ISC posts test data

Ben Field

IMO People are getting abit tired of manufacturers perfoming "Safety" Tests than inadvertantly allow them to slag off their competitors.... ever industry does it, we see it all the time in car adverts and those blasted panty liner ads where one brand absorbs more plue liquid than another (so realistic...) We do it in our industry too (Optical sorting) but its competitive not safety related.

Saying "buy our stuff because X brand is actually dangerous" is close to the mark for some people, noble as it might be people should be testing their own stuff for public realease, by all means test competitors kit but use the results wisely.

When CCRB put out that big compairson sheet last year the Sentinel scored well in the listed parameters.... funny as it was their latest product, it also (perhaps inadvertantly) slammed the rEvo and Paul (rightly) got upset.

Should Golem Gear be upset with Leon? Dunno but the industry is small and infighting can't be a good thing can it?

__________________

Beware Fridge Suck

paulraymaekers

hm... mixed feelings here again: the results are clearly published in a 'biased' way..

and for people that are familiar with testing, Alex, you know you can 'tweek' tests so that they perform better or worse

simple example: take any unit, give it a big exhale lung, (like you can do on a KISS) run the unit on nealy max lungvolume during the CE test for scrubber performance: you will get far worse results than doing inverse: small exhale, running minimum lung volume...

why do you think the sentinel does publish good scrubber results?? it has no exhale lung :-) (and mark that I wrote publish, not has :-)

(it is clear that in warm water, say > 15°, the scrubber performance is far more linked to the amount of sorb in the scubber, and the dwell time)

paul

__________________
www.rEvo-rebreathers.com

.... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...

Drmike

yes. if you try to design a BOV you will quicky realise that if you want one with o-ring seals and if you want one that isnt the size of a bus then with the traditional design (rotating barrel) the pathway diameters cant be very big and the inner bore dia will effect WOB.

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

Drmike

so different software, functionality and connectivity is your definition of 'the same' is it? LOL!

Rubbish. as all the HH share same design (this model) then they will all behave the same way re: these tests.

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

Drmike

um Dave, last line of my previous post


the pedantic shall inherit the earth!

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

jradomski

Hardware is the same.. The loaded Software is different.. There is ONE connector connection difference between the 2... This involves 2 signals on the primary a supply and ground, and 4 on the secondary, supply, 2 leds and a vibrator connection. If anythink the secondary is more exposed..


The failure listed apears to be a hardware not a software failure, so the results should be similiar on both..

Also rember the secondary is just a build option, most of the software between the two is shared.. The primaries CAN control a HUD, just that its not connected and normally not enabled - but the software IS in there..

As stated above they WOUN'T behave teh same, you always get SOME failures its just how many... The only way to prevent all failures is to not have access to ANYTHING outside of the box or have multiple levelsof shielding/isolation on everything, which obviously can't be done on a rebreather... That means Heavy shielded and isolated cables (heaver than anyone currently uses) RF seals besides water seals and a bunch of other things..

Wet switches would have to be removed because it could effect ground, which in real life it couldnt because you would be in water and the field/voltage would be severely attenuated.. A fair test would then be to test the unit SUbmerged and with a ground rod into the water bath..

__________________
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.

Drmike

so just so were clear on this;

The HH was tested and failed. As the sensitivity to EMI is a component selection shielding connection and layout issue then wouldnt all HH (of same design) also be highly likely to fail the test too?

so how is sample size relevant? either the design is or isnt sensitive to EMI - we can determine that from testing one unit

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

Drmike

The two are not the same. Im sorry but there are component and connectivity differences as youve listed it may be exactly that component or connection causing the failure and there are software differences. I dont see how its possible from the report only to conclude conclusively that it is or isnt a software issue.

from a users perspective we dont care why or how it failed we only care that it did. The actual reason is only going to be of interest to Kevin.



Either way - it fails. Im sure Kevin will be on top of a fix though

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

jradomski

There are no component differences between the 2 boards.. the only difference is that one gets connected to a solenoid externally and the otehr gets connected to a hud..

The place the FIELD is pointed at probably could be a variable.. If the field was directed towards teh bottom side of the head, then its directed at the exposed solenoid.. Which wouldn't happen in real life ad shouldn't be comsidered since its not completely assembled since it would be in a metal can.., if it was pointed at a particular handset that one would be exposed to different levels..

There is no indication on how the test was performed, whether each handset was tested individually, whether the whole head was tested at once.. These are alot of variables.. Where the focal point of the test was ect..

And to be fair the tests need to be performed exactly the same way for all units tested.. I understand they only had 1 to work with, but if your going to publish results against a competitor that should be detailed enogh so that they can be analyized for discrepencies..

Its not that hard to figure out test parameters that might influence the outcome..

__________________
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.

Drmike

groan, exactly - so there are component differences the cables, what they carry and where they go. thats all it could take. It could be one of those unshielded cables.

Isnt that exactly the point of these tests? When my machines were tested for same thing they bent over backwards to try to get it to fail! thats what makes it robustly safe.

its interesting that you admit you have no idea how the tests were done yet you are insinuating that they werent done properly or are invalid..... I cant wait for ISC to test the explorer computer lol! seeing you jump all over that as well would be fun

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you