O2ptima's Micropore Scrubber (split from HH for Meg

TechBlue · 24th August 2005, 19:13

Quote: (Originally Posted by caveseeker7)

You forgot or c) you are a retailer of Micropore.

I e-mailed with Mark from Dive Rite Express a while back and he said that testing was underway (several months ago) and results varied quite a bit between adapted cannister (YBOD) and Micropore's own (Dolphin/Azi and Oh-Tooptima).

I certainly hope that he is right and that they will publish test results (preferably on the testers orginal letterhead), otherwise not many people will take them seriously. At least not for diving past rec limits, which the HH indicates the unit was designed for. Just getting rid of the 'max. depth 6 bar' sticker isn't gonna do it.

Unless they want to market the unit as a rec-only CCR. Nothing wrong with that per se, but at the size/weight it's unlikely convinient to travel with so that'll be a hard sell I believe.

Anyway, with DEMA just being 6 weeks away we should know more soon.
Until then I agree with Joe, the 1 ata testing published so far is inadequate for diving.

Yes to C too

I know they are running tests to 100m but I don't know what the representation will be regarding depth limits for the unit because of the lovely liability issues we have to deal with here in the US of A

**Steve** · 25th August 2005, 00:02

Running tests to 100m?????

I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please?

I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance.

TechBlue · 25th August 2005, 12:14

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Running tests to 100m?????

I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please?

I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance.

Steve,

Rather than simply blathering I will pass your message along to Micropore and post the answers for you. I absolutely know that they are not only doing chamber tests but also inwater dives and they have been taken down to 300m and back

TechBlue · 25th August 2005, 19:03

Hi Steve,

Here is the response from Tom McKenna VP of Micropore, hope this answer your questions.

Running tests to 100m?????
[Tom McKenna]
We are running tests doing 100 meter dive profiles including deco stops with Helios. With typical varying work rates and corresponding CO2 levels between 1.35 LPM and .8 LPM , the duration to .5% is over 4 hours. Water temp for the tests is 45F.

I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please?
[Tom McKenna] The original max depth on the cartridges was 150 ft. since that was the max depth for the SCR's that the cartridges were developed for. Since they are now being used in CCR's, the depth rating is no longer on the containers. There have hundreds of hours of bottom time below 150 ft. on Dolphins, Inspirations, Optima's and others.

I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance.
[Tom McKenna] It is good to be skeptical, many people think the same thing. The fact of the matter is that the chemical reaction is a function of the gas transfer properties of the absorbent sheet, which are good. Better than granules. The channels are a path of low resistance which is why ExtendAir cartridges have a much lower breathing resistance. One way to think of it is that the cartridges have the capacity of 8 - 12 mesh and a lower work of breathing than 2- 8 mesh granules. The key to the technology working well is to have uniform flow through each of the channels so that all of the absorbent gets used at the same predictable rate.

__________________

***EBT*** · 25th August 2005, 21:00

Hi Chris,

The variable Co2 production is interesting. A couple of questions;

1. Will the test protocol be published along with the results?
2. Will they perform testing to the CE standard?

/Zak

***caveseeker7*** · 25th August 2005, 23:17

Curious that the cartridge in the CCR last longer than in the cannister of the Dolphin or Azimuth, where quite some gas is vented before running through the scrubber.

I wonder why they picked such ... unusual testing parameters. CE standard would have allowed comparisson, as would USN standard (which Dive Rite Express mentions on their CCR page).

The original MOD was 5 ata/40 msw and was raised to 6 ata/50 msw. Which is past either SCR rating.
If that change was made from SCR limit to accommodate the TV YBODS and Movie Megs it's one thing.
But there better be some test lab's report to make me believe the new 100 msw and 4 hrs duration.
Just pulling off warning stickers isn't gonna do it for me.

To say rolled sheets perform better than granules isn't necessarily true.
SMI was fiddling with that years ago, and sheets worked well in axial cannisters as used in the early PRISM SCRs. In radial and annular axial cannisters as used on PRISM and MK15.5 they didn't even get close matching duration.

Add-ited: By the way, Chris, thanks for getting the response for Micropore for us.

TechBlue · 25th August 2005, 23:52

Stefan, Zak,

Glad to be of help I'll pass all questions through and keep everybody informed of what is progressing, naturally i am quite excited about all of this and I am working on another parallel project or two which we'll discuss in another thread on another day

***jradomski*** · 26th August 2005, 01:24

Quote: (Originally Posted by TechBlue)

Hi Steve,

Here is the response from Tom McKenna VP of Micropore, hope this answer your questions.

Running tests to 100m?????
[Tom McKenna]
We are running tests doing 100 meter dive profiles including deco stops with Helios. With typical varying work rates and corresponding CO2 levels between 1.35 LPM and .8 LPM , the duration to .5% is over 4 hours. Water temp for the tests is 45F.

This is EXACTLY the nonsence I heard earlier and the reason I have to be convinced.. We DO NOT CARE about .5% what we care about is the PCO2.. at 100m .5% is probably death.... the limit at 100m would have to be .045% !

If the numbers come out tested like others then I'll be the first to accept it, but the protocol they used has to be disclosed.. We all know what the CE and Navy protocols are..

I dont know how true it is but I heard the tested gas was allowed to go from pressure and the test sample was sampled at 1 ata.. This would be ok as long as you scale all your limits.. SO the onyl place you would be looking for .5% was at 1ata..

.8 l is worthless (at .8l an inspiration for example should get well over 5 hours).. we need the entire duration at 1.35 and 1.6 so valid comparisons can be made (against navy or ce) .. we also need to know when it reaches the pco2 limit at 20m (since this is what most seem to do), as well as other depths.. at 20m .5% would be useless, it would have to be a limit of about .16% to stay within the pco2 limits.. or .5% SEV

nitrojunkie · 26th August 2005, 03:25

Why do all of these companies refuse to test at the CE level? It just makes their products seem second rate. I'm not 100% convinced CE is perfect but it is the only standard that defines consistent parameters AND testing protocol that we as users can use for apples to apples comparisons.

Maybe they can't even pass the CE requirements? Maybe they can? but i think they do themselves a disservice by using 1.35 CO2 testing. My take is Co2 is the highest risk in our little corner of the dive world, everything else is essentially within the user’s control. Hypoxia and hyperoxia are all in our control as operators of our rigs; Co2 can come in to play for multiple reasons and until we have an actual sensor, I would expect anyone who wants my diving dollars, would test their product to the highest standard not just the one's they think will make their product most $uccessful in the marketplace.

***caveseeker7*** · 26th August 2005, 04:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by nitrojunkie)

Why do all of these companies refuse to test at the CE level? It just makes their products seem second rate. I'm not 100% convinced CE is perfect but it is the only standard that defines consistent parameters AND testing protocol that we as users can use for apples to apples comparisons.

Maybe they can't even pass the CE requirements? Maybe they can? but i think they do themselves a disservice by using 1.35 CO2 testing.

Depends on why test are done. The PRISM was tested at 1.35 lpm CO2 addition because the Navy tested to their standard for their use. So I wouldn't say they did themselves a disservice. That standard, by the way, has a set protocol and parameters, too.

But unless they knock on one's door and want to test the rig I would go by CE standard because it's the only civilian one available, well recognized and one thing less I'll have to do (and pay for) again if or when I decide to pursue CE certification.

Personally, I would like to see testing data for the higher CE addition, same temp and RMV, at 40 msw (recreational depth), 70 msw (frequent trimix depth) and 100 msw (units max CE rated operating depth) as a minimum from every manufacturer. (Obviously if MOD is less than 70 msw or 100 msw than at MOD).

It would be nice to get additional numbers for let's say 1.0 lpm and 1.35 lpm (but not arbitrarily mixed) so divers have a better idea of a realistic duration. Also would tell us if the total liter amount absorbed changes at different flow rates or not.

But three rates at three depths, multiple runs, that's gonna rack up hours and $$$ pretty fast.

24th August 2005, 19:13	#11 (permalink)
TechBlue RebreatherWorld Sponsor Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Classic Kiss Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Optima Other CCR Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Costa del Sol, Spain Posts: 212	Quote: (Originally Posted by caveseeker7) You forgot or c) you are a retailer of Micropore. I e-mailed with Mark from Dive Rite Express a while back and he said that testing was underway (several months ago) and results varied quite a bit between adapted cannister (YBOD) and Micropore's own (Dolphin/Azi and Oh-Tooptima). I certainly hope that he is right and that they will publish test results (preferably on the testers orginal letterhead), otherwise not many people will take them seriously. At least not for diving past rec limits, which the HH indicates the unit was designed for. Just getting rid of the 'max. depth 6 bar' sticker isn't gonna do it. Unless they want to market the unit as a rec-only CCR. Nothing wrong with that per se, but at the size/weight it's unlikely convinient to travel with so that'll be a hard sell I believe. Anyway, with DEMA just being 6 weeks away we should know more soon. Until then I agree with Joe, the 1 ata testing published so far is inadequate for diving. Yes to C too I know they are running tests to 100m but I don't know what the representation will be regarding depth limits for the unit because of the lovely liability issues we have to deal with here in the US of A __________________ Cheers, Chris www.tech-blue.com The site dedicated to Rebreather and Technical diving "We only sell what we dive"
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 00:02	#12 (permalink)
Steve Ladies bring a plate Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Classic Kiss MK 15.X Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Perth - Australia Posts: 1,100	Running tests to 100m????? I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please? I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance. __________________ WARNING: I contain occasional coarse language, extreme sexual references, nudity, and adult themes, which may offend some people - Usually churchy types.
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 12:14	#13 (permalink)
TechBlue RebreatherWorld Sponsor Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Classic Kiss Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Optima Other CCR Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Costa del Sol, Spain Posts: 212	Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve) Running tests to 100m????? I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please? I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance. Steve, Rather than simply blathering I will pass your message along to Micropore and post the answers for you. I absolutely know that they are not only doing chamber tests but also inwater dives and they have been taken down to 300m and back __________________ Cheers, Chris www.tech-blue.com The site dedicated to Rebreather and Technical diving "We only sell what we dive"
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 19:03	#14 (permalink)
TechBlue RebreatherWorld Sponsor Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Classic Kiss Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Optima Other CCR Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Costa del Sol, Spain Posts: 212	Hi Steve, Here is the response from Tom McKenna VP of Micropore, hope this answer your questions. Running tests to 100m????? [Tom McKenna] We are running tests doing 100 meter dive profiles including deco stops with Helios. With typical varying work rates and corresponding CO2 levels between 1.35 LPM and .8 LPM , the duration to .5% is over 4 hours. Water temp for the tests is 45F. I thought ExtendAir cartridges were only rated to 50m. In fact, I think there is a warning on the packet saying they are unsuitable for diving below those depths. So not so much as a rating but a firm statement stating that they are no good below 50m. Can someone confirm or deny this please? [Tom McKenna] The original max depth on the cartridges was 150 ft. since that was the max depth for the SCR's that the cartridges were developed for. Since they are now being used in CCR's, the depth rating is no longer on the containers. There have hundreds of hours of bottom time below 150 ft. on Dolphins, Inspirations, Optima's and others. I might be being a bit anal here but I feel a bit uneasy about a scrubber that has air gaps one can see through. Can someone explain how they can scrub effectively when you can see straight through them? It looks like a perfect path of least resistance. [Tom McKenna] It is good to be skeptical, many people think the same thing. The fact of the matter is that the chemical reaction is a function of the gas transfer properties of the absorbent sheet, which are good. Better than granules. The channels are a path of low resistance which is why ExtendAir cartridges have a much lower breathing resistance. One way to think of it is that the cartridges have the capacity of 8 - 12 mesh and a lower work of breathing than 2- 8 mesh granules. The key to the technology working well is to have uniform flow through each of the channels so that all of the absorbent gets used at the same predictable rate. __________________ __________________ Cheers, Chris www.tech-blue.com The site dedicated to Rebreather and Technical diving "We only sell what we dive"
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 21:00	#15 (permalink)
*EBT* Apprentice Luddite Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK, Brighton Posts: 1,932	Hi Chris, The variable Co2 production is interesting. A couple of questions; 1. Will the test protocol be published along with the results? 2. Will they perform testing to the CE standard? /Zak __________________ Eagles May Soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines! Rebreather World Terms of service Real diving t-shirts for real divers
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 23:17	#16 (permalink)
*caveseeker7* Who loves ya, baby Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Too far from Neverland Posts: 5,435	Curious that the cartridge in the CCR last longer than in the cannister of the Dolphin or Azimuth, where quite some gas is vented before running through the scrubber. I wonder why they picked such ... unusual testing parameters. CE standard would have allowed comparisson, as would USN standard (which Dive Rite Express mentions on their CCR page). The original MOD was 5 ata/40 msw and was raised to 6 ata/50 msw. Which is past either SCR rating. If that change was made from SCR limit to accommodate the TV YBODS and Movie Megs it's one thing. But there better be some test lab's report to make me believe the new 100 msw and 4 hrs duration. Just pulling off warning stickers isn't gonna do it for me. To say rolled sheets perform better than granules isn't necessarily true. SMI was fiddling with that years ago, and sheets worked well in axial cannisters as used in the early PRISM SCRs. In radial and annular axial cannisters as used on PRISM and MK15.5 they didn't even get close matching duration. Add-ited: By the way, Chris, thanks for getting the response for Micropore for us. __________________ 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.'!"
(Offline)

25th August 2005, 23:52	#17 (permalink)
TechBlue RebreatherWorld Sponsor Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Classic Kiss Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Optima Other CCR Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Costa del Sol, Spain Posts: 212	Stefan, Zak, Glad to be of help I'll pass all questions through and keep everybody informed of what is progressing, naturally i am quite excited about all of this and I am working on another parallel project or two which we'll discuss in another thread on another day __________________ Cheers, Chris www.tech-blue.com The site dedicated to Rebreather and Technical diving "We only sell what we dive"
(Offline)

26th August 2005, 01:24	#18 (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: 2,896	Quote: (Originally Posted by TechBlue) Hi Steve, Here is the response from Tom McKenna VP of Micropore, hope this answer your questions. Running tests to 100m????? [Tom McKenna] We are running tests doing 100 meter dive profiles including deco stops with Helios. With typical varying work rates and corresponding CO2 levels between 1.35 LPM and .8 LPM , the duration to .5% is over 4 hours. Water temp for the tests is 45F. This is EXACTLY the nonsence I heard earlier and the reason I have to be convinced.. We DO NOT CARE about .5% what we care about is the PCO2.. at 100m .5% is probably death.... the limit at 100m would have to be .045% ! If the numbers come out tested like others then I'll be the first to accept it, but the protocol they used has to be disclosed.. We all know what the CE and Navy protocols are.. I dont know how true it is but I heard the tested gas was allowed to go from pressure and the test sample was sampled at 1 ata.. This would be ok as long as you scale all your limits.. SO the onyl place you would be looking for .5% was at 1ata.. .8 l is worthless (at .8l an inspiration for example should get well over 5 hours).. we need the entire duration at 1.35 and 1.6 so valid comparisons can be made (against navy or ce) .. we also need to know when it reaches the pco2 limit at 20m (since this is what most seem to do), as well as other depths.. at 20m .5% would be useless, it would have to be a limit of about .16% to stay within the pco2 limits.. or .5% SEV __________________ 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)

26th August 2005, 03:25	#19 (permalink)
nitrojunkie New Member Current Rebreather/s: Evolution Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: May 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 58	Why do all of these companies refuse to test at the CE level? It just makes their products seem second rate. I'm not 100% convinced CE is perfect but it is the only standard that defines consistent parameters AND testing protocol that we as users can use for apples to apples comparisons. Maybe they can't even pass the CE requirements? Maybe they can? but i think they do themselves a disservice by using 1.35 CO2 testing. My take is Co2 is the highest risk in our little corner of the dive world, everything else is essentially within the user’s control. Hypoxia and hyperoxia are all in our control as operators of our rigs; Co2 can come in to play for multiple reasons and until we have an actual sensor, I would expect anyone who wants my diving dollars, would test their product to the highest standard not just the one's they think will make their product most $uccessful in the marketplace. __________________ www.TheDepthFinder.com
(Offline)

26th August 2005, 04:46	#20 (permalink)
*caveseeker7* Who loves ya, baby Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Too far from Neverland Posts: 5,435	Quote: (Originally Posted by nitrojunkie) Why do all of these companies refuse to test at the CE level? It just makes their products seem second rate. I'm not 100% convinced CE is perfect but it is the only standard that defines consistent parameters AND testing protocol that we as users can use for apples to apples comparisons. Maybe they can't even pass the CE requirements? Maybe they can? but i think they do themselves a disservice by using 1.35 CO2 testing. Depends on why test are done. The PRISM was tested at 1.35 lpm CO2 addition because the Navy tested to their standard for their use. So I wouldn't say they did themselves a disservice. That standard, by the way, has a set protocol and parameters, too. But unless they knock on one's door and want to test the rig I would go by CE standard because it's the only civilian one available, well recognized and one thing less I'll have to do (and pay for) again if or when I decide to pursue CE certification. Personally, I would like to see testing data for the higher CE addition, same temp and RMV, at 40 msw (recreational depth), 70 msw (frequent trimix depth) and 100 msw (units max CE rated operating depth) as a minimum from every manufacturer. (Obviously if MOD is less than 70 msw or 100 msw than at MOD). It would be nice to get additional numbers for let's say 1.0 lpm and 1.35 lpm (but not arbitrarily mixed) so divers have a better idea of a realistic duration. Also would tell us if the total liter amount absorbed changes at different flow rates or not. But three rates at three depths, multiple runs, that's gonna rack up hours and $$$ pretty fast. __________________ 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.'!"
(Offline)

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