. Since it was to be installed in an enviroment that was not friendly to electronics it was determined that testing was necessary.. The initial testing consisted of 5 ckts boards.. 1 failed.... It didnt look good.. it was decided to spend alot of money on shieleding as a precaution... a batch of 10 was made and all passed, but due to the initial failure it was determined to have an inhouse test rig installed and that all boards would undergo testing.. The shielded boards failed on average 2 or 3 per 100 boards, someone later decided to see what the failure rate was on unshielded boards.. guess what it was the same failure rate....

The big problem is that it has to interface to the outside world, and all the shielding doesnt help if the interface is not shielded...

All the failures we saw consisted of some sort of memory failure... This is pretty much unavoidable when the device needs to be reprogrammed.. The only solution is a mask programmed rom and have multiple redundant places to store/correct calibration data..

Most of these test are well outside of conditions that can occur normally...

**SeaBass** · 28th March 2008, 07:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave)

Hey guys, when they're talking about WOB for BOV's, do you not think they're talking about the WOB with it in CC mode? Forget about the OC reg, as stated, its "sanity breaths" only...

I would have thought that was what the WOB tests were all about, the work of breathing of the rebreather, not of one part of it in Open Circuit mode.....

Read the report and that is what it said. They emphasized the check valves being the problem (just the check valves were .55 J/l). That would only be an issue on CC mode. Also the report made an issue over the replacement mushrooms being $30+ a pair where the ISC replacements are $8.

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

yes, and I reported my findings to Jakub... 2 months later the design was changed, using drager valves now :-)...

This is notable. Since after the testing reports got back to Golem they replaced thier mushrooms with the Draeger ones. So some of this data is already outdated (for those purchasing new Golem BOV's anyways

).

For anyone who had purchased a Golem Radial... lets just say they did so without test data so they evidently didn't care.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

... I am glad someone went to the trouble of doing the tests and publishing the results. I shouldn't be surprised that a bit of gratuitous marketing was thrown in for good measure. I just wish they would credit us with enough intelegance to draw our own conclusions.

My take is this... If someonoe has testing done on a compentitors products (which they were too cheap to pay for themselves) it's thier right to make sure everyone is aware of any of the issues that were revealed and make it REAL obvious.

I can see it now....

[sarcasm] "hey guy's, just spent a lot of money to have independant testing done on your products... uh um... you might want to change your flapper valves and radial scrubber dimensions to make sure they are safer and better than ours.... no problem just wanted to help out. [/sarcasm]

Thom

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 09:41

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

Lancer4545 · 28th March 2008, 10:07

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

Mike, do you use the nasal sanity breath off your Drager, or are you using some other DSV integrated BOV? I'm getting ready to make the Drager purchase, and I had thought about putting the Golem on the loop as well.

I have been diving with the Drager FFM now for around 50hrs and have to say initially it was a pain but weighing up the pro's and con's persevered with it. I did my trimix training with it and it soon became apparent there was a lot more work and stress involved when having to either remove and replace the mask or to bail out.

So I went and bought a Vario version of the Golem BOV seeing as my trusty Meg version was now sitting on the shelf and not compatible with the FFM. I did a lot of drills with the BOV fitted and it very soon became apparent the advantages of having it by far out weighed the disadvantages.

At one point during my personal evaluation and testing/training I decided to fit a bite mouthpiece and ditch the FFM for a few dives. I was really surprised at how much I missed the FFM (something I never thought would happen...ever) but the FFM fitted with the Apeks second stage to the right secondary P'Port and the Golem BOV is a fantastic combination.

The Apeks second stage slightly pressurises the inside of the mask which most likely accounts for the higher work to exhale through the nose but it's really only a slight pressure and I have never really thought about it during a dive, so it isn't that much. When I got the "new" BOV I checked the new flapper valves which are indeed different to the original ones. They are Drager valves as opposed to what seemed to be Apeks and are a lot more pliable/flexible than the older ones. They breathe beautifully and appear to be extremely durable as I have been keeping a very close eye on them during recent dives. I'd say the WOB with the new valves is lower than with the old valves.

On the descent phase of a dive I add loop volume by inhaling through the nose and exhale out into the loop. The ease at adding loop volume compared to having collapse the CL to fire the ADV is 10:1 and is fantastic. If you're not sure of the loop or want to take a quick couple of sanity breaths I nose breathe. No need to remove anything or even move my hands from where they are.....it's super simple.

Need to bail out, just twist the knob on the front and you're there. It's so simple, fast and almost totally stress free. WOB whilst on OC on the BOV was no worse than any other OC second stage I have......not noticable although I have only tried it to 75m

Lance

***sadave*** · 28th March 2008, 10:10

Quote: (Originally Posted by SeaBass)

Read the report and that is what it said. They emphasized the check valves being the problem (just the check valves were .55 J/l). That would only be an issue on CC mode. Also the report made an issue over the replacement mushrooms being $30+ a pair where the ISC replacements are $8.

Yeah, I realise that. I was pointing out to Mike, Osiris, Mark Chase etc, who were discussing the OC part of the BOV's, that this isn't what the report was referring to.

Back to our regularly programmed viewing now.

28th March 2008, 06:01	#31 (permalink)
mempilot Eric Stadtmueller Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,708	Re: ISC posts test data I can't imagine anyone removing a BOV based on these tests. Personal breathing tests (litmus) mean a lot. Like Mike says, even if it only gets you good gas until you get a proper reg to the mouth, it has done it's job. Matt, Have you had any experience with it during an actual high stress episodes? If so, I'm currious how it performed then? Thanks. __________________ Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 06:04	#32 (permalink)
mempilot Eric Stadtmueller Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,708	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave) Hey guys, when they're talking about WOB for BOV's, do you not think they're talking about the WOB with it in CC mode? Forget about the OC reg, as stated, its "sanity breaths" only... I know from personal experience, the WOB (in Closed Circuit) of the KISS BOV is noticeably higher than most other DSV's... I would have thought that was what the WOB tests were all about, the work of breathing of the rebreather, not of one part of it in Open Circuit mode..... That's a good point, and I think that is what someone close to DR told me about the effect of the unit on the Optima loop as well over the standard DSV. __________________ Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 06:07	#33 (permalink)
tecdivertraining EXPLORER Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Ouroboros Dolphin Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Dolphin Join Date: May 2005 Location: Phuket, Thailand Posts: 531	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) I can't imagine anyone removing a BOV based on these tests. Personal breathing tests (litmus) mean a lot. Like Mike says, even if it only gets you good gas until you get a proper reg to the mouth, it has done it's job. Matt, Have you had any experience with it during an actual high stress episodes? If so, I'm currious how it performed then? Thanks. PM sent. __________________ Mathew Partridge Technical Director Pro-Tech Dive College www.protechdivers.com www.tech-ccr.com
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 06:51	#34 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 3,113	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Results: The Juergensen Hammerhead CCR system failed the Electrostatic Discharge. Test. Unit lost dive data, calibration of the PO2, and millivolt output of the primary display. The primary hand set will not turn off unless the battery is removed. The unit failed to display proper PO2 and millivolt output after EMI/ESD testing and post pressure pot testing. It did not display the proper PO2 at corresponding depths. See pre and post I told him but he wouldent listen I am curious to know if my Primary was being knocked out by my HID Cirtainly the end result was the same but I am asming from this test it totaly fried the hand set. ATB Mark Personally I find the HH electronics test interesting, The test shows the primary failed and the secondary OK... This is VERY interesting considering the primary and the secondary are the same with the exception of the software thats loaded and that one is connected to a connector for the diva while the other gets connected to a connector for a solenoid.. A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement.. a normal random failiure rate of electronic components is usually a few percent... The failure exhibited should be 1 of 2 components (bit most likely the CPU) .. and thats easy enough to determine.. __________________ 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.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 07:13	#35 (permalink)
tecdivertraining EXPLORER Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Ouroboros Dolphin Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Dolphin Join Date: May 2005 Location: Phuket, Thailand Posts: 531	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) Personally I find the HH electronics test interesting, The test shows the primary failed and the secondary OK... This is VERY interesting considering the primary and the secondary are the same with the exception of the software thats loaded and that one is connected to a connector for the diva while the other gets connected to a connector for a solenoid.. A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement.. a normal random failiure rate of electronic components is usually a few percent... The failure exhibited should be 1 of 2 components (bit most likely the CPU) .. and thats easy enough to determine.. The point is that the tested electronic failed, what would now be interesting is if more HH were put through the test to prove this one was a one off. __________________ Mathew Partridge Technical Director Pro-Tech Dive College www.protechdivers.com www.tech-ccr.com
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 07:33	#36 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 3,113	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by tecdivertraining) The point is that the tested electronic failed, what would now be interesting is if more HH were put through the test to prove this one was a one off. I wouldn't disagree, but I doubt its a one of, I also doubt that you will find anything that passes 100% of the time either.. EMI/ESD testing needs alot of samples to find out what the real failure rate is.. I was involved with an industrial controller several years ago.. Since it was to be installed in an enviroment that was not friendly to electronics it was determined that testing was necessary.. The initial testing consisted of 5 ckts boards.. 1 failed.... It didnt look good.. it was decided to spend alot of money on shieleding as a precaution... a batch of 10 was made and all passed, but due to the initial failure it was determined to have an inhouse test rig installed and that all boards would undergo testing.. The shielded boards failed on average 2 or 3 per 100 boards, someone later decided to see what the failure rate was on unshielded boards.. guess what it was the same failure rate.... The big problem is that it has to interface to the outside world, and all the shielding doesnt help if the interface is not shielded... All the failures we saw consisted of some sort of memory failure... This is pretty much unavoidable when the device needs to be reprogrammed.. The only solution is a mask programmed rom and have multiple redundant places to store/correct calibration data.. Most of these test are well outside of conditions that can occur normally... __________________ 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 : 28th March 2008 at 09:11.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 07:45	#37 (permalink)
SeaBass Thom Susko Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Ray Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Ray Home Build Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: San Clemente, CA Posts: 247	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave) Hey guys, when they're talking about WOB for BOV's, do you not think they're talking about the WOB with it in CC mode? Forget about the OC reg, as stated, its "sanity breaths" only... I would have thought that was what the WOB tests were all about, the work of breathing of the rebreather, not of one part of it in Open Circuit mode..... Read the report and that is what it said. They emphasized the check valves being the problem (just the check valves were .55 J/l). That would only be an issue on CC mode. Also the report made an issue over the replacement mushrooms being $30+ a pair where the ISC replacements are $8. Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) yes, and I reported my findings to Jakub... 2 months later the design was changed, using drager valves now :-)... This is notable. Since after the testing reports got back to Golem they replaced thier mushrooms with the Draeger ones. So some of this data is already outdated (for those purchasing new Golem BOV's anyways ). For anyone who had purchased a Golem Radial... lets just say they did so without test data so they evidently didn't care. Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) ... I am glad someone went to the trouble of doing the tests and publishing the results. I shouldn't be surprised that a bit of gratuitous marketing was thrown in for good measure. I just wish they would credit us with enough intelegance to draw our own conclusions. My take is this... If someonoe has testing done on a compentitors products (which they were too cheap to pay for themselves) it's thier right to make sure everyone is aware of any of the issues that were revealed and make it REAL obvious. I can see it now.... [sarcasm] "hey guy's, just spent a lot of money to have independant testing done on your products... uh um... you might want to change your flapper valves and radial scrubber dimensions to make sure they are safer and better than ours.... no problem just wanted to help out. [/sarcasm] Thom
(Online)

28th March 2008, 09:41	#38 (permalink)
AD_ward9 RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,011	Re: ISC posts test date 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
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 10:07	#39 (permalink)
Lancer4545 RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Cairns QLD Australia Posts: 748	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) Mike, do you use the nasal sanity breath off your Drager, or are you using some other DSV integrated BOV? I'm getting ready to make the Drager purchase, and I had thought about putting the Golem on the loop as well. I have been diving with the Drager FFM now for around 50hrs and have to say initially it was a pain but weighing up the pro's and con's persevered with it. I did my trimix training with it and it soon became apparent there was a lot more work and stress involved when having to either remove and replace the mask or to bail out. So I went and bought a Vario version of the Golem BOV seeing as my trusty Meg version was now sitting on the shelf and not compatible with the FFM. I did a lot of drills with the BOV fitted and it very soon became apparent the advantages of having it by far out weighed the disadvantages. At one point during my personal evaluation and testing/training I decided to fit a bite mouthpiece and ditch the FFM for a few dives. I was really surprised at how much I missed the FFM (something I never thought would happen...ever) but the FFM fitted with the Apeks second stage to the right secondary P'Port and the Golem BOV is a fantastic combination. The Apeks second stage slightly pressurises the inside of the mask which most likely accounts for the higher work to exhale through the nose but it's really only a slight pressure and I have never really thought about it during a dive, so it isn't that much. When I got the "new" BOV I checked the new flapper valves which are indeed different to the original ones. They are Drager valves as opposed to what seemed to be Apeks and are a lot more pliable/flexible than the older ones. They breathe beautifully and appear to be extremely durable as I have been keeping a very close eye on them during recent dives. I'd say the WOB with the new valves is lower than with the old valves. On the descent phase of a dive I add loop volume by inhaling through the nose and exhale out into the loop. The ease at adding loop volume compared to having collapse the CL to fire the ADV is 10:1 and is fantastic. If you're not sure of the loop or want to take a quick couple of sanity breaths I nose breathe. No need to remove anything or even move my hands from where they are.....it's super simple. Need to bail out, just twist the knob on the front and you're there. It's so simple, fast and almost totally stress free. WOB whilst on OC on the BOV was no worse than any other OC second stage I have......not noticable although I have only tried it to 75m Lance __________________ You can run but you can't hide! ISC Appointed Megalodon Dealer for East Australia http://www.closedcircuitdivers.com.au info@closedcircuitdivers.com.au
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 10:10	#40 (permalink)
*sadave* Administrator Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Classic Kiss Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 1,131	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by SeaBass) Read the report and that is what it said. They emphasized the check valves being the problem (just the check valves were .55 J/l). That would only be an issue on CC mode. Also the report made an issue over the replacement mushrooms being $30+ a pair where the ISC replacements are $8. Yeah, I realise that. I was pointing out to Mike, Osiris, Mark Chase etc, who were discussing the OC part of the BOV's, that this isn't what the report was referring to. Back to our regularly programmed viewing now. __________________ Wave!
(Offline)

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