ISC posts test data

diverklondike

While I like the Meg and think it’s a good rig, it’s sad to see Leon taking this kind of an approach. When a company goes into the “negative” selling mode it’s typically because they don’t feel they have any competitive differentiation in their own product hence they resort to mud slinging and the "spinning" of test data like this. For what it’s worth it also potentially puts him in somewhat of a libelous situation based on the accuracy of the information.

I am sure if Leon had been able to deliver his 3.0 electronics to the market as promised he would be pushing a product superiority message around the innovations that he has delivered. If the rumors of ISC working again with Shearwater for an enhanced version of the Meg’s 2.5 release allowing the connection of the Pursuit are true, this would provide credence to the fact that the 3.0 delivery is even further out.

http://www.rebreatherworld.com/megalodon-rebreather/18097-new-radial-hardwired-shearwater-pursuit-meg.html

Personally I am hopeful the Leon will get 3.0 out to the market sooner versus later since I will help speed up the natural product innovation cycle for everyone. It will push all of the rest of the manufactures to drive additional innovation into their products benefiting the consumer. (and less negative selling)

It is nice however to see that divers interested in the Meg will have another option to get integrated deco with the Shearwater. Hopefully this will workout better than the first attempt at a partnership between ISC and Shearwater.

Dive Safe....

Mark

mempilot

They tested products that are sold as add-ons to their own product. I think what they did is very valid, and rather than conduct the tests on their own, they did so with a non-biased 3rd party. I doubt KM is going to sway tests for anyone. Their reputation as a testing facility is on the line as well.

I also don't feel that they did any mud slinging. They posted the results, and used those results in a marketing message. What's wrong with that?

ISC did exactly what some in the industry were calling for: independent scientific testing.

Posting test results is not libelous.

Now, ISC, is even embracing those products that enhance their unit and meet the standards that have been set by others.

__________________
Eric Stadtmueller, otherwise known as, MEM "Da Pilot"

diverklondike

For those products that are "complimentry" I don't disagree with you.

For the HH CCR head, I stand by the comments I made. Time will tell as to the validity of the kind of test given, methods used, relevence etc... For example why just post a single one off test. How having a full range of tests covering things like PP02 accuracy between electronics and actual PP02 at the mouth piece, set point accuracy etc... More of a "true" inpendent testing. I am sure that we all agree that we would not expect a MFG to post the tests that they did not pass on their website...

Reguardless I don't think I am alone in looking forward to seeing the potential innovations that Leon's 3.0 could deliver to the marketplace.

Dive Safe

Mark

AD_ward9

OK, I have gone through the ISC results in detail, comparing them with what we have for the same equipment and what CCR Ltd found on the same equipment. Our figures and CCR's are generally very close, for those configurations where we have both tested the same thing.

I have a number of comments that companies should take on board if they are to avoid a "my result is bigger than yours" type argument, when presenting rebreather test results. These are:

1. State your test conditions clearly. From the ISC figures it is clear they used fresh lime: the WOB tests should have been done with near exhausted lime because WOB risks from CO2 retention + O2 risks are most acute when the lime is nearing exhaustion. There is a big difference in the figures between fresh lime and exhausted lime in most scrubbers. This is important: with near expired lime our tests show it does not quite meet EN14143 WOB limits, but here with new lime, ISC are showing it does meet EN14143 WOB limits. Similarly, the attitude of the mannequin is not stated.

2. Print the calibration orifice Lissajou with your data. The ANSTI machine for the WOB tests appears to be out of calibration: there is a give away in the figures - the sinusoidal flow should not give sinusoidal pressure, or anywhere near it. There are some particular artifacts from sinusoidal flow, that are displaced. Please publish the reference Lissajou.

3. Keep the goal posts in one place when you are measuring competitor's equipment. The objective ISC stated in testing their own equipment was CE and EN14143 tests, but the figures used to compare the Golem BOV are not CE, not even NATO STANAG 1410, but some procurement document used by the US Navy. This is unfair on Golem. Yes, the Golem valve does have problems, but present it fairly please. Golem are not trying to sell this particular valve to the US Navy, AFAIK.

4. Inane suggestions such as those at the end of each of the ISC letters announcing results, detracts from their credibility and professionalism. The statements say that ISC's competitors should send ISC their equipment, so ISC can send it for testing to a third party (at an undisclosed cost which the competitor should cover), and the results shall be owned by ISC and the competitor. Why is this put in? It makes ISC look stupid, instead of doing something that should get undeserved credit.

Now to the results themselves:

a. The Extendair cartridge being tested clearly has a difference in test conditions compared to the other scrubbers. We suspect from the results, the flow direction is reversed. It is fair enough to do this, but if it was done, it should have been stated. We note the Golem test used reverse flow also. It makes both units look worse in comparison with others for WOB.

b. The statement about the ISC and Golem mushroom valves should have had a diagram of the test set up. We get higher figures for the ISC mouthpiece than is stated by ISC here. Is it just the mushroom valve being tested here, out of the mouthpiece, and if so, how is the gas getting back to the breathing machine?

c. The ESD discharge tests are reasonable, and the result is not unexpected. An ESD test is needed for dive kit, as well as RF emission and susceptibility, and 4KV is really a very low level discharge. Walk across a carpet or rip off a fleece jumper fast, and you can produce 25KV.

d. None of the test conditions seem to be those in EN14143. The 5 bar absolute figure should have been published, not the 6 bar (i.e. 4 bar relative to surface, not 5 bar relative to surface). The correct test depth is 40msw, as CCR Ltd show in their comparison, not 50msw. Both the HSE and ISC appear to have not read the spec carefully enough, and neglected to check with an accredited Notified Body, who could have put matters straight immediately.

e. CCR Ltd show the Meg as 2.76J/L WOB at 75l/min RMV in 40msw, with the 5.5lb axial canister. ISC show 2.5J/L at 50msw, which would be about 2.08J/L at 40msw. The difference is probably due to ISC using fresh scrubber material. A near expired scrubber should have been used on safety grounds for the reasons stated above.

f. Scrubber endurance, ISC 5.5lb axial scrubber CCR Ltd get 110 mins, ISC stopped the test too early, but get around double the CCR Ltd figure. This is very suspicious: the CCR Ltd figure is about right. The scrubber endurance test is very hard to do properly, and I suspect at the time this test was done the HSE were still learning how to do this: at the date they did these tests they did not have a lot of experience on their ANSTI machine. If this test result is to be accepted, a full disclosure of the exact test conditions should be made, including the breath by breath curve and the flow rates.

So bottom line, good step forward by ISC, but more professionalism is needed in presenting results. ISC should be able to address these gaps easily if they so choose to, and that would produce a set of results everyone could accept.

Alex

silent running

Thanks for the detailed post Alex.

Did you or anybody else notice the inconsistency of the gases listed for each scrubber WOB test? On some they used 10/90, some air, some listed simply as 21 with no obvious method-why test a loop with 10/90 on a 50M dive? Why use 21(?) for a 90M dive? Shouldn't they use the same gas for each scrubber and each depth? Maybe it's just a mistake, I can't tell...

Edvin M

AD_ward9:
They clearly state that they are using Molecular Products 8-12 Sofnolime. Look at the middle of the first page here http://www.customrebreathers.com/75_RMV_can_testing.pdf

kevin stone

Just curious
How did the Shearwater do when tested to the above standard?
I know you had to try with all those cool tools lying around

divetheworld

Quite right, in fact the test is 4kV + and - polarity contact discharge and 8kV +/- air discharge.
In addition to the RF immunity test we carry out in an anechoic chamber, we also induce bulk current injection with a sig gen and amp.
Voltage fluctuation and interruption should also be considered IMHO but a good job done by ISC.

LOL, I'll release that when I get paid for it or we release our own cool toys!!!

__________________

caveseeker7

Alex, thanks for the detailed analysis.

I agree that ISC should be commended both for running all the tests as well as releasing the results.

A few thoughts:

I have no problem that they tested the Hammerhead electronics as they've been shipping empty heads to Juergensen Marine to have them fitted on customer requests

I'm surprised the Hammerhead failed as the USN also runs EMP tests and accepted the Juergensen electronics for their MK16 MOD3

I'm also surprised that the APECS electronics passed, as in the past there were reports of HUD problems when discharging strobe lights

I wonder if ISC made changes to their electronics to achieve that, and if they offer a fix for customers that experienced the problems - they have just been very vocal that this is not acceptable

I'm surprised they didn't test the Shearwater electronics, they've been added to COPIS for quite a while and I gather are now offered as a factory option for the secondary display - seems to me it makes more sense testing your own offers than someone else's ...

Am surprised they singled out the Golem BOV. While I appreciate the fact that they tested a BOV in the first place, Divematics BOVs have been fitted to Megs long before Golem Gear even made them. Also, it would have been intresting to see results for the Dräger Nova DSV/setup, that's a factory option to, isn't it? Or the Kirby-Morgan M48/BOV that is shown on ISC's website

As for the scrubbers, I'm disappointed they tested WOB with the PRISM scrubber, but not its duration. Obviously they fit, and they're still in production

More importantly, I either missed the data for the Mini Meg or it isn't there. And that's a version of their unit that they've been selling for a while now.

Also, I expected them to test with both the aluminum canister as well as the composite one. It is after all their product and supposed to be an option (some day)

Last but not least, I also consider the form the data is presented is way below what I would have expected from ISC. Aside from the usual marketing BS that Mark pointed out quite well, and the obvious agressive anti-JM/GG stance, this one takes the cake:

Just as a little reminder, there are what, over 300 Megs out there? ISC has been selling their rebreather without bothering to test or publish the results for a long time. The original Smithers electronics, the original Shearwater electronics, and all APECS versions till now went untested to their customers ... ... something to keep in mind.

While I appreciate the testing and results, it was about damn time, too!

__________________
Cheers
Stefan



"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority,
and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.!"

Mixaddict

It is quite interesting to note that ISC did not publish ANY test data until HH CCR made its way to market. Also quite interesting that ISC has focused on HH electronics, Golem Radial Scrubber and Golem BOV, all components of the HH CCR. Is it possible that ISC is overly nervous about a clear contender for the Meg market that is rapidly gaining ground?

__________________
Randy Thornton (MixAddict)
Inspiration, Evolution, Hammerhead & Sentinel
CCR Instructor