Rebreather Comparison Chart

***schford*** · 14th October 2007, 19:53

Here you can see attached the poster that caused such a buzz at the dive show. (click on it to zoom in)

Kevin tells me that he is willing to change any of the data on here if anyone can supply new data of a similiar quality.

He also asked me to point out that he did not do the testing himself but commisioned an independant third party to do it on his behalf.

decoweenie · 14th October 2007, 19:58

Indeed very interesting results (from what I could make out of the blurry charts

).

Thanks Stuart!

Mark Chase · 14th October 2007, 22:05

Got to applaud Mr Gurr for this.

A well laid out and relevant set of numbers at last.

I am shocked that the WOB on the KISS comes out as only slightly worse than a Inspo. I thought the difference was substantial.

ATB

Mark Chase

Janos · 14th October 2007, 22:12

I heard that the Kiss Classic narrowly failed the old (60/min ???) test which the original inspiration passed. However the modified Inspiration (different t-pieces???) passed the 75 l/min.

I'm not sure on my facts though so take with a large pinch of salt.

Janos

paulraymaekers · 14th October 2007, 22:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by Janos)

I heard that the Kiss Classic narrowly failed the old (60/min ???) test which the original inspiration passed. However the modified Inspiration (different t-pieces???) passed the 75 l/min.

I'm not sure on my facts though so take with a large pinch of salt.

Janos

if you study the chart correctly, you will see that it contains lot's of ... 'euphemismes' (I did not say 'failures..)

conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-)

the weight: rEvo second worst with ... 31 kg (on the chart!!!)

that is correct, with the heavy 300 bar, 3l cylinders, stainless steel chassis, and filled with sorb..

in analogy with the ouroboros, 34 kg, the rEvo with 2l 230 bar tanks, and empty, is.... 24.2 kg! why not compare apples with apples?? (and don't forget that the titanium rEvo is even 2.5 kg less!)

and everybody knows that not only the weigth on land is important, but more important the extra weight you need to take to get the unit UNDER water: I wonder how much extra weight you need to get some breathers negative in water, with the huge volume of gas in the scrubber container!

scrubber efficiency: must be a mistake in the calculation!! (although the scrubber performance of the rEvo is by the best, Kevin mixed up the graph of efficiency (% efficiency of the sorb used): just divide 'time till breaktrough' by the KG each cannister contains, an you get a diff result)....

or the scrubber of the rEvo was filled less than prescribed by the manufacturer!

... so when I notice that the chart was not set-up in an objective way, but to get a specific result, I also have some doubths conc the published data in general..

regards

paul

silent running · 14th October 2007, 23:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-)
paul

I don't understand, was the chart made with CE data or not? Does CE test WOB only in the vertical position?

Mdemon · 15th October 2007, 00:35

Interesting that someone has tried to get figures together, but when data is taken "from the internet" rather than from the same machine it starts to throw a little doubt into the equation. The points Paul makes would seem to corroborate this.

A more useful exercise would be for all units to be tested in the same way on the same machine. Apples and oranges and all that.

***jradomski*** · 15th October 2007, 00:41

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

I don't understand, was the chart made with CE data or not? Does CE test WOB only in the vertical position?

the only references I could find in the CE testing is that the manufacturer must give optimal x and y coordinates to the surpa strenal notch.. there is a hydrostatic imbalance test done at various angles with an pressure reading at the mouthpiece at the final opart of the exhale cycle.
the testing also specifies the diver should be simulated at +90 (vertical) and +0 ( horizontal) positions..

personally having dove(dived) both a classic and the rEvo, in the normal dive position the rEvo feels like a better breather.. In the vertical position the rEvo is not that great.

Dave O · 15th October 2007, 01:49

FWIW, looking at these charts, I am convinced Gordon Smith was way ahead of his time. I am astounded that his unit compares EXCEPTIONALLY well against units costing much more. I applaud Kim for continuing to build and sell one of the best CCRs in the market for an exceptional price!

***Beanie*** · 15th October 2007, 07:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

if you study the chart correctly, you will see that it contains lot's of ... 'euphemismes' (I did not say 'failures..)

conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-)

the weight: rEvo second worst with ... 31 kg (on the chart!!!)

that is correct, with the heavy 300 bar, 3l cylinders, stainless steel chassis, and filled with sorb..

in analogy with the ouroboros, 34 kg, the rEvo with 2l 230 bar tanks, and empty, is.... 24.2 kg! why not compare apples with apples?? (and don't forget that the titanium rEvo is even 2.5 kg less!)

and everybody knows that not only the weigth on land is important, but more important the extra weight you need to take to get the unit UNDER water: I wonder how much extra weight you need to get some breathers negative in water, with the huge volume of gas in the scrubber container!

scrubber efficiency: must be a mistake in the calculation!! (although the scrubber performance of the rEvo is by the best, Kevin mixed up the graph of efficiency (% efficiency of the sorb used): just divide 'time till breaktrough' by the KG each cannister contains, an you get a diff result)

... so when I notice that the chart was not set-up in an objective way, but to get a specific result, I also have some doubths conc the published data in general..

regards

paul

Yes the testing was done in the vertical position

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.

14th October 2007, 19:58	#2 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,509	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Indeed very interesting results (from what I could make out of the blurry charts ). Thanks Stuart!
(Offline)

14th October 2007, 22:05	#3 (permalink)
Mark Chase I go down for ages Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,410	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Got to applaud Mr Gurr for this. A well laid out and relevant set of numbers at last. I am shocked that the WOB on the KISS comes out as only slightly worse than a Inspo. I thought the difference was substantial. ATB Mark Chase __________________ 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)

14th October 2007, 22:12	#4 (permalink)
Janos "Two Sheds" Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: East Surrey Posts: 579	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart I heard that the Kiss Classic narrowly failed the old (60/min ???) test which the original inspiration passed. However the modified Inspiration (different t-pieces???) passed the 75 l/min. I'm not sure on my facts though so take with a large pinch of salt. Janos __________________ You can lead a horse to water but you can't climb a ladder with a large bell in both hands - Vic Reeves www.hellfins.com/shed
(Offline)

14th October 2007, 22:42	#5 (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: 1,344	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by Janos) I heard that the Kiss Classic narrowly failed the old (60/min ???) test which the original inspiration passed. However the modified Inspiration (different t-pieces???) passed the 75 l/min. I'm not sure on my facts though so take with a large pinch of salt. Janos if you study the chart correctly, you will see that it contains lot's of ... 'euphemismes' (I did not say 'failures..) conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-) the weight: rEvo second worst with ... 31 kg (on the chart!!!) that is correct, with the heavy 300 bar, 3l cylinders, stainless steel chassis, and filled with sorb.. in analogy with the ouroboros, 34 kg, the rEvo with 2l 230 bar tanks, and empty, is.... 24.2 kg! why not compare apples with apples?? (and don't forget that the titanium rEvo is even 2.5 kg less!) and everybody knows that not only the weigth on land is important, but more important the extra weight you need to take to get the unit UNDER water: I wonder how much extra weight you need to get some breathers negative in water, with the huge volume of gas in the scrubber container! scrubber efficiency: must be a mistake in the calculation!! (although the scrubber performance of the rEvo is by the best, Kevin mixed up the graph of efficiency (% efficiency of the sorb used): just divide 'time till breaktrough' by the KG each cannister contains, an you get a diff result).... or the scrubber of the rEvo was filled less than prescribed by the manufacturer! ... so when I notice that the chart was not set-up in an objective way, but to get a specific result, I also have some doubths conc the published data in general.. regards paul __________________ www.rEvo-rebreathers.com .... the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, and radial scrubbers give longer dwell time than axials... Last edited by paulraymaekers : 15th October 2007 at 12:54.
(Online)

14th October 2007, 23:46	#6 (permalink)
silent running Mature mouth breather Current Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: U.S.A. Brooklyn, New York Posts: 1,743	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-) paul I don't understand, was the chart made with CE data or not? Does CE test WOB only in the vertical position?
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 00:35	#7 (permalink)
Mdemon SiegeEngine II Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SWUK Posts: 1,866	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Interesting that someone has tried to get figures together, but when data is taken "from the internet" rather than from the same machine it starts to throw a little doubt into the equation. The points Paul makes would seem to corroborate this. A more useful exercise would be for all units to be tested in the same way on the same machine. Apples and oranges and all that. __________________ www.southwestmafia.com
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 00:41	#8 (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: 2,795	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) I don't understand, was the chart made with CE data or not? Does CE test WOB only in the vertical position? the only references I could find in the CE testing is that the manufacturer must give optimal x and y coordinates to the surpa strenal notch.. there is a hydrostatic imbalance test done at various angles with an pressure reading at the mouthpiece at the final opart of the exhale cycle. the testing also specifies the diver should be simulated at +90 (vertical) and +0 ( horizontal) positions.. personally having dove(dived) both a classic and the rEvo, in the normal dive position the rEvo feels like a better breather.. In the vertical position the rEvo is not that great. __________________ 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. Last edited by jradomski : 15th October 2007 at 02:14.
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 01:49	#9 (permalink)
Dave O Wreck Diver Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 101	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart FWIW, looking at these charts, I am convinced Gordon Smith was way ahead of his time. I am astounded that his unit compares EXCEPTIONALLY well against units costing much more. I applaud Kim for continuing to build and sell one of the best CCRs in the market for an exceptional price! __________________ Only people who bat for the wrong team wash their undersuits......... I wanna smell piss when I go diving, not ferkin' fabric softener! <decodiver> Schizophrenics never dive solo. My Blog
(Offline)

15th October 2007, 07:22	#10 (permalink)
*Beanie* Cheif tea maker Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In da house! yeah baby! Posts: 3,133	Re: Rebreather Comparison Chart Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) if you study the chart correctly, you will see that it contains lot's of ... 'euphemismes' (I did not say 'failures..) conc the WOB: the test was done with the units in vertical position: not in diving position: this explains why the rEvo had the worst result: the counterlung of the rEvo comes deepest of all on your back in vertical position, the sentinel has the counterlung in the neck of the diver, so the highest of all in vertical position: so this one was the best, what would you have imagined :-) the weight: rEvo second worst with ... 31 kg (on the chart!!!) that is correct, with the heavy 300 bar, 3l cylinders, stainless steel chassis, and filled with sorb.. in analogy with the ouroboros, 34 kg, the rEvo with 2l 230 bar tanks, and empty, is.... 24.2 kg! why not compare apples with apples?? (and don't forget that the titanium rEvo is even 2.5 kg less!) and everybody knows that not only the weigth on land is important, but more important the extra weight you need to take to get the unit UNDER water: I wonder how much extra weight you need to get some breathers negative in water, with the huge volume of gas in the scrubber container! scrubber efficiency: must be a mistake in the calculation!! (although the scrubber performance of the rEvo is by the best, Kevin mixed up the graph of efficiency (% efficiency of the sorb used): just divide 'time till breaktrough' by the KG each cannister contains, an you get a diff result) ... so when I notice that the chart was not set-up in an objective way, but to get a specific result, I also have some doubths conc the published data in general.. regards paul Yes the testing was done in the vertical position 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. __________________ Beanie Gallery Admin & Library Assistant. www.outlawdivers.org.uk www.beandiving.co.uk www.beanengineering.co.uk www.divelife.co.uk
(Offline)

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