Any news?

koputai · 11th September 2006, 23:00

MORE! MORE! GIVE US MORE!!

How many fun tickets will this thing require?
Is it still using Micropore cartridges? Will there be a proper sorb option?
What type of counterlung/s?
What makes this project open source? How is the development of this one different to the way any other company does it?

Cheers,
Jason.

2stoned · 12th September 2006, 07:13

Hi Koputai!

Well...
This thing should end up being several... (more on that)

Open Revolution Rebreather project is just that:

Open; as in the design progress has been presented for open scrutiny and
open for design ideas and wishes, here on Rebreather World.

Revolution; as this should bring grounds for "safe" rebreather diving.

Development has been done at DeepLife in the UK/RU, presented here by Alex (AD_ward9).

The end produce of this project, offered as commercial solutions.
Several companies have shown interest.
We will see various degrees of implementation of these "OpenRevReb"
technologies in coming new Rebreathers from different companies.
First some will be revealed at DEMA.

I believe that Micropore Cartridges are still favored in this design project.

Counterlungs could be any type, depending on end producer.

If you look around in this OpenRevolution thread you will find a lot of info.

Some Notes:
CO2 & He sensing
Dual stepper-motor-O2-injection (no solenoids)
Computer full system monitoring deco control
Designed to monitor and keep your loop breathable or switch to OC
etc.

Happy surfing

AD_ward9 · 12th September 2006, 07:27

Quote: (Originally Posted by 2stoned)

I believe that Micropore Cartridges are still favored in this design project.

Thanks for a good summary. We also hope that by exposing set of safety design practices, we can all learn from each other and establish the best practice across the industry. Nice dream.

On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain:

The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system.

This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot.

CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie.

The reason is users have too much variation in packing. A recent posting to select Inspiration users from Martin Parker highlights this problem. Not even all the instructors APD trained know how to pack it safely.

To meet EN61508 the whole system must meet SIL 4 requirements. There is no way on earth we can see how granules can meet that. Even using Micropore cartridges requires active monitoring of WOB etc to meet EN61508.

No CCR at the moment comes anywhere close to meeting EN61508. The best we have examined falls short by 4 orders of magnitude (more than 10,000:1) in terms of the critical failure level. The Open Revolution submissions should be the first to meet that requirement. It is a tall order, but the standard is there to prevent waste of your most precious resource, your life.

Cheers,

Alex

Nad · 12th September 2006, 08:58

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

Thanks for a good summary. We also hope that by exposing set of safety design practices, we can all learn from each other and establish the best practice across the industry. Nice dream.

On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain:

The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system.

This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot.

CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie.

The reason is users have too much variation in packing. A recent posting to select Inspiration users from Martin Parker highlights this problem. Not even all the instructors APD trained know how to pack it safely.

To meet EN61508 the whole system must meet SIL 4 requirements. There is no way on earth we can see how granules can meet that. Even using Micropore cartridges requires active monitoring of WOB etc to meet EN61508.

No CCR at the moment comes anywhere close to meeting EN61508. The best we have examined falls short by 4 orders of magnitude (more than 10,000:1) in terms of the critical failure level. The Open Revolution submissions should be the first to meet that requirement. It is a tall order, but the standard is there to prevent waste of your most precious resource, your life.

Cheers,

Alex

Hi Alex,
So you mean Inspiration, Evolution, Ouroboros are out of low because they're not really CE tested?

Well it is not really what I care for.

I even more curious about the openrevolution...

Best,
Nad

koputai · 12th September 2006, 09:00

Thanks guys,
Now, not trying to be difficult, but:
If this is an open design, developed by whoever is interested here on Rebreather World, then why are the photo's secret? Why can nothing be seen before DEMA? Sounds just like a private company doing product development to me.
Any comments? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people making money, just a bit confused.

Regards,
Jason.

Genesis · 12th September 2006, 11:05

"Open Revolutiion" is just a marketing name.

The only eCCR with open source that I am aware of is the published GPL'd K1 code and PCB files.

AD_Ward and I went around on this a few months ago, and the conclusion was that OR is not open source / open design - its a marketing name for exposing the validation protocol(s) used in the design to public scrutiny.

Now that is in and of itself a fairly significant thing (and a first in the industry), so in no way is this an attempt to "slam" AD_Ward and what they're doing - but its not "open source" - its a full-on commercial product full of trade secrets, just like all the others out there.

AD_ward9 · 12th September 2006, 18:09

Quote: (Originally Posted by Genesis)

"Open Revolutiion" is just a marketing name.

The only eCCR with open source that I am aware of is the published GPL'd K1 code and PCB files.

AD_Ward and I went around on this a few months ago, and the conclusion was that OR is not open source / open design - its a marketing name for exposing the validation protocol(s) used in the design to public scrutiny.

Now that is in and of itself a fairly significant thing (and a first in the industry), so in no way is this an attempt to "slam" AD_Ward and what they're doing - but its not "open source" - its a full-on commercial product full of trade secrets, just like all the others out there.

We discussed this on another thread.

Open Revolution is not open source as per GNU type licences. Open Revolution does publish the sources for all to see, publishes the safety process, the verification models and their sources, the circuits, their safety review, the mechanical drawings.

Open Revolution is not an initiative from Marketing. It is one from safety engineers, to meet the best global practice for safe design.

There are no trade secrets. All circuit diagrams are already published along with the safety review and MTBF & MTBCF data. Full mechanical design will be published. We recently approved publication of the design procedure meeting EN61508 even though this is commercially very valuable.

Our objective is purely the safest possible system we can design.

About 6 years ago, I had a conversation with Iain Middlebrook of HSM Engineering. We agreed that either company could easily make rebreathers or supply rebreather technology. We both agreed not to for Sports Rebreathers, until we could meet the 1 billion hour safety requirement with full gas monitoring (incl. CO2). HSM and DL are direct competitors in several areas. However, we have a high regard for Iain's integrity and the altruism of safety comes first in their business, just like in ours. We both believe there have been a string of CCR deaths from poor design. We both would like that to end. We are exposing our work under the Open Revolution initiative as part of our contribution to that goal. HSM are offering a free rebreather test facility as part of their contribution to the community (to which we are contributing one of our breathing machines).

Diving gives access to a wonderful environment under the sea, that it is only really diving that is preserving. When we dive I for one feel grateful at the priviledge of seeing things under the sea, live, in ways previous generations never could. I hope more can enjoy and be part of this. To make that come about, we do need safer equipment. If there is a better way than the Open Revolution initiative to do that, I am keen to hear of it. Please tell me the solution rather than the problem.

Cheers,
Alex

divetheworld · 12th September 2006, 18:50

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain:

The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system.

This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot.

CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie.

Cheers,

Alex

C'mon Alex, you know thats not anywhere near true.

1, Standards are not law, and compliance with Harmonised standards is not required by law.
Conformity with a national standard that transposes a harmonised standard, whose reference has been published, confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the applicable New Approach directive that is covered by such a standard. The references in the Official Journal do not support your comment.
2. 61508 has a scope, the scrubber cart is not covered by that scope. The reference in EN14143 is exactly as follows;

5.13 Electrical systems
5.13.1 Functional safety
Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.

Brent Hudson .eng
DTI Appointed Notified Body
Member of the Technical Standards Sub-committee.
Co-Author of ther HSE Guidance on Electronically Programmable Safety Related Control Systems SIM

AD_ward9 · 12th September 2006, 22:38

Quote: (Originally Posted by divetheworld)

C'mon Alex, you know thats not anywhere near true.

1, Standards are not law, and compliance with Harmonised standards is not required by law.
Conformity with a national standard that transposes a harmonised standard, whose reference has been published, confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the applicable New Approach directive that is covered by such a standard. The references in the Official Journal do not support your comment.
2. 61508 has a scope, the scrubber cart is not covered by that scope. The reference in EN14143 is exactly as follows;

5.13 Electrical systems
5.13.1 Functional safety
Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.

Brent Hudson .eng
DTI Appointed Notified Body
Member of the Technical Standards Sub-committee.
Co-Author of ther HSE Guidance on Electronically Programmable Safety Related Control Systems SIM

The requirement for CE marking of product is law.
The requirements to be met for a CE mark is set down by regulatory standards.

Your point that the standard itself is not law is true, but compliance with the standard is a legal requirement by virtue of the need for CE marking.

EN61508 covers the whole equipment that incorporates electronic, electrical or programmable assemblies because it is a requirement that the assembly prevents a critical failure of the equipment with a higher probability than its rated SIL level (in this case, SIL 4). It is a requirement of EN61508 to extend the reaches of the system, so one cannot isolate a small piece of electronics and say that alone meets SIL x.

By making EN61508 normative for EN14143:2003, it casts a wide net. Much wider than the authors of EN14143 intended, I am sure.

I accept that a canister that is not in an eCCR is not covered by EN61508, which is why I was careful to specify eCCRs in my posting.

Cheers,
Alex

divetheworld · 12th September 2006, 23:38

I think you are taking the scope of the "system" too literally in this case. The reference which is noted in the Official Journal is prescriptive in this case that 61508 only relates specifically and solitarily on the electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus. 61508 would never be applied to the canister.

Compliance with the standards referred to in the Official Journal gives a presumption of compliance, but in no way are any standards mandatory. This is the basis of the New Approach directives and should never be mis-understood.
The requirements to be met for a CE mark is set down by the Directive. Standards never have been regulatory.
Although European standards are considered as harmonised before publication of the references in the Official Journal, it is this publication that gives presumption of conformity to the essential requirements of the directive in question. Exceptionally, harmonisation documents adopted by European standards organisations can also be accepted by the Commission as harmonised standards. The differences between European standards and harmonisation documents essentially relate to the degree of obligation on the part of the national members. As an appointed representative to CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) since Late 2000 on the application of the Standards, I am in a unique position to help you with any misunderstanding you may have.
Brent

11th September 2006, 23:00	#11 (permalink)
koputai Subsea Systems Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Other CCR Other SCR Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other CCR Other SCR Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 299	Re: Any news? MORE! MORE! GIVE US MORE!! How many fun tickets will this thing require? Is it still using Micropore cartridges? Will there be a proper sorb option? What type of counterlung/s? What makes this project open source? How is the development of this one different to the way any other company does it? Cheers, Jason.
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 07:13	#12 (permalink)
2stoned Such is my point of view Current Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denmark Posts: 76	Re: Any news? Hi Koputai! Well... This thing should end up being several... (more on that) Open Revolution Rebreather project is just that: Open; as in the design progress has been presented for open scrutiny and open for design ideas and wishes, here on Rebreather World. Revolution; as this should bring grounds for "safe" rebreather diving. Development has been done at DeepLife in the UK/RU, presented here by Alex (AD_ward9). The end produce of this project, offered as commercial solutions. Several companies have shown interest. We will see various degrees of implementation of these "OpenRevReb" technologies in coming new Rebreathers from different companies. First some will be revealed at DEMA. I believe that Micropore Cartridges are still favored in this design project. Counterlungs could be any type, depending on end producer. If you look around in this OpenRevolution thread you will find a lot of info. Some Notes: CO2 & He sensing Dual stepper-motor-O2-injection (no solenoids) Computer full system monitoring deco control Designed to monitor and keep your loop breathable or switch to OC etc. Happy surfing __________________ Sten. The only man that always had all his work done by Friday, was Robinson Crusoe! www.rebreatherworld.com - Is going down in silence - Staying longer in stealth and style - Diving first class, all the way!
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 07:27	#13 (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: 1,553	Re: Any news? Quote: (Originally Posted by 2stoned) I believe that Micropore Cartridges are still favored in this design project. Thanks for a good summary. We also hope that by exposing set of safety design practices, we can all learn from each other and establish the best practice across the industry. Nice dream. On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain: The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system. This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot. CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie. The reason is users have too much variation in packing. A recent posting to select Inspiration users from Martin Parker highlights this problem. Not even all the instructors APD trained know how to pack it safely. To meet EN61508 the whole system must meet SIL 4 requirements. There is no way on earth we can see how granules can meet that. Even using Micropore cartridges requires active monitoring of WOB etc to meet EN61508. No CCR at the moment comes anywhere close to meeting EN61508. The best we have examined falls short by 4 orders of magnitude (more than 10,000:1) in terms of the critical failure level. The Open Revolution submissions should be the first to meet that requirement. It is a tall order, but the standard is there to prevent waste of your most precious resource, your life. Cheers, Alex
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 08:58	#14 (permalink)
Nad Rebel to the Bone Current Rebreather/s: Ouroboros Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Inspiration Classic Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 925	Re: Any news? Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) Thanks for a good summary. We also hope that by exposing set of safety design practices, we can all learn from each other and establish the best practice across the industry. Nice dream. On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain: The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system. This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot. CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie. The reason is users have too much variation in packing. A recent posting to select Inspiration users from Martin Parker highlights this problem. Not even all the instructors APD trained know how to pack it safely. To meet EN61508 the whole system must meet SIL 4 requirements. There is no way on earth we can see how granules can meet that. Even using Micropore cartridges requires active monitoring of WOB etc to meet EN61508. No CCR at the moment comes anywhere close to meeting EN61508. The best we have examined falls short by 4 orders of magnitude (more than 10,000:1) in terms of the critical failure level. The Open Revolution submissions should be the first to meet that requirement. It is a tall order, but the standard is there to prevent waste of your most precious resource, your life. Cheers, Alex Hi Alex, So you mean Inspiration, Evolution, Ouroboros are out of low because they're not really CE tested? Well it is not really what I care for. I even more curious about the openrevolution... Best, Nad __________________ The Impossible is often the Untried
(Online)

12th September 2006, 09:00	#15 (permalink)
koputai Subsea Systems Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Other CCR Other SCR Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other CCR Other SCR Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 299	Re: Any news? Thanks guys, Now, not trying to be difficult, but: If this is an open design, developed by whoever is interested here on Rebreather World, then why are the photo's secret? Why can nothing be seen before DEMA? Sounds just like a private company doing product development to me. Any comments? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people making money, just a bit confused. Regards, Jason.
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 11:05	#16 (permalink)
Genesis Bubbless Box of Death Current Rebreather/s: Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Home Build Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 1,394	Re: Any news? "Open Revolutiion" is just a marketing name. The only eCCR with open source that I am aware of is the published GPL'd K1 code and PCB files. AD_Ward and I went around on this a few months ago, and the conclusion was that OR is not open source / open design - its a marketing name for exposing the validation protocol(s) used in the design to public scrutiny. Now that is in and of itself a fairly significant thing (and a first in the industry), so in no way is this an attempt to "slam" AD_Ward and what they're doing - but its not "open source" - its a full-on commercial product full of trade secrets, just like all the others out there. __________________ "A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American." http://www.denninger.net http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 18:09	#17 (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: 1,553	Re: Any news? Quote: (Originally Posted by Genesis) "Open Revolutiion" is just a marketing name. The only eCCR with open source that I am aware of is the published GPL'd K1 code and PCB files. AD_Ward and I went around on this a few months ago, and the conclusion was that OR is not open source / open design - its a marketing name for exposing the validation protocol(s) used in the design to public scrutiny. Now that is in and of itself a fairly significant thing (and a first in the industry), so in no way is this an attempt to "slam" AD_Ward and what they're doing - but its not "open source" - its a full-on commercial product full of trade secrets, just like all the others out there. We discussed this on another thread. Open Revolution is not open source as per GNU type licences. Open Revolution does publish the sources for all to see, publishes the safety process, the verification models and their sources, the circuits, their safety review, the mechanical drawings. Open Revolution is not an initiative from Marketing. It is one from safety engineers, to meet the best global practice for safe design. There are no trade secrets. All circuit diagrams are already published along with the safety review and MTBF & MTBCF data. Full mechanical design will be published. We recently approved publication of the design procedure meeting EN61508 even though this is commercially very valuable. Our objective is purely the safest possible system we can design. About 6 years ago, I had a conversation with Iain Middlebrook of HSM Engineering. We agreed that either company could easily make rebreathers or supply rebreather technology. We both agreed not to for Sports Rebreathers, until we could meet the 1 billion hour safety requirement with full gas monitoring (incl. CO2). HSM and DL are direct competitors in several areas. However, we have a high regard for Iain's integrity and the altruism of safety comes first in their business, just like in ours. We both believe there have been a string of CCR deaths from poor design. We both would like that to end. We are exposing our work under the Open Revolution initiative as part of our contribution to that goal. HSM are offering a free rebreather test facility as part of their contribution to the community (to which we are contributing one of our breathing machines). Diving gives access to a wonderful environment under the sea, that it is only really diving that is preserving. When we dive I for one feel grateful at the priviledge of seeing things under the sea, live, in ways previous generations never could. I hope more can enjoy and be part of this. To make that come about, we do need safer equipment. If there is a better way than the Open Revolution initiative to do that, I am keen to hear of it. Please tell me the solution rather than the problem. Cheers, Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 12th September 2006 at 18:13.
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 18:50	#18 (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: 1,507	Re: Any news? Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) On the Micropore cartridges there is an interesting technicality. We cannot use granules, by law. It must use cartridges. I will explain: The law in Europe says rebreathers must meet EN14143:2003, and that requires meeting EN61508. The latter applies to any system incorporating any electronics or electrical system, or programmed system. This means if the CCR has a controller, EN61508 applies to the whole lot. CCRs using granules cannot meet EN61508. This means any CCR marked CE without a Micropore cartridge, is a lie. Cheers, Alex C'mon Alex, you know thats not anywhere near true. 1, Standards are not law, and compliance with Harmonised standards is not required by law. Conformity with a national standard that transposes a harmonised standard, whose reference has been published, confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the applicable New Approach directive that is covered by such a standard. The references in the Official Journal do not support your comment. 2. 61508 has a scope, the scrubber cart is not covered by that scope. The reference in EN14143 is exactly as follows; *5.13 Electrical systems* *5.13.1 Functional safety* Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7. Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2. Brent Hudson .eng DTI Appointed Notified Body Member of the Technical Standards Sub-committee. Co-Author of ther HSE Guidance on Electronically Programmable Safety Related Control Systems SIM __________________ Self praise is no reccomendation. Dont try to be a great man, just be a man and let history be the judge of you. CHECK OUT OUR INTERWEBS FOR CUSTOM REBREATHER UPGRADES *WWW.NARKEDAT90.CO.UK* *http://www.grpservices.com/pursuit/* Supporting Shearwater Research Products in Europe Last edited by divetheworld : 12th September 2006 at 19:00.
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 22:38	#19 (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: 1,553	Re: Any news? Quote: (Originally Posted by divetheworld) C'mon Alex, you know thats not anywhere near true. 1, Standards are not law, and compliance with Harmonised standards is not required by law. Conformity with a national standard that transposes a harmonised standard, whose reference has been published, confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the applicable New Approach directive that is covered by such a standard. The references in the Official Journal do not support your comment. 2. 61508 has a scope, the scrubber cart is not covered by that scope. The reference in EN14143 is exactly as follows; *5.13 Electrical systems* *5.13.1 Functional safety* Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7. Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2. Brent Hudson .eng DTI Appointed Notified Body Member of the Technical Standards Sub-committee. Co-Author of ther HSE Guidance on Electronically Programmable Safety Related Control Systems SIM The requirement for CE marking of product is law. The requirements to be met for a CE mark is set down by regulatory standards. Your point that the standard itself is not law is true, but compliance with the standard is a legal requirement by virtue of the need for CE marking. EN61508 covers the whole equipment that incorporates electronic, electrical or programmable assemblies because it is a requirement that the assembly prevents a critical failure of the equipment with a higher probability than its rated SIL level (in this case, SIL 4). It is a requirement of EN61508 to extend the reaches of the system, so one cannot isolate a small piece of electronics and say that alone meets SIL x. By making EN61508 normative for EN14143:2003, it casts a wide net. Much wider than the authors of EN14143 intended, I am sure. I accept that a canister that is not in an eCCR is not covered by EN61508, which is why I was careful to specify eCCRs in my posting. Cheers, Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 12th September 2006 at 22:42.
(Offline)

12th September 2006, 23:38	#20 (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: 1,507	Re: Any news? I think you are taking the scope of the "system" too literally in this case. The reference which is noted in the Official Journal is prescriptive in this case that 61508 only relates specifically and solitarily on the electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus. 61508 would never be applied to the canister. Compliance with the standards referred to in the Official Journal gives a presumption of compliance, but in no way are any standards mandatory. This is the basis of the New Approach directives and should never be mis-understood. The requirements to be met for a CE mark is set down by the Directive. Standards never have been regulatory. Although European standards are considered as harmonised before publication of the references in the Official Journal, it is this publication that gives presumption of conformity to the essential requirements of the directive in question. Exceptionally, harmonisation documents adopted by European standards organisations can also be accepted by the Commission as harmonised standards. The differences between European standards and harmonisation documents essentially relate to the degree of obligation on the part of the national members. As an appointed representative to CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) since Late 2000 on the application of the Standards, I am in a unique position to help you with any misunderstanding you may have. Brent __________________ Self praise is no reccomendation. Dont try to be a great man, just be a man and let history be the judge of you. CHECK OUT OUR INTERWEBS FOR CUSTOM REBREATHER UPGRADES *WWW.NARKEDAT90.CO.UK* *http://www.grpservices.com/pursuit/* Supporting Shearwater Research Products in Europe
(Offline)

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

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.rebreatherworld.com/open-revolution-rebreather/3145-any-news.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
The Forum of Technical and Rebreather Diving Leggi argomento - Analisi delle principali cause di incidente usando un eCCR	This thread	Refback	13th September 2006 18:36