ISC posts test data

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 14:40

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

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

paul

not sure Id call having a single CL a 'tweak' lol!

more of a standard design feature

Paul are you saying the test results CCRB showed are dishonest and/or incorrect?

if so which ones?

Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed?

paulraymaekers · 28th March 2008, 14:49

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

not sure Id call having a single CL a 'tweak' lol!

more of a standard design feature

Paul are you saying the test results CCRB showed are dishonest and/or incorrect?

if so which ones?

Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed?

Mike, the tweak was clearly not reffered to Sentinel as test as it: see my mail

the tweak has to do with units that you can test on minimum and max volume, and then compare with other unit

scrubber duration: an inspiration with XL counterlung, at max lungvolume, will perform worse then a meg with small neoprene counterlungs at minimum lung volume

paul

Ben Field · 28th March 2008, 14:55

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

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

True... I just doubt their first effort will be anywhere near the billion hour fail safe claimed aim.

You gotta admire the spirit and all but I'd wager there'll be a change of tune if (for example) Leon tests a DeepLife Rebreather and finds it lacking

As RBW are cited on Deeplifes site I'm sure Stuart, the Mods and maybe us plebs will get a chance to bug test the unit for them, I nominate DrCat as a tester, I give the unit 3hours....

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 14:57

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!

You must think I was born yesterday: ours comes with FULL results published well ahead of time!

We offer free Whisky to anyone who advises of a safety issue we were not aware of.

Alex

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 15:03

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

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

Yes, CCR Ltd had done a lot of testing with the Oroborous so understood that well, hence their design in the Sentinel! In the rEvo, you were on the first rung of this learning curve, were offering a rebreather that had frankly never been tested, hence you got some surprises. Glad you started the proper testing now, and are improving things: keep it up - you will soon know everything CCR Ltd know!

Scrubber life is supposed to be a test under worst case conditions: highish RMV, 4C water etc. Follow the same procedure in each test, as CCR Ltd did, and you get nice results that give apple for apple comparisons.

You did not like the result, so did some testing of your own. Fine. A good result for everyone at the end of the day: your product gets better and safer.

Alex

mempilot · 28th March 2008, 15:04

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

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

Alex,

I am happy to hear you say this.

Much of the neg comes from those that own systems related to failed components.

Since ISC tested such components that are sold as 3rd party add-ons/options for the Meg, and since those components are used on other RBs as well, it hit home I guess.

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 15:08

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ben Field)

I nominate DrCat as a tester, I give the unit 3hours....

Oh yummy! Id happily agree to test

Drmike · 28th March 2008, 15:11

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

Mike, the tweak was clearly not reffered to Sentinel as test as it: see my mail

the tweak has to do with units that you can test on minimum and max volume, and then compare with other unit

scrubber duration: an inspiration with XL counterlung, at max lungvolume, will perform worse then a meg with small neoprene counterlungs at minimum lung volume

paul

yeh I get that but im still not getting if your suggesting thats what CCRB did.

Do you disagree with the wob numbers they listed for other units?

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 15:15

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed?

Glad you asked. The DL O.R. units have been tested for EMI and extreme EMS: all of them withstand 50KV discharges onto any external surface, and operates completely normally in a plating bath with 3000 Amps per metre field density. We also withstand an O2 cell charged to 25KV and then connected into the unit. It operates completely normally with high current arc welding in water 1cm from the external walls. We published these results before: commercial divers doing cutting work produce electrical fields and currents strong enough to strip the chrome off the bronze weights on their KMDS Mk17 dive hats in just one dive.

The FCC test and CE EMI test was a piece of cake.

As regards hydrostatic imbalance, full report is available publicly on the DL web site. The WOB report is in the process of publication after we redid the tests following a design change a few months ago (not related to WOB, but with possible WOB implications): it is in the same level of extreme detail as our hydrostatic report and shows the WOB plotted across the full range of CL volumes, as well as Lissajou curves, validation against the theory etc. It has the lowest WOB of any rebreather we have ever tested, and lower than any company has ever claimed, for divers in a normal prone or a vertical position.

Alex

NB: The official EMS test used 25KV discharges, but we have a 50KV electric baton here which we used to check the unit with before we did the compliance test. It looks quite spectacular: I will dig out some pictures.

paulraymaekers · 28th March 2008, 15:23

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

Do you disagree with the wob numbers they listed for other units?

other units?? no idee as I did not test other units on WOB

I tested my unit on WOB, and it was impossible to repeat the result that was shown on their chart!

The only thing we can now imagine is that the unit was either flooded or the counterlungs were completely folded and so blocking the gas path. (because nothing else could have provocked (??) that result!

unless the breathing hose was 'kincked' in the breathing machine, but they would have noticed that before closing the vessel

paul

28th March 2008, 14:40	#61 (permalink)
Drmike RBW Member 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: 3,378	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) 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 paul not sure Id call having a single CL a 'tweak' lol! more of a standard design feature Paul are you saying the test results CCRB showed are dishonest and/or incorrect? if so which ones? Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed? __________________ 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, 14:49	#62 (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: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) not sure Id call having a single CL a 'tweak' lol! more of a standard design feature Paul are you saying the test results CCRB showed are dishonest and/or incorrect? if so which ones? Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed? Mike, the tweak was clearly not reffered to Sentinel as test as it: see my mail the tweak has to do with units that you can test on minimum and max volume, and then compare with other unit scrubber duration: an inspiration with XL counterlung, at max lungvolume, will perform worse then a meg with small neoprene counterlungs at minimum lung volume paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 14:55	#63 (permalink)
Ben Field CK+Shearwater Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London, England Posts: 1,775	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) 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 True... I just doubt their first effort will be anywhere near the billion hour fail safe claimed aim. You gotta admire the spirit and all but I'd wager there'll be a change of tune if (for example) Leon tests a DeepLife Rebreather and finds it lacking As RBW are cited on Deeplifes site I'm sure Stuart, the Mods and maybe us plebs will get a chance to bug test the unit for them, I nominate DrCat as a tester, I give the unit 3hours.... __________________ 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, 14:57	#64 (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 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 sht will really hit the fan. Good luck! You must think I was born yesterday: ours comes with FULL results published well ahead of time! We offer free Whisky to anyone who advises of a safety issue we were not aware of. Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 28th March 2008 at 15:05.*
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:03	#65 (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 Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) 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 Yes, CCR Ltd had done a lot of testing with the Oroborous so understood that well, hence their design in the Sentinel! In the rEvo, you were on the first rung of this learning curve, were offering a rebreather that had frankly never been tested, hence you got some surprises. Glad you started the proper testing now, and are improving things: keep it up - you will soon know everything CCR Ltd know! Scrubber life is supposed to be a test under worst case conditions: highish RMV, 4C water etc. Follow the same procedure in each test, as CCR Ltd did, and you get nice results that give apple for apple comparisons. You did not like the result, so did some testing of your own. Fine. A good result for everyone at the end of the day: your product gets better and safer. Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 28th March 2008 at 15:34.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:04	#66 (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 date Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) 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 Alex, I am happy to hear you say this. Much of the neg comes from those that own systems related to failed components. Since ISC tested such components that are sold as 3rd party add-ons/options for the Meg, and since those components are used on other RBs as well, it hit home I guess. __________________ Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:08	#67 (permalink)
Drmike RBW Member 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: 3,378	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Ben Field) I nominate DrCat as a tester, I give the unit 3hours.... Oh yummy! Id happily agree to test __________________ 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, 15:11	#68 (permalink)
Drmike RBW Member 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: 3,378	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) Mike, the tweak was clearly not reffered to Sentinel as test as it: see my mail the tweak has to do with units that you can test on minimum and max volume, and then compare with other unit scrubber duration: an inspiration with XL counterlung, at max lungvolume, will perform worse then a meg with small neoprene counterlungs at minimum lung volume paul yeh I get that but im still not getting if your suggesting thats what CCRB did. Do you disagree with the wob numbers they listed for other units? __________________ 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, 15:15	#69 (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 Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) Alex how does your testing compare to those CCRB showed? Glad you asked. The DL O.R. units have been tested for EMI and extreme EMS: all of them withstand 50KV discharges onto any external surface, and operates completely normally in a plating bath with 3000 Amps per metre field density. We also withstand an O2 cell charged to 25KV and then connected into the unit. It operates completely normally with high current arc welding in water 1cm from the external walls. We published these results before: commercial divers doing cutting work produce electrical fields and currents strong enough to strip the chrome off the bronze weights on their KMDS Mk17 dive hats in just one dive. The FCC test and CE EMI test was a piece of cake. As regards hydrostatic imbalance, full report is available publicly on the DL web site. The WOB report is in the process of publication after we redid the tests following a design change a few months ago (not related to WOB, but with possible WOB implications): it is in the same level of extreme detail as our hydrostatic report and shows the WOB plotted across the full range of CL volumes, as well as Lissajou curves, validation against the theory etc. It has the lowest WOB of any rebreather we have ever tested, and lower than any company has ever claimed, for divers in a normal prone or a vertical position. Alex NB: The official EMS test used 25KV discharges, but we have a 50KV electric baton here which we used to check the unit with before we did the compliance test. It looks quite spectacular: I will dig out some pictures. Last edited by AD_ward9 : 28th March 2008 at 15:32. Reason: Remembered about the baton we used to check it before the compliance test.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:23	#70 (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: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) Do you disagree with the wob numbers they listed for other units? other units?? no idee as I did not test other units on WOB I tested my unit on WOB, and it was impossible to repeat the result that was shown on their chart! The only thing we can now imagine is that the unit was either flooded or the counterlungs were completely folded and so blocking the gas path. (because nothing else could have provocked (??) that result! unless the breathing hose was 'kincked' in the breathing machine, but they would have noticed that before closing the vessel paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)

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