ISC posts test data

***jradomski*** · 28th March 2008, 11:17

Quote: (Originally Posted by 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

I have never said nor am I insuating the test were invalid, I said more data about the test is needed.. By the posted results and from what I know about the HH electronics, My best guess is that the failure was due to 6the wet switch and the A/d in the CPU is fried.. This can be verified in less than 1 minute..

Here is my reasoning..

I know that the way the HH is laid out that a voltage though a single sensor would not effect all 3 sensors..

The unit does not shut off and the voltages displayed by the mv reading are similiar..

If the A/d is blown all sensor will read low,, the MV reading is just a scaled and rounded output.. it does not need any calibration data..

unit does not shut off means that its probable seeing a low voltage on the W/s pin so it assumes its in the water..

This could be verified in a few seconds by reading the voltage across the w/s pins (using a multimeter) and the voltage measurement of the w/s in the diagnostics menu (not user accessable / only by pswd).. The voltages should be very close for voltages of 2.5v and below (the max the HH can read here is 2.5v). If I had the choice of having a w/s for diver dafety or having a potential problem with extremely strong fields, I'll take the W/s..

If this is the problem a totally indepent way of measuring the w/s could prevent failure of the rest of the controller, it would only prevent the unit from ever going to sleep..

***jradomski*** · 28th March 2008, 11:20

Quote: (Originally Posted by 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

The explorer testing would be interesting.. if the tests were fair I wouldn;t attack them.. I just feel if your going to publish negative data about a competitor it should be complete so that an informed person could decide what caused the failure and if its acceptable rish, and what the possible side effects of a solution are and if a solution could be found.. If it is indeed a w/s on the HH... I already suggested a simple solution..

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 11:29

Quote: (Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry to disagree, but I have to here. The method for each of the EN14143 tests is described in detail in the standard. People can produce a worse reading by failing to have the loop volume correct, but how do you get a better reading than reality, other than by an obvious cheat such as leaving the scrubber out?

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

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...

I agree the WOB curve should be published, but I am not aware of anyone else doing this.

No-one measures WOB for compliance purposes with anything other than an optimal breathing loop volume. No-one would pass if they were not operating with ideal loop volume (near minimum). The WOB we promised to publish (being proof read now), does show the WOB curves, including for the Meg as a benchmark, as well as the Inspo. All other rebreathers have a similar curve.

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

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

I believe they have good results, genuinely. The results CCR Ltd have published for the Sentinel and Ouroborous are very close to the results I would expect from examining a unit. The mushrooms are nice and large, the hose bores are large, the scrubber has a good aspect ratio, the CL is well positioned and on the Sentinel is singular. I think CCR Ltd has published honest results.

If you feel anyone has played foul in testing equipment, send an example here and I will publish the result on this forum.

The ISC results, Steam Machine results and the results I understand you got on the unmodified unit also look very much as I would expect from examining those rebreathers.

As regards people who complain that detailed test results are used by manufacturers to slag off competitors, what is wrong with that? It the test is a scientific one, it will highlight a safety issue the other company has. Their competitor will no doubt try to fix the problem as soon as their competitor highlights it, with the result that divers get better products. Of course, some things are not fixable, such as the CCR results showing that hardly any rebreather has safe Work of Breathing figures - and that implication by CCR Ltd is in fact the case: hardly anyone other than CCR Ltd meets even the EN14143:2003 limits for WOB, let alone the new STANAG / NEDU / Quinetiq levels that the 14143 committee are being advised to adopt. However even in this case, it is better for divers to know of the problem than to buy a rebreather, do a deep dive, and find out the hard way.

Alex

Mark Chase · 28th March 2008, 12:04

Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave)

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.

I think you are mistaken. They tested both and failed it in OC mode. They even compaired it with a Scubapro reg.

Results: The Golem/Juergensen HH CCR BOV was tested at a ventilation rate of 49.5
RMV, breathing frequency of 19.81 bpm, and 2.50 lpm tidal volume, depth of 50 meters
(165 fsw) and air as the breathing gas. The BOV exceeded the WOB at 2.07 J/l. The
WOB max for CAT 1 demand UBA for all depths to 40 meters and deeper are not to
exceed 1.37 J/l.
The Golem/Juergensen HH BOV fails to meet the U.S. Navy’s Class A CAT 1 UBA list.
For a regulator to make the ANU list it must have a WOB no higher than 1.37 J/l to a
depth of 60.7 msw (198 fsw).
In comparison to existing regulators, the Scuba Pro MK2+ R380 meets and exceed the
U.S. Navy Class A category, and even tests up to 75 RMV @ 60.7 msw (198 fsw).

snicks · 28th March 2008, 12:09

Sorry, but I do not get the point of the discussion.

It has been proven that the HH can be killed by a standardized method. Do I as a user care if this is the fault of a wet-switch, cables, or whatever.
I care that the thing that is supposed to keep me alive works under all (!!!)conditions. If it can be destroyed by simple ESD, it will be destroyed during operation at some time. It is not the goal of these tests to show the mnf what the exact reason of the fault is. The resposibility to identify and eliminate such deficencies lies with the mnf.

Besides, different cable length alone is sufficient to explain the observed behaviour (for different primary and secondary) since the capacitive load is different.

Greets
Dirk

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 12:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

I have never said nor am I insuating the test were invalid, I said more data about the test is needed..

more data is needed to prove it failed the test? what extra data is that? You want to know how it was tested? is it really relevant?

Quote:

By the posted results and from what I know about the HH electronics, My best guess is that the failure was due to 6the wet switch and the A/d in the CPU is fried.. This can be verified in less than 1 minute..

Here is my reasoning..

I know that the way the HH is laid out that a voltage though a single sensor would not effect all 3 sensors..

The unit does not shut off and the voltages displayed by the mv reading are similiar..

If the A/d is blown all sensor will read low,, the MV reading is just a scaled and rounded output.. it does not need any calibration data..

unit does not shut off means that its probable seeing a low voltage on the W/s pin so it assumes its in the water..

This could be verified in a few seconds by reading the voltage across the w/s pins (using a multimeter) and the voltage measurement of the w/s in the diagnostics menu (not user accessable / only by pswd).. The voltages should be very close for voltages of 2.5v and below (the max the HH can read here is 2.5v). If I had the choice of having a w/s for diver dafety or having a potential problem with extremely strong fields, I'll take the W/s..

If this is the problem a totally indepent way of measuring the w/s could prevent failure of the rest of the controller, it would only prevent the unit from ever going to sleep..

joe with all due respect a user doesnt give a flying f_ck what caused it to screw up- only that it does. The reasons are academic to anyone other than Kevin who I have no doubt will investigate fully

paulraymaekers · 28th March 2008, 12:33

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

Sorry to disagree, but I have to here. The method for each of the EN14143 tests is described in detail in the standard. People can produce a worse reading by failing to have the loop volume correct, but how do you get a better reading than reality, other than by an obvious cheat such as leaving the scrubber out?

hello Alex, I was not referring to WOB, but to scrubber performence.

testing a unit on max lung volume, with a big exhale lung, dramatically decrease the scrubber performance, as it strongly influences the gas temperature at the inlet of the scrubber

having no exhale scrubber, and if possible some isolation in the exhale hose, is the best way to have the least possible cool down of the exhaled gas before it enters the scrubber (cf Sentinel)

so it is possible to 'tweek' the tests and to make one unit perform better than the other, even with strictly following the CE procedure (testing your unit in the best configuration, and the competition in the worst)

paul

Ben Field · 28th March 2008, 12:34

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

As regards people who complain that detailed test results are used by manufacturers to slag off competitors, what is wrong with that? It the test is a scientific one, it will highlight a safety issue the other company has. Their competitor will no doubt try to fix the problem as soon as their competitor highlights it, with the result that divers get better products.

I sincerly hope you are as receptive when we get a chance to thrash the Recreational Rebreather DeepLife are pushing when it hits the market.

I'm sure you realise your aggressive stance on safety has set up huge potential such that if even the smallest defect is found... well I can't even imagine the magnitude of the backlash, suffice to say the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Good luck!

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 12:36

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

if your going to publish negative data about a competitor it should be complete so that an informed person could decide what caused the failure and if its acceptable rish, and what the possible side effects of a solution are and if a solution could be found.. ..

i dont see that ISC or anyone has a duty to do the above.

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 12:38

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ben Field)

I sincerly hope you are as receptive when we get a chance to thrash the Recreational Rebreather DeepLife are pushing when it hits the market.

I'm sure you realise your aggressive stance on safety has set up huge potential such that if even the smallest defect is found... well I can't even imagine the magnitude of the backlash, suffice to say the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Good luck!

I doubt Alex will mind - in fact I suspect he would relish free testing free apraisal and review. So long as he has a forum to counter/correct any falsehoods. Result is better product

28th March 2008, 11:17	#51 (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: 3,001	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by 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 I have never said nor am I insuating the test were invalid, I said more data about the test is needed.. By the posted results and from what I know about the HH electronics, My best guess is that the failure was due to 6the wet switch and the A/d in the CPU is fried.. This can be verified in less than 1 minute.. Here is my reasoning.. I know that the way the HH is laid out that a voltage though a single sensor would not effect all 3 sensors.. The unit does not shut off and the voltages displayed by the mv reading are similiar.. If the A/d is blown all sensor will read low,, the MV reading is just a scaled and rounded output.. it does not need any calibration data.. unit does not shut off means that its probable seeing a low voltage on the W/s pin so it assumes its in the water.. This could be verified in a few seconds by reading the voltage across the w/s pins (using a multimeter) and the voltage measurement of the w/s in the diagnostics menu (not user accessable / only by pswd).. The voltages should be very close for voltages of 2.5v and below (the max the HH can read here is 2.5v). If I had the choice of having a w/s for diver dafety or having a potential problem with extremely strong fields, I'll take the W/s.. If this is the problem a totally indepent way of measuring the w/s could prevent failure of the rest of the controller, it would only prevent the unit from ever going to sleep.. __________________ 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 11:53.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 11:20	#52 (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: 3,001	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by 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 The explorer testing would be interesting.. if the tests were fair I wouldn;t attack them.. I just feel if your going to publish negative data about a competitor it should be complete so that an informed person could decide what caused the failure and if its acceptable rish, and what the possible side effects of a solution are and if a solution could be found.. If it is indeed a w/s on the HH... I already suggested a simple solution.. __________________ 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, 11:29	#53 (permalink)
AD_ward9 So much more to learn Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,862	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by 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. Sorry to disagree, but I have to here. The method for each of the EN14143 tests is described in detail in the standard. People can produce a worse reading by failing to have the loop volume correct, but how do you get a better reading than reality, other than by an obvious cheat such as leaving the scrubber out? Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) 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... I agree the WOB curve should be published, but I am not aware of anyone else doing this. No-one measures WOB for compliance purposes with anything other than an optimal breathing loop volume. No-one would pass if they were not operating with ideal loop volume (near minimum). The WOB we promised to publish (being proof read now), does show the WOB curves, including for the Meg as a benchmark, as well as the Inspo. All other rebreathers have a similar curve. Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) why do you think the sentinel does publish good scrubber results?? it has no exhale lung :-) (and mark that I wrote publish, not has :-) I believe they have good results, genuinely. The results CCR Ltd have published for the Sentinel and Ouroborous are very close to the results I would expect from examining a unit. The mushrooms are nice and large, the hose bores are large, the scrubber has a good aspect ratio, the CL is well positioned and on the Sentinel is singular. I think CCR Ltd has published honest results. If you feel anyone has played foul in testing equipment, send an example here and I will publish the result on this forum. The ISC results, Steam Machine results and the results I understand you got on the unmodified unit also look very much as I would expect from examining those rebreathers. As regards people who complain that detailed test results are used by manufacturers to slag off competitors, what is wrong with that? It the test is a scientific one, it will highlight a safety issue the other company has. Their competitor will no doubt try to fix the problem as soon as their competitor highlights it, with the result that divers get better products. Of course, some things are not fixable, such as the CCR results showing that hardly any rebreather has safe Work of Breathing figures - and that implication by CCR Ltd is in fact the case: hardly anyone other than CCR Ltd meets even the EN14143:2003 limits for WOB, let alone the new STANAG / NEDU / Quinetiq levels that the 14143 committee are being advised to adopt. However even in this case, it is better for divers to know of the problem than to buy a rebreather, do a deep dive, and find out the hard way. Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 28th March 2008 at 11:43.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 12:04	#54 (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: 2,699	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by sadave) 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. I think you are mistaken. They tested both and failed it in OC mode. They even compaired it with a Scubapro reg. Results: The Golem/Juergensen HH CCR BOV was tested at a ventilation rate of 49.5 RMV, breathing frequency of 19.81 bpm, and 2.50 lpm tidal volume, depth of 50 meters (165 fsw) and air as the breathing gas. The BOV exceeded the WOB at 2.07 J/l. The WOB max for CAT 1 demand UBA for all depths to 40 meters and deeper are not to exceed 1.37 J/l. The Golem/Juergensen HH BOV fails to meet the U.S. Navy’s Class A CAT 1 UBA list. For a regulator to make the ANU list it must have a WOB no higher than 1.37 J/l to a depth of 60.7 msw (198 fsw). In comparison to existing regulators, the Scuba Pro MK2+ R380 meets and exceed the U.S. Navy Class A category, and even tests up to 75 RMV @ 60.7 msw (198 fsw). __________________ 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)

28th March 2008, 12:09	#55 (permalink)
snicks New Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 39	Re: ISC posts test data Sorry, but I do not get the point of the discussion. It has been proven that the HH can be killed by a standardized method. Do I as a user care if this is the fault of a wet-switch, cables, or whatever. I care that the thing that is supposed to keep me alive works under all (!!!)conditions. If it can be destroyed by simple ESD, it will be destroyed during operation at some time. It is not the goal of these tests to show the mnf what the exact reason of the fault is. The resposibility to identify and eliminate such deficencies lies with the mnf. Besides, different cable length alone is sufficient to explain the observed behaviour (for different primary and secondary) since the capacitive load is different. Greets Dirk __________________ Weltmacht mit drei Buchstaben? ICH!
(Online)

28th March 2008, 12:22	#56 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,323	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) I have never said nor am I insuating the test were invalid, I said more data about the test is needed.. more data is needed to prove it failed the test? what extra data is that? You want to know how it was tested? is it really relevant? Quote: By the posted results and from what I know about the HH electronics, My best guess is that the failure was due to 6the wet switch and the A/d in the CPU is fried.. This can be verified in less than 1 minute.. Here is my reasoning.. I know that the way the HH is laid out that a voltage though a single sensor would not effect all 3 sensors.. The unit does not shut off and the voltages displayed by the mv reading are similiar.. If the A/d is blown all sensor will read low,, the MV reading is just a scaled and rounded output.. it does not need any calibration data.. unit does not shut off means that its probable seeing a low voltage on the W/s pin so it assumes its in the water.. This could be verified in a few seconds by reading the voltage across the w/s pins (using a multimeter) and the voltage measurement of the w/s in the diagnostics menu (not user accessable / only by pswd).. The voltages should be very close for voltages of 2.5v and below (the max the HH can read here is 2.5v). If I had the choice of having a w/s for diver dafety or having a potential problem with extremely strong fields, I'll take the W/s.. If this is the problem a totally indepent way of measuring the w/s could prevent failure of the rest of the controller, it would only prevent the unit from ever going to sleep.. joe with all due respect a user doesnt give a flying f_ck what caused it to screw up- only that it does. The reasons are academic to anyone other than Kevin who I have no doubt will investigate fully __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 12:33	#57 (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: 1,495	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) Sorry to disagree, but I have to here. The method for each of the EN14143 tests is described in detail in the standard. People can produce a worse reading by failing to have the loop volume correct, but how do you get a better reading than reality, other than by an obvious cheat such as leaving the scrubber out? hello Alex, I was not referring to WOB, but to scrubber performence. testing a unit on max lung volume, with a big exhale lung, dramatically decrease the scrubber performance, as it strongly influences the gas temperature at the inlet of the scrubber having no exhale scrubber, and if possible some isolation in the exhale hose, is the best way to have the least possible cool down of the exhaled gas before it enters the scrubber (cf Sentinel) so it is possible to 'tweek' the tests and to make one unit perform better than the other, even with strictly following the CE procedure (testing your unit in the best configuration, and the competition in the worst) paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials... Last edited by paulraymaekers : 28th March 2008 at 12:41.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 12:34	#58 (permalink)
Ben Field CK+Shearwater Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London, England Posts: 1,621	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) As regards people who complain that detailed test results are used by manufacturers to slag off competitors, what is wrong with that? It the test is a scientific one, it will highlight a safety issue the other company has. Their competitor will no doubt try to fix the problem as soon as their competitor highlights it, with the result that divers get better products. I sincerly hope you are as receptive when we get a chance to thrash the Recreational Rebreather DeepLife are pushing when it hits the market. I'm sure you realise your aggressive stance on safety has set up huge potential such that if even the smallest defect is found... well I can't even imagine the magnitude of the backlash, suffice to say the sht will really hit the fan. Good luck! __________________ Know your PPO2, Pre-breath, Use checklists, Validate cells at 6mtrs, Use pure O2 at or near surface, Use a BOV, Don't dive Solo, Change Slime and Cells as recommended by Manufacturer and RTFM!* Beware Fridge Suck! www.hugsac.org.uk
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 12:36	#59 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,323	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) if your going to publish negative data about a competitor it should be complete so that an informed person could decide what caused the failure and if its acceptable rish, and what the possible side effects of a solution are and if a solution could be found.. .. i dont see that ISC or anyone has a duty to do the above. __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 12:38	#60 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,323	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Ben Field) I sincerly hope you are as receptive when we get a chance to thrash the Recreational Rebreather DeepLife are pushing when it hits the market. I'm sure you realise your aggressive stance on safety has set up huge potential such that if even the smallest defect is found... well I can't even imagine the magnitude of the backlash, suffice to say the sh*t will really hit the fan. Good luck! I doubt Alex will mind - in fact I suspect he would relish free testing free apraisal and review. So long as he has a forum to counter/correct any falsehoods. Result is better product __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

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