Rebreather Comparison Chart

Stephane · 15th October 2007, 07:50

Quote:

Yes the testing was done in the vertical position

And everybody knows that dives should be made in the vertical position ...

Mark Chase · 15th October 2007, 07:55

Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie)

Yes the testing was done in the vertical position

Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie)

I would say that the weights came from the units they had

I don't know how many test they had done but it would be nice to see how the WOB and durations compared at different depths and in both vertical and horizontal.

Dam, that is very anoying indead. I spend virtualy zero time in the dive in the vertical position so I fail to see the relevance. Flat to 45 degrees would be usful data.

ATB

Mark

**Steve** · 15th October 2007, 08:15

Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go?

paulraymaekers · 15th October 2007, 08:16

Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie)

I would say that the weights came from the units they had

that's not what I was told: they simply took it from the website...

paul

***Beanie*** · 15th October 2007, 08:16

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go?

That's what I was told

paulraymaekers · 15th October 2007, 08:17

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go?

100% sure: Kevin himself explained me!

the hole range of positions is another test: mesuring peak mbars +/-

paul

***caveseeker7*** · 15th October 2007, 08:46

Can't make anything right for you lot.

Have a look in the gallery, sometimes I wonder if anyone not on an RB80 ever dives horizontally.

But seriously, no matter who commisioned the testing, it was done, it provides comparable data to the public for the first time.

Actually, I'm not even sure if the position did indeed made such a big difference, as the test was for breathing resistance.
I'll try and find out how the testing was done.

Either way, maybe this is an ecouragement to the manufacturers of units not having been tested under to CE protocol
to finally go ahead and test their scrubber durations etc and, for a nice change, actually publish the data.

I truly applaud C2R for having the testing done, whatever their intentions may have been.
Same for Jetsam to invest the time and money to have their rigs' durations tested.
The bottom line is that we now know more about the units than we did before.
Take the Sport Kiss', rEvos and Optima's scrubbers, they were new and unusual designs.
The rEvo did quite well IMHO, the Sport Kiss much as expected.
The much touted cartridge on the other hand disappointed me.

steveharriss · 15th October 2007, 08:47

Don't forget the old adage....there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. With a set of data you can make it appear to support almost any conclusion you want!

I'm skeptical of data produced by a manufacturer that makes their latest and greatest the winner by a long way. A vertical WOB test seems a little convenient, if that's the case.

Why can't we have an independent body carry out a standardised, simulated real life, tests on the various units. Rebreather World??

***schford*** · 15th October 2007, 09:10

Quote: (Originally Posted by steveharriss)

Why can't we have an independent body carry out a standardised, simulated real life, tests on the various units. Rebreather World??

We would like to - but it is damn expensive - the deal with the commercial stores is they kick back a percentage of profit to finance these sort of Rebreather World projects.

paulraymaekers · 15th October 2007, 09:19

Quote: (Originally Posted by caveseeker7)

Actually, I'm not even sure if the position did indeed made such a big difference, as the test was for breathing resistance.
I'll try and find out how the testing was done.

Hi Stephan, it makes the most possible difference: imagine that it's dynamic testing: breathing cycles push-pull though the unit, at an immence flow (75l/min)

in vertical position, on every cycle when you exhale, and when you did not optimise your counterlung volume, you have to push a volume of gas 50cm lower than your mouth, or 30cm lower then the center of your lungs!!!

and you mesure the energy (joules) that is needed to transport the gas trough the system....

paul

15th October 2007, 07:50	#11 (permalink)
Stephane Stéphane Acounis Current Rebreather/s: rEvo Other Rebreather/s: rEvo Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Nantes - France Posts: 769	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: Yes the testing was done in the vertical position And everybody knows that dives should be made in the vertical position ... __________________ Stéphane
(Online)

15th October 2007, 07:55	#12 (permalink)
Mark Chase I go down for ages Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,700	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie) Yes the testing was done in the vertical position Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie) I would say that the weights came from the units they had I don't know how many test they had done but it would be nice to see how the WOB and durations compared at different depths and in both vertical and horizontal. Dam, that is very anoying indead. I spend virtualy zero time in the dive in the vertical position so I fail to see the relevance. Flat to 45 degrees would be usful data. ATB Mark __________________ Is it supposed to make that noise ? I took my unit to the dive shop and demanded they bolt on every thing that would fit. Join my elite diving teem and get a Tshirt "Doing It Chasey"Hammerhead Eccr Advanced Diving System
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:15	#13 (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: 1,117	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go? __________________ WARNING: I contain occasional coarse language, extreme sexual references, nudity, and adult themes, which may offend some people - Usually churchy types.
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:16	#14 (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: 1,508	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by Beanie) I would say that the weights came from the units they had that's not what I was told: they simply took it from the website... paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:16	#15 (permalink)
*Beanie* give a man an inch....... Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In da house! yeah baby! Posts: 3,177	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve) Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go? That's what I was told __________________ Beanie Gallery Admin & Library Assistant. www.outlawdivers.org.uk www.beandiving.co.uk www.beanengineering.co.uk
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:17	#16 (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: 1,508	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve) Are you guys really sure that the tests were conducted in the vertical position? As I remember the test from talking with Leon from ISC and Kevin from CCR, the unit starts in the vertical position and moves through a range of positions. What is the go? 100% sure: Kevin himself explained me! the hole range of positions is another test: mesuring peak mbars +/- paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials...
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:46	#17 (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: 5,456	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Can't make anything right for you lot. Have a look in the gallery, sometimes I wonder if anyone not on an RB80 ever dives horizontally. But seriously, no matter who commisioned the testing, it was done, it provides comparable data to the public for the first time. Actually, I'm not even sure if the position did indeed made such a big difference, as the test was for breathing resistance. I'll try and find out how the testing was done. Either way, maybe this is an ecouragement to the manufacturers of units not having been tested under to CE protocol to finally go ahead and test their scrubber durations etc and, for a nice change, actually publish the data. I truly applaud C2R for having the testing done, whatever their intentions may have been. Same for Jetsam to invest the time and money to have their rigs' durations tested. The bottom line is that we now know more about the units than we did before. Take the Sport Kiss', rEvos and Optima's scrubbers, they were new and unusual designs. The rEvo did quite well IMHO, the Sport Kiss much as expected. The much touted cartridge on the other hand disappointed me. __________________ 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.!" Last edited by caveseeker7 : 15th October 2007 at 08:51.
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 08:47	#18 (permalink)
steveharriss Bubble free by choice Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 165	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Don't forget the old adage....there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. With a set of data you can make it appear to support almost any conclusion you want! I'm skeptical of data produced by a manufacturer that makes their latest and greatest the winner by a long way. A vertical WOB test seems a little convenient, if that's the case. Why can't we have an independent body carry out a standardised, simulated real life, tests on the various units. Rebreather World??
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 09:10	#19 (permalink)
*schford* Despotic Overlord Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,562	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by steveharriss) Why can't we have an independent body carry out a standardised, simulated real life, tests on the various units. Rebreather World?? We would like to - but it is damn expensive - the deal with the commercial stores is they kick back a percentage of profit to finance these sort of Rebreather World projects. __________________ Bailout and Kit Management account for Murphy's Law The only bad question is one you did not ask and later wish you had. Use of Rebreather World is subject to the Rebreather World Terms & Conditions of Use
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 09:19	#20 (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: 1,508	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by caveseeker7) Actually, I'm not even sure if the position did indeed made such a big difference, as the test was for breathing resistance. I'll try and find out how the testing was done. Hi Stephan, it makes the most possible difference: imagine that it's dynamic testing: breathing cycles push-pull though the unit, at an immence flow (75l/min) in vertical position, on every cycle when you exhale, and when you did not optimise your counterlung volume, you have to push a volume of gas 50cm lower than your mouth, or 30cm lower then the center of your lungs!!! and you mesure the energy (joules) that is needed to transport the gas trough the system.... 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