Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates

**Gill Envy** · 2nd February 2007, 22:55

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

Seems to me these options are already available.

There are parachute systems out there for the KISS and there are people out there diving Megs HHs and YBOSs manually with the solenoid as back up.

It seems to me that you can offer a new training system (like Cedric's Breather idea) to formalize the use of such systems or you can piss in the wind trying to convince others that its a good idea.

At the end of the day it was summed up beautifully for me on another thread. A astute diver said, (please excuse paraphrasing here) some divers buy kit of the shelf and just expect it to work. When it doesn't they send it back to base to get fixed bitch about it ands expect it to work when it gets back. Some divers buy kit and just accept that hours of fettling fiddling and messing around with soldering irons is part of the game.

If i was doing DIR CCR I think id be insisting everyone dived a Copis MEG with HUD.

What do you think leon? send me a free Copis Meg and ill get it all started straight away

ATB

Mark Chase

I don't find the KISS appealing, no front counterlungs (increased caustic cocktail risk), the hand sets leave something to be desired, and excuse me for being shallow I just don't like the way it looks.

However, a year later, I think looks can be decieving, that what appears to have the least robust appearance may turn out to have the safest design or the design that instills the safest operation.

All in all, modifying an mCCR is not as appealing to me as taking an eCCR and modifyin it...I like many of the electronic aspects for the less life support critical monitoring.

I have become very leery of the bad habits that auto injection instil and the possible added failure points of solenoid injection. I'm more inclined to be in favor of the production of an eCCR with a constant flow orifice.

The Copis meg with a BOV comes the closest so far to balancing hard core build quality with a design that instills good habits and i think Leon was very wise for creating that option.

That said, i still love my evo, i love diving it, and the more I learn to do field adjustments with competency the happier i'll be... the mortality rate on the vision is very low and the production of the units is very high.

That said, give me a copis-like version of the vision electronics with built in deco, battery monitor, independent controller, one screen, a temp stick, a travel frame, Co2 minitor and some kind of constant flow system that addresses the limits of the typical mCCR and I'd become a born again evo evangelical. Stuart, i already know how much you'd love that.

Or give me a apex III mini meg with a temp stick, constant flow orifice and no solenoid.

Give me all the bells and whistles including a BOV and an "auto on" and leave out the solenoid, leaving the monitoring of po2 and o2 injection the diver. At this point, that would be the ultimate rebreather to me.

cys · 2nd February 2007, 22:56

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

If i was doing DIR CCR I think id be insisting everyone dived a Copis MEG with HUD.

FMCL's...the horror...the horror

.

How's about a KISS with a HUD... wait, that's my alternate unit.

Mark Chase · 2nd February 2007, 23:19

Quote: (Originally Posted by cys)

FMCL's...the horror...the horror

.

How's about a KISS with a HUD... wait, that's my alternate unit.

Never get it past CE aproval M8

ATB

Mark Chase

**Gill Envy** · 3rd February 2007, 19:46

Quote: (Originally Posted by silentscuba)

WOW Gill, you have come a long way in a year, great ideas and thoughts--have some GREEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR?

bletso · 3rd February 2007, 21:00

I think the real advantage of a MCCR is just that. Plain and simple as Gordon Smith would say. No bells and whistles. I dive a modified Dolphin configured as a DOCCR (dual orifice...) One orifice is for O2 metabolized, the other limits the speed O2 is injected manually.
www.airheadsscuba.com/bletsop.html

At one time I thought it would be nice to have an auto injection in case..., well I pretty much just forgot about it. It would make me less attentive because the system could to some degree take over. The same was for alarms, which I could hear everyone else but not mine. I thought a HUD would be a nice idea, but I like being able to look at both my PO2 gauges simultaniously. (Two primary displays) So, scrap the HUD. www.airheadsscuba.com/po2gauge.html

I dive with two, not three PO2 monitors, independent power supplies, wiring, sectioned housing. Why, my brain makes the thumb/brain connection and I can decide if something is wrong, not some computer. www.airheadsscuba.com/sensors.html

I also thought a BOV would be nice, but I have never had a problem grabing my octo under my neck when needed. (I have needed to on several occasions)

KISS diving is as much a mindset as it is a gear configuration. It is this mindset as much as anything which keeps KISS divers alive. There really isn't much more that can be said. It's that SIMPLE.

Dale

cys · 3rd February 2007, 21:21

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR?

The depth limit can be removed by using a smaller orifice in a KISS valve and having a higher fixed IP. If you run an IP of 20 bar with an appropriately small orifice the depth limitation will pretty much be a non-issue (I think it already is for most people [including myself] with a standard KISS valve). I know most people spec the limit on a DS4 as about 12-12.5 bar. There are ways to consider to go beyond that.

silentscuba · 3rd February 2007, 21:32

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR?

Gill- No matter what you do with a pure MCCR you will only be adding more failure points if you try to blend an ECCR and a MCCR.

Since it seems that some ECCR divers want the unit to be able to take care of them if they have a problem, the best idea that has come out that could be added to a MCCR is the "PARACHUTE SYSTEM".

That idea came about to address safety of a diver having a problem and not being able to manage a minimum PO2. The "PARACHUTE SYSTEM" is set up to add O2 if the PO2 drops down to a certain setpoint, say .4. But, now you have added new electonics, fittings, batteries, solenoid etc.

I feel that the "PARACHUTE SYSTEM" on a Constant Flow MCCR would be the closest to a blending of both types of rebreathers.

As far as the depth ratings, most units can be upgraded to be able to handle most any depth that you want.

Just my thoughts.

**UWSojourner** · 3rd February 2007, 21:43

Is there credible information about mortality experience on mCCR vs eCCR? Where is it available?

Mark Chase · 3rd February 2007, 23:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner)

Is there credible information about mortality experience on mCCR vs eCCR? Where is it available?

KISS type MCCR deaths......None

ECCR various units deaths.. Loads

That about sums it up really.

However i once told a friend and DIR diver that once DIR became mainstream dick heads would start diving DIR not because they really believed it but because they thought it was cool.

Then the system will break down.

Rightly or wrongly I believe a lot of divers moved to the Meg because the Inspo was seen as dangerous and the Megs image was one of superior design in every way.

That didn't work

I fear that divers will choose MCCR not because they 100% believe in the concept of being part of the unit but because of its safety record. Then Darwin will kick in and we will have a spat of MCCR deaths.

On the other hand its 11.40pm and I am a bit cheesed off so maybe i am being negative about the whole thing

ATB

Mark Chase

**UWSojourner** · 4th February 2007, 01:16

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

KISS type MCCR deaths......None

ECCR various units deaths.. Loads

That about sums it up really.

Kinda thought that might be what we're talking about. No info on experience, depths, type of diving, etc. Just mCCR-0,eCCR>0.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

However i once told a friend and DIR diver that once DIR became mainstream dick heads would start diving DIR not because they really believed it but because they thought it was cool.

This reminds me of the "doctor killer" airplane. Forget the type of plane it was. But doctors were being killed in them because they could afford the high performance plane. Their new plane was capable of getting them into situations they weren't capable of handling. Maybe the eCCR is doing the same.

2nd February 2007, 22:55	#11 (permalink)
Gill Envy Shearwater Copis Divers Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Evolution Other CCR Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: seattle Posts: 1,347	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) Seems to me these options are already available. There are parachute systems out there for the KISS and there are people out there diving Megs HHs and YBOSs manually with the solenoid as back up. It seems to me that you can offer a new training system (like Cedric's Breather idea) to formalize the use of such systems or you can piss in the wind trying to convince others that its a good idea. At the end of the day it was summed up beautifully for me on another thread. A astute diver said, (please excuse paraphrasing here) some divers buy kit of the shelf and just expect it to work. When it doesn't they send it back to base to get fixed bitch about it ands expect it to work when it gets back. Some divers buy kit and just accept that hours of fettling fiddling and messing around with soldering irons is part of the game. If i was doing DIR CCR I think id be insisting everyone dived a Copis MEG with HUD. What do you think leon? send me a free Copis Meg and ill get it all started straight away ATB Mark Chase I don't find the KISS appealing, no front counterlungs (increased caustic cocktail risk), the hand sets leave something to be desired, and excuse me for being shallow I just don't like the way it looks. However, a year later, I think looks can be decieving, that what appears to have the least robust appearance may turn out to have the safest design or the design that instills the safest operation. All in all, modifying an mCCR is not as appealing to me as taking an eCCR and modifyin it...I like many of the electronic aspects for the less life support critical monitoring. I have become very leery of the bad habits that auto injection instil and the possible added failure points of solenoid injection. I'm more inclined to be in favor of the production of an eCCR with a constant flow orifice. The Copis meg with a BOV comes the closest so far to balancing hard core build quality with a design that instills good habits and i think Leon was very wise for creating that option. That said, i still love my evo, i love diving it, and the more I learn to do field adjustments with competency the happier i'll be... the mortality rate on the vision is very low and the production of the units is very high. That said, give me a copis-like version of the vision electronics with built in deco, battery monitor, independent controller, one screen, a temp stick, a travel frame, Co2 minitor and some kind of constant flow system that addresses the limits of the typical mCCR and I'd become a born again evo evangelical. Stuart, i already know how much you'd love that. Or give me a apex III mini meg with a temp stick, constant flow orifice and no solenoid. Give me all the bells and whistles including a BOV and an "auto on" and leave out the solenoid, leaving the monitoring of po2 and o2 injection the diver. At this point, that would be the ultimate rebreather to me. __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°> Last edited by Gill Envy : 3rd February 2007 at 16:05.
(Offline)

2nd February 2007, 22:56	#12 (permalink)
cys Customise Me! Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss MK 15.X Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: S. California Posts: 210	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) If i was doing DIR CCR I think id be insisting everyone dived a Copis MEG with HUD. FMCL's...the horror...the horror . How's about a KISS with a HUD... wait, that's my alternate unit.
(Offline)

2nd February 2007, 23:19	#13 (permalink)
Mark Chase RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,856	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by cys) FMCL's...the horror...the horror . How's about a KISS with a HUD... wait, that's my alternate unit. Never get it past CE aproval M8 ATB Mark Chase __________________ See my "Doing It Chasey" video where I'm locked into a padded room, naked, with two ball bearings and within an Hour, I manage to lose one and break the other!!! Kevin Juergensen 16/11/08 [/quote]
(Online)

3rd February 2007, 19:46	#14 (permalink)
Gill Envy Shearwater Copis Divers Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Evolution Other CCR Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: seattle Posts: 1,347	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by silentscuba) WOW Gill, you have come a long way in a year, great ideas and thoughts--have some GREEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR? __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>
(Offline)

3rd February 2007, 21:00	#15 (permalink)
bletso An independent diver. Current Rebreather/s: Dolphin Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Dolphin Home Build Join Date: May 2006 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 263	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates I think the real advantage of a MCCR is just that. Plain and simple as Gordon Smith would say. No bells and whistles. I dive a modified Dolphin configured as a DOCCR (dual orifice...) One orifice is for O2 metabolized, the other limits the speed O2 is injected manually. www.airheadsscuba.com/bletsop.html At one time I thought it would be nice to have an auto injection in case..., well I pretty much just forgot about it. It would make me less attentive because the system could to some degree take over. The same was for alarms, which I could hear everyone else but not mine. I thought a HUD would be a nice idea, but I like being able to look at both my PO2 gauges simultaniously. (Two primary displays) So, scrap the HUD. www.airheadsscuba.com/po2gauge.html I dive with two, not three PO2 monitors, independent power supplies, wiring, sectioned housing. Why, my brain makes the thumb/brain connection and I can decide if something is wrong, not some computer. www.airheadsscuba.com/sensors.html I also thought a BOV would be nice, but I have never had a problem grabing my octo under my neck when needed. (I have needed to on several occasions) KISS diving is as much a mindset as it is a gear configuration. It is this mindset as much as anything which keeps KISS divers alive. There really isn't much more that can be said. It's that SIMPLE. Dale
(Offline)

3rd February 2007, 21:21	#16 (permalink)
cys Customise Me! Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss MK 15.X Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: S. California Posts: 210	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR? The depth limit can be removed by using a smaller orifice in a KISS valve and having a higher fixed IP. If you run an IP of 20 bar with an appropriately small orifice the depth limitation will pretty much be a non-issue (I think it already is for most people [including myself] with a standard KISS valve). I know most people spec the limit on a DS4 as about 12-12.5 bar. There are ways to consider to go beyond that.
(Offline)

3rd February 2007, 21:32	#17 (permalink)
silentscuba rEvo CCR Driver Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic rEvo Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mill Creek, WA USA Posts: 612	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) So Curt, Mel and others with extensive mCCR experience, what are some creative ways you can think of to get the electronics completely out of the o2 injection process (while retaining the other aspects of an eCCR) without having the depth limits and other real and or percieved limits of the average mCCR? Gill- No matter what you do with a pure MCCR you will only be adding more failure points if you try to blend an ECCR and a MCCR. Since it seems that some ECCR divers want the unit to be able to take care of them if they have a problem, the best idea that has come out that could be added to a MCCR is the "PARACHUTE SYSTEM". That idea came about to address safety of a diver having a problem and not being able to manage a minimum PO2. The "PARACHUTE SYSTEM" is set up to add O2 if the PO2 drops down to a certain setpoint, say .4. But, now you have added new electonics, fittings, batteries, solenoid etc. I feel that the "PARACHUTE SYSTEM" on a Constant Flow MCCR would be the closest to a blending of both types of rebreathers. As far as the depth ratings, most units can be upgraded to be able to handle most any depth that you want. Just my thoughts. __________________ Curt McNamee rEvo CCR Diver KISS CCR Diver www.silentscuba.com Last edited by silentscuba : 3rd February 2007 at 21:44.
(Offline)

3rd February 2007, 21:43	#18 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 558	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Is there credible information about mortality experience on mCCR vs eCCR? Where is it available?
(Offline)

3rd February 2007, 23:42	#19 (permalink)
Mark Chase RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 2,856	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner) Is there credible information about mortality experience on mCCR vs eCCR? Where is it available? KISS type MCCR deaths......None ECCR various units deaths.. Loads That about sums it up really. However i once told a friend and DIR diver that once DIR became mainstream dick heads would start diving DIR not because they really believed it but because they thought it was cool. Then the system will break down. Rightly or wrongly I believe a lot of divers moved to the Meg because the Inspo was seen as dangerous and the Megs image was one of superior design in every way. That didn't work I fear that divers will choose MCCR not because they 100% believe in the concept of being part of the unit but because of its safety record. Then Darwin will kick in and we will have a spat of MCCR deaths. On the other hand its 11.40pm and I am a bit cheesed off so maybe i am being negative about the whole thing ATB Mark Chase __________________ See my "Doing It Chasey" video where I'm locked into a padded room, naked, with two ball bearings and within an Hour, I manage to lose one and break the other!!! Kevin Juergensen 16/11/08 [/quote]
(Online)

4th February 2007, 01:16	#20 (permalink)
UWSojourner Pacific Northwest Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 558	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) KISS type MCCR deaths......None ECCR various units deaths.. Loads That about sums it up really. Kinda thought that might be what we're talking about. No info on experience, depths, type of diving, etc. Just mCCR-0,eCCR>0. Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) However i once told a friend and DIR diver that once DIR became mainstream dick heads would start diving DIR not because they really believed it but because they thought it was cool. This reminds me of the "doctor killer" airplane. Forget the type of plane it was. But doctors were being killed in them because they could afford the high performance plane. Their new plane was capable of getting them into situations they weren't capable of handling. Maybe the eCCR is doing the same.
(Offline)

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