Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up

***jradomski*** · 20th December 2007, 08:42

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

So am I to understand that:

The HH is an out-in flow radial?

And that an out-in flow design also means the O2 cells are more likely placed in a such a way as to incidentally function as a barrier between inhaled and exhaled gas?

If this is true then firstly, why would you want to have your exhaled breath and the reaction front of the scrubber nearest the cold water instead of in the middle, where both your exhaled breath/body heat and the scrubber reaction are further away from the cold water and thus better insulated?

And why, given the less than perfect construction of most O2 cells, would you allow them to function as any kind of a barrier between inhale and exhaled gas?

What am I missing here?

Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it..

The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this..

The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units.. also with the black caps on the wire end of the cells even an internal failure will make it MUCH harder for gas to flow through the cell.. Gas will always take the path of least resistance so nothing significant should ever be able to pass through a cell.. I put the cap/wire on an EMPTY cell body and it was quite diffiult blowing any significant gas through the cell.. (remmebr the gas has to pas from the wire side to the membrane side-- reversing this I COULD blow hard enough to pop the cap off but this could not happen in real life since the source gas side is the wire side.. (unless you blocked the exhale hose, injected gas manually from the inhale side and the scrubber was fully flooded not to allow any gas to pass thorugh it).. Take the caps off the bypass would be much easier

the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed....

silent running · 20th December 2007, 09:22

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it..

The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this..

Hi Joe, I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water. Which brings me to my next point: it has never been made clear to me how an OTS unit with nice, big water traps which also function as CLs could ever allow a significant amount of water to make it all the way to the scrubber? Maybe this is more of an issue with the BMCL variant of the HH, but wouldn't the overall insulation/internal scrubber temp also affect the short term capability of the unit to handle periods of high exertion in cold water without a CO2 build up? If so, is it really worth compromising the efficiency of the scrubber reaction/insulation as a hedge against CO2 buildup for a less likely major scrubber flood?

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units..

the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed....

An in-out radial is easily configured to have the sensors after the scrubbed gas but without any need to straddle the inhale/exhale barrier. I can't see any advantage to placing sensors across the barrier other than that it may be physically easier from a layout standpoint to put them there if you decide to go with an out-in flow...

***jradomski*** · 20th December 2007, 09:34

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

Hi Joe, I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water. Which brings me to my next point: it has never been made clear to me how an OTS unit with nice, big water traps which also function as CLs could ever allow a significant amount of water to make it all the way to the scrubber? Maybe this is more of an issue with the BMCL variant of the HH, but wouldn't the overall insulation/internal scrubber temp also affect the short term capability of the unit to handle periods of high exertion in cold water without a CO2 build up? If so, is it really worth compromising the efficiency of the scrubber reaction/insulation as a hedge against CO2 buildup for a less likely major scrubber flood?

An in-out radial is easily configured to have the sensors after the scrubbed gas but without any need to straddle the inhale/exhale barrier. I can't see any advantage to placing sensors across the barrier other than that it may be physically easier from a layout standpoint to put them there if you decide to go with an out-in flow...

If you stay in a prone position water should not get past the watertrap in an ots design, but if there is a leak in the head, or if the c/l get water and the diver has to change headup/headown positions like inside a wreck or cave water ca be expected to reach the can..

if its small amounts of water at a time the diver might not even realize he/she is putting water in the can.. the longer the dive the greater the buildup could be.. The person who this happened to didn;t notice any change in breathing beacause of teh wide gas path in an out to in design.. the amount ofwater that passed into the can would have turned an in to out into mush since all the water would have had to pass through the scrubber..

The duration sifference betwnn out/in is not what I would call significant.. the in/out is longer but not by THAT much.. Scrubber geometry can make as much of a difference as flow direction..

Mdemon · 20th December 2007, 09:56

I know it's all pros and cons, but one minor con with out-in is the heat of the inhaled gas by the diver. Deep and in warm water, you could end up breathing gas that's only been cooled by the water surrounding the inhale hose and DSV/BOV. That could result in quite hot air being breathed in. Sounds nice, but actually isn't. I've never used a radial scrubber, much less an out-in, so could be talking bollocks. Worth trying though?

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it..

The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this..

The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units.. also with the black caps on the wire end of the cells even an internal failure will make it MUCH harder for gas to flow through the cell.. Gas will always take the path of least resistance so nothing significant should ever be able to pass through a cell.. I put the cap/wire on an EMPTY cell body and it was quite diffiult blowing any significant gas through the cell.. (remmebr the gas has to pas from the wire side to the membrane side-- reversing this I COULD blow hard enough to pop the cap off but this could not happen in real life since the source gas side is the wire side.. (unless you blocked the exhale hose, injected gas manually from the inhale side and the scrubber was fully flooded not to allow any gas to pass thorugh it).. Take the caps off the bypass would be much easier

the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed....

***jradomski*** · 20th December 2007, 11:04

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon)

I know it's all pros and cons, but one minor con with out-in is the heat of the inhaled gas by the diver. Deep and in warm water, you could end up breathing gas that's only been cooled by the water surrounding the inhale hose and DSV/BOV. That could result in quite hot air being breathed in. Sounds nice, but actually isn't. I've never used a radial scrubber, much less an out-in, so could be talking bollocks. Worth trying though?

I have been in very warm water (80f) and was working hard.. The gas was so hot I almost bailed to OC.. So I agree in some case, temp drop is needed.. at this temp on a radia scrubber direction would have had little bearing at all.. as the gas was much hotter than it had to be.. The flow direction has its greatest effect at low temperatures.. it really becomes insignificant at elevated temps..

Mdemon · 20th December 2007, 12:13

Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski)

I have been in very warm water (80f) and was working hard.. The gas was so hot I almost bailed to OC.. So I agree in some case, temp drop is needed.. at this temp on a radia scrubber direction would have had little bearing at all.. as the gas was much hotter than it had to be.. The flow direction has its greatest effect at low temperatures.. it really becomes insignificant at elevated temps..

I had exactly the same experience. It felt like breathing in and out of a paper bag, without the CO2.

My neoprene scrubber-cosy didn't seem so clever at the time.

heyydude · 20th December 2007, 13:31

Hey guys,

Here's the thing: The system we have now, with the Sensors across the inhale/exhale side of the loop works very well. It's worked on the Meg and the Cis, as Joe pointed out.

But more importantly: What we've built here is a machine with Modularity - we are working and experimenting with improvements/changes ALL THE TIME.

As any long time Hammerhead customer will know - we don't just build one product, send it out, and stop designing. We are in near continuous "development" mode. When we develop something we consider an improvement, we make it available to all our customers for the same price.

When we make mistakes (uhhhh...

), we do our best to rectify them quickly and with as minimal pain as possible.

Since the inception of the Hammerhead system for Inspiration, we have gone through no less than 6 Housing Updates, 4 Electronics Updates, and countless Firmware Updates, each adding new features. We're now working on the next update, which won't be available for a while, but promises to add even more functionality for the diver.

I don't want to seem like I'm tooting my horn too much, but the fact that we have made it through the most rigorous testing on Earth (the US Navy and NATO Trials) with our military product demonstrates that we pretty much have a good grasp of the task at hand, and (to belabor the point even farther) have a large enough contract that we're in a position to KEEP innovating our product lines into the future.

The Hammerhead CCR is not the "end-of-the-line" model at present. In the coming months, we'll be offering owners of this system lots of neat updates, improvements, etc which they will be able to bolt-on to their sets.

Some may say this is a "weakness" on our part - why haven't we come out with "the-ultimate-can't-make-it-better" machine - but I see it as a strength. We've been through a huge program with the Navy, where our agility in adapting our system to a multitude of evolving mission profiles and configurations has made them believers in us, and our methods. I just attended a series of meetings in Panama City where we've been tasked to add even more modes of operation to the system - such is their confidence in our ability to adapt.

You, as the end-user of one of our products, get all that and more. I post to these forums, and I read them too (even the ones from Chasey

) and I listen to what is said. I confer with many of you regularly, and "kick around" ideas for how to make our products better and safer.

Without drawing comparisons, I will simply say that this is how I have done business my whole life - I have always viewed "art" (and manufacturing is an art form) as a collaborative effort. I'm not the Smartest Man On Earth, but I'm smart enough to listen to people smarter than me...

Anyway, the purpose of this post was to say that we have taken into account the debate over the sensor placement, and are looking into alternatives (which themselves, have negatives), and will continue to explore new and better ways to build our products to help you all enjoy this fantastic sport that we all love.

Safe diving to you all,

Kevin Juergensen
Juergensen Marine, Inc.

Håkan K · 20th December 2007, 16:06

Hi,

Any information regarding prices for this seemingly excellent machine?

***caveseeker7*** · 20th December 2007, 17:33

Quote: (Originally Posted by heyydude)

Here's the thing: The system we have now, with the Sensors across the inhale/exhale side of the loop works very well. It's worked on the Meg and the Cis, as Joe pointed out.

Anyway, the purpose of this post was to say that we have taken into account the debate over the sensor placement, and are looking into alternatives (which themselves, have negatives)

Kevin, ever since sensor have come apart (no matter how rarely it happens) many of us have been vary of such a design, to say the least.

What are the advantages, the arguments for this design?
Or at least against the more common design of having the entire cell on the inhalation side?

MK series, AP CCRs, your own Hammerhead replacement lid for them, PRISMs, etc all have the sensors on the inhalation side only, and they all seem to work just as well.

Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running)

I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water.

Andy, I'm with Joe on that one, the PRISM scrubber isn't very flood tolerant. It's a simple matter of math, the center tube doesn't have much volume, certainly less than spacers used on the bottom of many scrubber generate. In the PRISM's bucket that space is used to accumulate condensation, not act as a water trap. Nor does the PRISM's design allow for a drain valve just before the scrubber, as the Sentinel has and many units could have.

The PRISM's counterlungs work very well as water traps and allow water to be purged. That may make up for the most common reason for water in the bag, bad mouthpiece protocol, but it doesn't help much if water gets into the loop past it (most likely at the exhalation hose to head connector, or the hose itself).

SMI had different priorites as they pursued a naval contract. 300 mins scrubber duration, max weight ready to dive 50 lbs, etc ... I remember an ad being run giving a couple of those specs in a commercial diving magazine. So SMI went for the needed duration.

jhaaja · 20th December 2007, 17:55

Quote: (Originally Posted by Håkan K)

Hi,

Any information regarding prices for this seemingly excellent machine?

I remember reading 10500$ in some earlier thread.

JH

20th December 2007, 08:42	#11 (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: 2,817	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) So am I to understand that: The HH is an out-in flow radial? And that an out-in flow design also means the O2 cells are more likely placed in a such a way as to incidentally function as a barrier between inhaled and exhaled gas? If this is true then firstly, why would you want to have your exhaled breath and the reaction front of the scrubber nearest the cold water instead of in the middle, where both your exhaled breath/body heat and the scrubber reaction are further away from the cold water and thus better insulated? And why, given the less than perfect construction of most O2 cells, would you allow them to function as any kind of a barrier between inhale and exhaled gas? What am I missing here? Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it.. The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this.. The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units.. also with the black caps on the wire end of the cells even an internal failure will make it MUCH harder for gas to flow through the cell.. Gas will always take the path of least resistance so nothing significant should ever be able to pass through a cell.. I put the cap/wire on an EMPTY cell body and it was quite diffiult blowing any significant gas through the cell.. (remmebr the gas has to pas from the wire side to the membrane side-- reversing this I COULD blow hard enough to pop the cap off but this could not happen in real life since the source gas side is the wire side.. (unless you blocked the exhale hose, injected gas manually from the inhale side and the scrubber was fully flooded not to allow any gas to pass thorugh it).. Take the caps off the bypass would be much easier the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed.... __________________ 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 : 20th December 2007 at 08:53.
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 09:22	#12 (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: 1,778	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it.. The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this.. Hi Joe, I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water. Which brings me to my next point: it has never been made clear to me how an OTS unit with nice, big water traps which also function as CLs could ever allow a significant amount of water to make it all the way to the scrubber? Maybe this is more of an issue with the BMCL variant of the HH, but wouldn't the overall insulation/internal scrubber temp also affect the short term capability of the unit to handle periods of high exertion in cold water without a CO2 build up? If so, is it really worth compromising the efficiency of the scrubber reaction/insulation as a hedge against CO2 buildup for a less likely major scrubber flood? Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units.. the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed.... An in-out radial is easily configured to have the sensors after the scrubbed gas but without any need to straddle the inhale/exhale barrier. I can't see any advantage to placing sensors across the barrier other than that it may be physically easier from a layout standpoint to put them there if you decide to go with an out-in flow...
(Online)

20th December 2007, 09:34	#13 (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: 2,817	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) Hi Joe, I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water. Which brings me to my next point: it has never been made clear to me how an OTS unit with nice, big water traps which also function as CLs could ever allow a significant amount of water to make it all the way to the scrubber? Maybe this is more of an issue with the BMCL variant of the HH, but wouldn't the overall insulation/internal scrubber temp also affect the short term capability of the unit to handle periods of high exertion in cold water without a CO2 build up? If so, is it really worth compromising the efficiency of the scrubber reaction/insulation as a hedge against CO2 buildup for a less likely major scrubber flood? An in-out radial is easily configured to have the sensors after the scrubbed gas but without any need to straddle the inhale/exhale barrier. I can't see any advantage to placing sensors across the barrier other than that it may be physically easier from a layout standpoint to put them there if you decide to go with an out-in flow... If you stay in a prone position water should not get past the watertrap in an ots design, but if there is a leak in the head, or if the c/l get water and the diver has to change headup/headown positions like inside a wreck or cave water ca be expected to reach the can.. if its small amounts of water at a time the diver might not even realize he/she is putting water in the can.. the longer the dive the greater the buildup could be.. The person who this happened to didn;t notice any change in breathing beacause of teh wide gas path in an out to in design.. the amount ofwater that passed into the can would have turned an in to out into mush since all the water would have had to pass through the scrubber.. The duration sifference betwnn out/in is not what I would call significant.. the in/out is longer but not by THAT much.. Scrubber geometry can make as much of a difference as flow direction.. __________________ 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.
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 09:56	#14 (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: 1,890	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up I know it's all pros and cons, but one minor con with out-in is the heat of the inhaled gas by the diver. Deep and in warm water, you could end up breathing gas that's only been cooled by the water surrounding the inhale hose and DSV/BOV. That could result in quite hot air being breathed in. Sounds nice, but actually isn't. I've never used a radial scrubber, much less an out-in, so could be talking bollocks. Worth trying though? Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) Out to in flow for much better flood tolerance.. The tradeoff has always been duration or robustness.. With the amount of sorb in this radial, duration isnt an issue so the better choice is for robustness.. This is designed as an expedition type rebreather, where the goal is to stay on the loop as long as possible, not a recreational unit.. a reverse flow reduces flood tolerance significantly.. And once the can gets its next upgrade the insulation will be significantly greater further negating the advantage of an in/out flow. When the extendair adapter is available for THAT product it may be worth reversing the flow since water could easily drain through it.. The scrubber has already been used with a significant amount of water in the can (I was told well over 1 liter - It could have been 2 liters!).. Something like the PRISM's in to out flow would never be able to tolerate this.. The curent version of the head has the cells across the scrubber just like the CIS and Meg, The cells are supposed to be eventually sealed once Kevin is totally happy with it.. ALL the head components are modular so it will be an easy refit for existing units.. also with the black caps on the wire end of the cells even an internal failure will make it MUCH harder for gas to flow through the cell.. Gas will always take the path of least resistance so nothing significant should ever be able to pass through a cell.. I put the cap/wire on an EMPTY cell body and it was quite diffiult blowing any significant gas through the cell.. (remmebr the gas has to pas from the wire side to the membrane side-- reversing this I COULD blow hard enough to pop the cap off but this could not happen in real life since the source gas side is the wire side.. (unless you blocked the exhale hose, injected gas manually from the inhale side and the scrubber was fully flooded not to allow any gas to pass thorugh it).. Take the caps off the bypass would be much easier the way the cells are currently positioned out to in flow would also be preferred instead of forcing exhaled gas directly on the sensors.. in this position the cells are after warm gas so temperature fluctuations are much less and the sensor readingas are more stable - besides I would alwatys want to measure the o2 content AFTER co2 has been scrubbed.... __________________ www.southwestmafia.com It's as easy as abc; a) "Carry adequate bailout" b) "If in doubt, bail out" c) "Always know your PO2" If you find that hard, stick to crochet. "Once the agenda-monkeys and perfect-worlders have moved on, perhaps we can do some diving?"
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 11:04	#15 (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: 2,817	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon) I know it's all pros and cons, but one minor con with out-in is the heat of the inhaled gas by the diver. Deep and in warm water, you could end up breathing gas that's only been cooled by the water surrounding the inhale hose and DSV/BOV. That could result in quite hot air being breathed in. Sounds nice, but actually isn't. I've never used a radial scrubber, much less an out-in, so could be talking bollocks. Worth trying though? I have been in very warm water (80f) and was working hard.. The gas was so hot I almost bailed to OC.. So I agree in some case, temp drop is needed.. at this temp on a radia scrubber direction would have had little bearing at all.. as the gas was much hotter than it had to be.. The flow direction has its greatest effect at low temperatures.. it really becomes insignificant at elevated temps.. __________________ 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.
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 12:13	#16 (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: 1,890	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by jradomski) I have been in very warm water (80f) and was working hard.. The gas was so hot I almost bailed to OC.. So I agree in some case, temp drop is needed.. at this temp on a radia scrubber direction would have had little bearing at all.. as the gas was much hotter than it had to be.. The flow direction has its greatest effect at low temperatures.. it really becomes insignificant at elevated temps.. I had exactly the same experience. It felt like breathing in and out of a paper bag, without the CO2. My neoprene scrubber-cosy didn't seem so clever at the time. __________________ www.southwestmafia.com It's as easy as abc; a) "Carry adequate bailout" b) "If in doubt, bail out" c) "Always know your PO2" If you find that hard, stick to crochet. "Once the agenda-monkeys and perfect-worlders have moved on, perhaps we can do some diving?"
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 13:31	#17 (permalink)
heyydude King of the Geeks Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Optima Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: May 2005 Location: Addison, Pennsylvania Posts: 331	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Hey guys, Here's the thing: The system we have now, with the Sensors across the inhale/exhale side of the loop works very well. It's worked on the Meg and the Cis, as Joe pointed out. But more importantly: What we've built here is a machine with Modularity - we are working and experimenting with improvements/changes ALL THE TIME. As any long time Hammerhead customer will know - we don't just build one product, send it out, and stop designing. We are in near continuous "development" mode. When we develop something we consider an improvement, we make it available to all our customers for the same price. When we make mistakes (uhhhh...), we do our best to rectify them quickly and with as minimal pain as possible. Since the inception of the Hammerhead system for Inspiration, we have gone through no less than 6 Housing Updates, 4 Electronics Updates, and countless Firmware Updates, each adding new features. We're now working on the next update, which won't be available for a while, but promises to add even more functionality for the diver. I don't want to seem like I'm tooting my horn too much, but the fact that we have made it through the most rigorous testing on Earth (the US Navy and NATO Trials) with our military product demonstrates that we pretty much have a good grasp of the task at hand, and (to belabor the point even farther) have a large enough contract that we're in a position to KEEP innovating our product lines into the future. The Hammerhead CCR is not the "end-of-the-line" model at present. In the coming months, we'll be offering owners of this system lots of neat updates, improvements, etc which they will be able to bolt-on to their sets. Some may say this is a "weakness" on our part - why haven't we come out with "the-ultimate-can't-make-it-better" machine - but I see it as a strength. We've been through a huge program with the Navy, where our agility in adapting our system to a multitude of evolving mission profiles and configurations has made them believers in us, and our methods. I just attended a series of meetings in Panama City where we've been tasked to add even more modes of operation to the system - such is their confidence in our ability to adapt. You, as the end-user of one of our products, get all that and more. I post to these forums, and I read them too (even the ones from Chasey ) and I listen to what is said. I confer with many of you regularly, and "kick around" ideas for how to make our products better and safer. Without drawing comparisons, I will simply say that this is how I have done business my whole life - I have always viewed "art" (and manufacturing is an art form) as a collaborative effort. I'm not the Smartest Man On Earth, but I'm smart enough to listen to people smarter than me... Anyway, the purpose of this post was to say that we have taken into account the debate over the sensor placement, and are looking into alternatives (which themselves, have negatives), and will continue to explore new and better ways to build our products to help you all enjoy this fantastic sport that we all love. Safe diving to you all, Kevin Juergensen Juergensen Marine, Inc.
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 16:06	#18 (permalink)
Håkan K Beginning to learn Current Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 65	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Hi, Any information regarding prices for this seemingly excellent machine? __________________ Håkan Beginning to learn
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 17:33	#19 (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: 5,325	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by heyydude) Here's the thing: The system we have now, with the Sensors across the inhale/exhale side of the loop works very well. It's worked on the Meg and the Cis, as Joe pointed out. Anyway, the purpose of this post was to say that we have taken into account the debate over the sensor placement, and are looking into alternatives (which themselves, have negatives) Kevin, ever since sensor have come apart (no matter how rarely it happens) many of us have been vary of such a design, to say the least. What are the advantages, the arguments for this design? Or at least against the more common design of having the entire cell on the inhalation side? MK series, AP CCRs, your own Hammerhead replacement lid for them, PRISMs, etc all have the sensors on the inhalation side only, and they all seem to work just as well. Quote: (Originally Posted by silent running) I remember now that the flood tolerance/flow direction has been debated before. But I'm not sure that's accurate, as I don't know of any Prism or other in-out radials that have ever flooded or been tested with 1 ltr of water. Andy, I'm with Joe on that one, the PRISM scrubber isn't very flood tolerant. It's a simple matter of math, the center tube doesn't have much volume, certainly less than spacers used on the bottom of many scrubber generate. In the PRISM's bucket that space is used to accumulate condensation, not act as a water trap. Nor does the PRISM's design allow for a drain valve just before the scrubber, as the Sentinel has and many units could have. The PRISM's counterlungs work very well as water traps and allow water to be purged. That may make up for the most common reason for water in the bag, bad mouthpiece protocol, but it doesn't help much if water gets into the loop past it (most likely at the exhalation hose to head connector, or the hose itself). SMI had different priorites as they pursued a naval contract. 300 mins scrubber duration, max weight ready to dive 50 lbs, etc ... I remember an ad being run giving a couple of those specs in a commercial diving magazine. So SMI went for the needed duration. __________________ Cheers Stefan "It is still a good day if you are on the green side of the grass! Su amigo Roberto!" Sponsor Lou in Race For Life!
(Offline)

20th December 2007, 17:55	#20 (permalink)
jhaaja Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 867	Re: Hammerhead CCR Web Pages Up Quote: (Originally Posted by Håkan K) Hi, Any information regarding prices for this seemingly excellent machine? I remember reading 10500$ in some earlier thread. JH
(Offline)

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