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

decoweenie · 4th February 2007, 20:33

Quote: (Originally Posted by Dutchy)

...I myself would - over time - be tempted to trust the HUD and forget about the primary...

After a year plus diving with a HUD, I finally understood what Uri was trying to explain to me before that about his HUD system as the primary PO2 display.

Remember that the Shearwater HUD has its own electronic/battery and is a separate system on its own, as well as a separate method to convey the actual PO2 values.

It is up to you to decide which is the primary system: the handset or the HUD, as far as PO2 monitoring...

Mark Chase · 4th February 2007, 21:09

Quote: (Originally Posted by decoweenie)

After a year plus diving with a HUD, I finally understood what Uri was trying to explain to me before that about his HUD system as the primary PO2 display.

Remember that the Shearwater HUD has its own electronic/battery and is a separate system on its own, as well as a separate method to convey the actual PO2 values.

It is up to you to decide which is the primary system: the handset or the HUD, as far as PO2 monitoring...

I have to say Uris HUD is very good indeed. When i fitted it back in 2004 and used it as a primary, I was called a fool and told it was constantly scan the hand sets or die. Now the vision is out and most people have HUDS its become accepted to fly the HUD.

Since that time i have tried the Meg, the Vision and the Hammer Head HUD.

Uri's is still by far my favorite.

ATB

Mark Chase

bletso · 5th February 2007, 00:10

Again, I see the same pitfalls.

In PO2 monitoring there CAN BE NO primary and secondary. If you don't monitor all your readings at the same time and/or rely on one over another you are setting yourself up. If the single HUD is giving erroneous results, how do you know?

The HUD's which concern me the most are the LED's. It's hard to interpret them for for an accurate and relative reading. If I have a reading on my units, just the reading with depth gives me the information I know to ask a simple question. Does the reading make sense? A diluent flush can clear up a questionable reading. TBC always TBC.

Remember, that which is your immediate view will, de facto develop into a "Primary", even if subconsciously. I don't know about you guys, but my life is worth more than that.

Dale

decoweenie · 5th February 2007, 03:45

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase)

...Now the vision is out and most people have HUDS its become accepted to fly the HUD.

Mark,

I was actually referring to the HUD-type (i.e. specifically Shearwater 3-LED, or even the Meg) that convey the exact PO2 values, and not the idiot-light HUD type.

For example, I have an idiot-light on my Patrol that flashes yellow whenever I go over a certain speed. Do I know exactly what speed I am driving or do I only know if I above a certain speed ?

Dale,

Take a look at the DEMA video of the Shearwater HUD to understand.

**Gill Envy** · 5th February 2007, 07:10

So Curt, it sounds like you have effectively created a manual injection eCCR. What you call it is not really important to me, but it sounds like the Sheerwater gives you a nice po2/deco integrated system and i'm guessing you use a second back up constant po2 computer as well...a VR3? The write up on it in the last ADM magazine made it seem very intuitive and streightforward, but i would have to say that it diverges from the notion of simplicity of the usual mCCR line of thinking.

I am fascinated by this evolution of mCCR's. I am very curious to see if the mCCR's continue having such a lack of fatal accidents associated with them, again, good training and vigilance not withstanding. It makes me want to run my eCCR's injection system on a low set point and inject manually even though i concede that it is still not completely comporable in "simplicity" and true mCCR mindset/habit formation. I'm guessing that there will be a trend to further integrate electronics into the mCCR and that the mortality rates will stay about the same and i'm very curious to see if this compells eCCR manufacturers to embrace manual injection at some point.

Oh, BTW, how have you addressed the increased flooding potential of internal counter lungs...have you modified your kit to have front mounted counter lungs like the Copis? If not, please explain your reasoning...this is one of the things that held me back from the KISS after being convinced that the threat of caustic cocktail was higher with the KISS style counter lungs.

And, possibly to clear up some myths, what are the average max depths of the mCCR divers you know of, including yourself.

g

Quote: (Originally Posted by silentscuba)

I dive a KISS Classic. I have an integrated Shearwater and a HUD from a different manufacturer. They are both independent from each other except for the 3 O2 cells.

I use my HUD as a tool to keep my O2 swing to a minimum and to give me a quicker indication of a problem.

I do not use it as my primary O2 indicator. I feel that it does increase my safety and helps me keep a more constant PO2. If my primary does fail, the HUD gives me a reliable backup to help get me back out of the water.

I love my HUD and my Shearwater

decoweenie · 5th February 2007, 07:28

Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy)

this is one of the things that held me back from the KISS after being convinced that the threat of caustic cocktail was higher with the KISS style counter lungs.

The boogeyman is going to get you, Gill...

If you are referring to SK, then it is true that there is no water trap. But not the same for CK.

Quote:

And, possibly to clear up some myths, what are the average max depths of the mCCR divers you know of, including yourself.

The KISS units are capable of diving deeper than 90% of people on RBW want to dive. Rick Stanton took his CK past 150m (?)

dave t · 5th February 2007, 09:19

Awhile ago I had a classic inspo lid with just one handset and a kiss valve attached, I used to set the handset to 0.7 and run my po2 at about 1.2 via the kiss valve. it worked very well, po2 was very stable, if I had to be very lax on ascent for some reason the handset would take over, it could even be easily switched to 1.3 for high po2 ascents in an emergency. Battery life was long cos there was hardly any solenoid action, calibration was easy, and more importantly I had the kiss style mindset right!!! sounds good?

Well actually it isnt so good, I got to worry about is the handset going to work when I really need it, when it does will the solenoid stick open due to little use, will the solenoid stick closed and I wont notice until its too late.

At least on a kiss unit there is no distraction of "will my parachute open"

on a ECCR the electronics are working (and verifing) all the time

In my opinion both systems are very good in the right hands but keep them seperate!!

just my opinion

Dave

PeteS · 5th February 2007, 09:45

Well, IMHO, I think that the biggest cause of death on Rebreather's isn't the RB strapped to your back, it's the thing strapped to the front of the RB.

All systems have for and against. Learn them, understand them, and work within them.

Drmike · 5th February 2007, 10:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by dave t)

Awhile ago I had a classic inspo lid with just one handset and a kiss valve attached, I used to set the handset to 0.7 and run my po2 at about 1.2 via the kiss valve. it worked very well, po2 was very stable, if I had to be very lax on ascent for some reason the handset would take over, it could even be easily switched to 1.3 for high po2 ascents in an emergency. Battery life was long cos there was hardly any solenoid action, calibration was easy, and more importantly I had the kiss style mindset right!!! sounds good?

Well actually it isnt so good, I got to worry about is the handset going to work when I really need it, when it does will the solenoid stick open due to little use, will the solenoid stick closed and I wont notice until its too late.

At least on a kiss unit there is no distraction of "will my parachute open"

on a ECCR the electronics are working (and verifing) all the time

In my opinion both systems are very good in the right hands but keep them seperate!!

just my opinion

Dave

Spot on Dave

Its so easy to spot those that actually know what they are talking about - those that have been there done that.

This is the only post worth a toss out of this whole pointless 'discussion'

Better put an 'IMO' and a

just so I at least apear more PC

**moley** · 5th February 2007, 11:53

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

Spot on Dave

This is the only post worth a toss out of this whole pointless 'discussion'

Better put an 'IMO' and a

just so I at least apear more PC

You really are a lovely bloke Mike.

4th February 2007, 20:33	#31 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Dutchy) ...I myself would - over time - be tempted to trust the HUD and forget about the primary... After a year plus diving with a HUD, I finally understood what Uri was trying to explain to me before that about his HUD system as the primary PO2 display. Remember that the Shearwater HUD has its own electronic/battery and is a separate system on its own, as well as a separate method to convey the actual PO2 values. It is up to you to decide which is the primary system: the handset or the HUD, as far as PO2 monitoring... __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

4th February 2007, 21:09	#32 (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 decoweenie) After a year plus diving with a HUD, I finally understood what Uri was trying to explain to me before that about his HUD system as the primary PO2 display. Remember that the Shearwater HUD has its own electronic/battery and is a separate system on its own, as well as a separate method to convey the actual PO2 values. It is up to you to decide which is the primary system: the handset or the HUD, as far as PO2 monitoring... I have to say Uris HUD is very good indeed. When i fitted it back in 2004 and used it as a primary, I was called a fool and told it was constantly scan the hand sets or die. Now the vision is out and most people have HUDS its become accepted to fly the HUD. Since that time i have tried the Meg, the Vision and the Hammer Head HUD. Uri's is still by far my favorite. 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)

5th February 2007, 00:10	#33 (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 Again, I see the same pitfalls. In PO2 monitoring there CAN BE NO primary and secondary. If you don't monitor all your readings at the same time and/or rely on one over another you are setting yourself up. If the single HUD is giving erroneous results, how do you know? The HUD's which concern me the most are the LED's. It's hard to interpret them for for an accurate and relative reading. If I have a reading on my units, just the reading with depth gives me the information I know to ask a simple question. Does the reading make sense? A diluent flush can clear up a questionable reading. TBC always TBC. Remember, that which is your immediate view will, de facto develop into a "Primary", even if subconsciously. I don't know about you guys, but my life is worth more than that. Dale
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 03:45	#34 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Chase) ...Now the vision is out and most people have HUDS its become accepted to fly the HUD. Mark, I was actually referring to the HUD-type (i.e. specifically Shearwater 3-LED, or even the Meg) that convey the exact PO2 values, and not the idiot-light HUD type. For example, I have an idiot-light on my Patrol that flashes yellow whenever I go over a certain speed. Do I know exactly what speed I am driving or do I only know if I above a certain speed ? Dale, Take a look at the DEMA video of the Shearwater HUD to understand. __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 07:10	#35 (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 So Curt, it sounds like you have effectively created a manual injection eCCR. What you call it is not really important to me, but it sounds like the Sheerwater gives you a nice po2/deco integrated system and i'm guessing you use a second back up constant po2 computer as well...a VR3? The write up on it in the last ADM magazine made it seem very intuitive and streightforward, but i would have to say that it diverges from the notion of simplicity of the usual mCCR line of thinking. I am fascinated by this evolution of mCCR's. I am very curious to see if the mCCR's continue having such a lack of fatal accidents associated with them, again, good training and vigilance not withstanding. It makes me want to run my eCCR's injection system on a low set point and inject manually even though i concede that it is still not completely comporable in "simplicity" and true mCCR mindset/habit formation. I'm guessing that there will be a trend to further integrate electronics into the mCCR and that the mortality rates will stay about the same and i'm very curious to see if this compells eCCR manufacturers to embrace manual injection at some point. Oh, BTW, how have you addressed the increased flooding potential of internal counter lungs...have you modified your kit to have front mounted counter lungs like the Copis? If not, please explain your reasoning...this is one of the things that held me back from the KISS after being convinced that the threat of caustic cocktail was higher with the KISS style counter lungs. And, possibly to clear up some myths, what are the average max depths of the mCCR divers you know of, including yourself. g Quote: (Originally Posted by silentscuba) I dive a KISS Classic. I have an integrated Shearwater and a HUD from a different manufacturer. They are both independent from each other except for the 3 O2 cells. I use my HUD as a tool to keep my O2 swing to a minimum and to give me a quicker indication of a problem. I do not use it as my primary O2 indicator. I feel that it does increase my safety and helps me keep a more constant PO2. If my primary does fail, the HUD gives me a reliable backup to help get me back out of the water. I love my HUD and my Shearwater __________________ Gill Envy ...Because I wasn't born with gills! ><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°> Last edited by Gill Envy : 5th February 2007 at 07:13.
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 07:28	#36 (permalink)
decoweenie Crash Test Dummy Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cairo Posts: 5,487	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Gill Envy) this is one of the things that held me back from the KISS after being convinced that the threat of caustic cocktail was higher with the KISS style counter lungs. The boogeyman is going to get you, Gill... If you are referring to SK, then it is true that there is no water trap. But not the same for CK. Quote: And, possibly to clear up some myths, what are the average max depths of the mCCR divers you know of, including yourself. The KISS units are capable of diving deeper than 90% of people on RBW want to dive. Rick Stanton took his CK past 150m (?) __________________ "...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..." - Rebreather World PM
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 09:19	#37 (permalink)
dave t RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Evolution Sport Kiss Classic Kiss Dolphin Ray Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Dolphin Ray Azimuth Home Build Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Posts: 662	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Awhile ago I had a classic inspo lid with just one handset and a kiss valve attached, I used to set the handset to 0.7 and run my po2 at about 1.2 via the kiss valve. it worked very well, po2 was very stable, if I had to be very lax on ascent for some reason the handset would take over, it could even be easily switched to 1.3 for high po2 ascents in an emergency. Battery life was long cos there was hardly any solenoid action, calibration was easy, and more importantly I had the kiss style mindset right!!! sounds good? Well actually it isnt so good, I got to worry about is the handset going to work when I really need it, when it does will the solenoid stick open due to little use, will the solenoid stick closed and I wont notice until its too late. At least on a kiss unit there is no distraction of "will my parachute open" on a ECCR the electronics are working (and verifing) all the time In my opinion both systems are very good in the right hands but keep them seperate!! just my opinion Dave
(Online)

5th February 2007, 09:45	#38 (permalink)
PeteS Consent Issued! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Inspiration Vision Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 543	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Well, IMHO, I think that the biggest cause of death on Rebreather's isn't the RB strapped to your back, it's the thing strapped to the front of the RB. All systems have for and against. Learn them, understand them, and work within them. __________________ Pete S. http://www.steggle.co.nz Every silver lining has a cloud
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 10:22	#39 (permalink)
Drmike RBW Member Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,378	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by dave t) Awhile ago I had a classic inspo lid with just one handset and a kiss valve attached, I used to set the handset to 0.7 and run my po2 at about 1.2 via the kiss valve. it worked very well, po2 was very stable, if I had to be very lax on ascent for some reason the handset would take over, it could even be easily switched to 1.3 for high po2 ascents in an emergency. Battery life was long cos there was hardly any solenoid action, calibration was easy, and more importantly I had the kiss style mindset right!!! sounds good? Well actually it isnt so good, I got to worry about is the handset going to work when I really need it, when it does will the solenoid stick open due to little use, will the solenoid stick closed and I wont notice until its too late. At least on a kiss unit there is no distraction of "will my parachute open" on a ECCR the electronics are working (and verifing) all the time In my opinion both systems are very good in the right hands but keep them seperate!! just my opinion Dave Spot on Dave Its so easy to spot those that actually know what they are talking about - those that have been there done that. This is the only post worth a toss out of this whole pointless 'discussion' Better put an 'IMO' and a just so I at least apear more PC __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

5th February 2007, 11:53	#40 (permalink)
moley Supporting Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Sport Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Sport Kiss Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: wiltshire, Uk Posts: 156	Re: Differences between eCCR’s and mCCR’s design that may effect mortality rates Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) Spot on Dave This is the only post worth a toss out of this whole pointless 'discussion' Better put an 'IMO' and a just so I at least apear more PC You really are a lovely bloke Mike. __________________ *You think I know nothing.....and I do!!!*
(Online)

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