ISC posts test data

AD_ward9 · 28th March 2008, 15:28

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

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

Simple remedy available to you: publish your figures (with Lissajous, ambient data etc, such as from an ANSTI machine).

I remember you posted some test result data, but just in case anyone has forgotten, attach it to a post here.

Alex

paulraymaekers · 28th March 2008, 15:29

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

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 run 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

Alex, that is not an answer on what I stated.

I stated that you can 'tweak' test results when comparing units, and I gave an example.

But thanks for the remarks! :-)

paul

Skipbreather · 28th March 2008, 15:36

Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot)

There are more options for scrubbers for the Meg than any other Rebreather,

Ben Field · 28th March 2008, 15:50

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

Oh yummy! Id happily agree to test

Now I know Alex is offering free Whisky....

I still think any form of Rebreather used underwater is a safey issue, doubt I'll get any booze for that clarification though.

gtzavelas · 28th March 2008, 17:37

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

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

Alex,

from reading the test report from ISC site it seems that the the EN14143 limit is met:
The limit is 2,75 K/l (for 75RMV) and the numbers on the report are lower (2,5 and 1,76 for Axial at 50m and 100m.)
Am I missing something?
please clarify

paulraymaekers · 28th March 2008, 17:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by gtzavelas)

Alex,

from reading the test report from ISC site it seems that the the EN14143 limit is met:
The limit is 2,75 K/l (for 75RMV) and the numbers on the report are lower (2,5 and 1,76 for Axial at 50m and 100m.)
Am I missing something?
please clarify

none of all meet: the limits for inhale and exhale pressure is 25 mBar

paul

**UWSojourner** · 28th March 2008, 18:21

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

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

You won't mind if I ask you to take a little first.

I'm with Alex on this one. Voluntary publication of independent test results ... can't see why this would not be encouraged. KISS, rEvo, Sentinel units all put out data recently. This trend is good.

For those who think this release of information was marketing ... of course it is. But is it not a good sign that manufacturers are desiring to compete based on safety issues? I think so.

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement...

Joe, you're correct that a single test cannot provide certainty of a problem. But if you're staring down at a 'positive' on a home pregnancy test, it's enough to make you sweat until you investigate further.

divetheworld · 28th March 2008, 18:40

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

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..

If the tests were carried out in accordance with EN14143 then they are as detailed below. They are easily carried out and reproducable, especially if you are a government appointed Competant body under these Regulations and have a test facility. Like me :-)
Anyone want to volunteer their setpoint controller?

5.13.3 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
Out of water and during calibration of any electrical system the performance or calibration of the apparatus shall not be affected when exposed to electromagnetic fields and shall satisfy the requirements of EN 61000-6-1.

6.12 Electrical systems, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
Test the apparatus in accordance with EN 61000-6-1 with imposed electromagnetic field frequencies in the range 80 MHz to 1 000 MHz.
Check the performance and oxygen control of the apparatus by observation of displayed readings prior to, during and immediately post exposure to the electromagnetic radiation.
Calibrate the apparatus prior to and then during exposure to the electromagnetic radiation. Check the partial pressure oxygen control post calibration in the electromagnetic field.

EN61000-6-1
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) —
Part 6-1: Generic standards — Immunity for residential, commercial and light-industrial environments

Its a shame the standard doesnt refer to EN61000-4-3, would have been more appropriate.

jkaterenchuk · 28th March 2008, 19:35

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

I just wish they would credit us with enough intelegance to draw our own conclusions.

ATB

Mark

Remember those famous word that have been quoted as coming from the owner of the company....."idiots keep getting smarter". Kind of says it all.

John

SimonK · 28th March 2008, 20:11

ISCs write up of the Hammerhead test is a bit misleading. Two tests were performed.

Electrostatic discharge.
This is a handling test that looks at a discharge of static electricity into the unit under test. It represents what would happen if someone walking across a nylon carpet in a dry environment were to pick up the unit, or perhaps touch a contact on the connector, resulting in static discharge.
The unit failed which is not good and shows a somewhat fragile design but has nothing to do with suseptability to radiated emissions which is what ISC are claiming.

Radiated Field test
This test checks the units suseptability to radiated electric fields, such as those from radio transmitters, HID lights etc. The Hammerhead apparently passed this test and is therefore has no problem with all the threats listed in ISCs paragraph starting 'Why is this important to you as a diver'

As an aside, the standard
Part 6-1: Generic standards — Immunity for residential, commercial and light-industrial environments
80 -1000Mhz at 3 Volt/meter doesn't seem appropriate for something that is expected to operate on a boats deck with Radar, VHF and HF radios in close proximity.

For anyone entering the wonderful world of EMC testing we have found that a set of knuckle bones and some fresh chicken entrails help in divining exactly what is wrong and how to fix it.

Simon

28th March 2008, 15:28	#71 (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) 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 Simple remedy available to you: publish your figures (with Lissajous, ambient data etc, such as from an ANSTI machine). I remember you posted some test result data, but just in case anyone has forgotten, attach it to a post here. Alex
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:29	#72 (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 AD_ward9) 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 run 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 Alex, that is not an answer on what I stated. I stated that you can 'tweak' test results when comparing units, and I gave an example. But thanks for the remarks! :-) 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, 15:36	#73 (permalink)
Skipbreather Reads the fine print Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet MK 15.X Home Build Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA Posts: 584	Re: ISC posts test data Quote: (Originally Posted by mempilot) There are more options for scrubbers for the Meg than any other Rebreather, __________________ "Entropy RULES! Enjoy the interim."
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 15:50	#74 (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) Oh yummy! Id happily agree to test Now I know Alex is offering free Whisky.... I still think any form of Rebreather used underwater is a safey issue, doubt I'll get any booze for that clarification though. __________________ 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, 17:37	#75 (permalink)
gtzavelas RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon RB80 / Clone Other Rebreather/s: RB80 / Clone Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens,Greece Posts: 280	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) 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 Alex, from reading the test report from ISC site it seems that the the EN14143 limit is met: The limit is 2,75 K/l (for 75RMV) and the numbers on the report are lower (2,5 and 1,76 for Axial at 50m and 100m.) Am I missing something? please clarify
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 17:46	#76 (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 gtzavelas) Alex, from reading the test report from ISC site it seems that the the EN14143 limit is met: The limit is 2,75 K/l (for 75RMV) and the numbers on the report are lower (2,5 and 1,76 for Axial at 50m and 100m.) Am I missing something? please clarify none of all meet: the limits for inhale and exhale pressure is 25 mBar 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, 18:21	#77 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 558	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) We offer free Whisky to anyone who advises of a safety issue we were not aware of. You won't mind if I ask you to take a little first. I'm with Alex on this one. Voluntary publication of independent test results ... can't see why this would not be encouraged. KISS, rEvo, Sentinel units all put out data recently. This trend is good. For those who think this release of information was marketing ... of course it is. But is it not a good sign that manufacturers are desiring to compete based on safety issues? I think so. Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) A sample of 2 is too small to make a judgement... Joe, you're correct that a single test cannot provide certainty of a problem. But if you're staring down at a 'positive' on a home pregnancy test, it's enough to make you sweat until you investigate further.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 18:40	#78 (permalink)
divetheworld Dive porn pimp Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Classic Kiss Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Leeds, England Posts: 1,636	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) 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.. If the tests were carried out in accordance with EN14143 then they are as detailed below. They are easily carried out and reproducable, especially if you are a government appointed Competant body under these Regulations and have a test facility. Like me :-) Anyone want to volunteer their setpoint controller? 5.13.3 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Out of water and during calibration of any electrical system the performance or calibration of the apparatus shall not be affected when exposed to electromagnetic fields and shall satisfy the requirements of EN 61000-6-1. 6.12 Electrical systems, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Test the apparatus in accordance with EN 61000-6-1 with imposed electromagnetic field frequencies in the range 80 MHz to 1 000 MHz. Check the performance and oxygen control of the apparatus by observation of displayed readings prior to, during and immediately post exposure to the electromagnetic radiation. Calibrate the apparatus prior to and then during exposure to the electromagnetic radiation. Check the partial pressure oxygen control post calibration in the electromagnetic field. EN61000-6-1 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) — Part 6-1: Generic standards — Immunity for residential, commercial and light-industrial environments Its a shame the standard doesnt refer to EN61000-4-3, would have been more appropriate. __________________ Attitude and self praise is no reccomendation. Dont try to be a great man, just be a man and let history be the judge of you. *WWW.NARKEDAT90.CO.UK* *http://www.grpservices.com/pursuit/* Supporting Shearwater Research Products in Europe Last edited by divetheworld : 29th March 2008 at 11:54.
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 19:35	#79 (permalink)
jkaterenchuk . Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Megalodon Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: May 2006 Location: Lititz, PA Posts: 1,092	Re: ISC posts test date Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) I just wish they would credit us with enough intelegance to draw our own conclusions. ATB Mark Remember those famous word that have been quoted as coming from the owner of the company....."idiots keep getting smarter". Kind of says it all. John
(Offline)

28th March 2008, 20:11	#80 (permalink)
SimonK Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Cumbria UK Posts: 231	Re: ISC posts test data ISCs write up of the Hammerhead test is a bit misleading. Two tests were performed. Electrostatic discharge. This is a handling test that looks at a discharge of static electricity into the unit under test. It represents what would happen if someone walking across a nylon carpet in a dry environment were to pick up the unit, or perhaps touch a contact on the connector, resulting in static discharge. The unit failed which is not good and shows a somewhat fragile design but has nothing to do with suseptability to radiated emissions which is what ISC are claiming. Radiated Field test This test checks the units suseptability to radiated electric fields, such as those from radio transmitters, HID lights etc. The Hammerhead apparently passed this test and is therefore has no problem with all the threats listed in ISCs paragraph starting 'Why is this important to you as a diver' As an aside, the standard Part 6-1: Generic standards — Immunity for residential, commercial and light-industrial environments 80 -1000Mhz at 3 Volt/meter doesn't seem appropriate for something that is expected to operate on a boats deck with Radar, VHF and HF radios in close proximity. For anyone entering the wonderful world of EMC testing we have found that a set of knuckle bones and some fresh chicken entrails help in divining exactly what is wrong and how to fix it. Simon
(Offline)

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