+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: RB's-The next 10 years....

  1. #1

    Post RB's-The next 10 years....

    As some of you know, Iím a BSc Industrial Design finalist with a very keen interest in Re-Breathers and the associated technologies, currently writing my final year dissertation before embarking on real life.

    Now, for the most part members are keen divers, but there are a few active Re-Breather industry professionals, I am interested in both sides equally, however it is beneficial to the quality of research that I know this, privately or publically if possible.

    Development is organic; divers demand, industry produces what it can.

    The working title: What will the next ten years bring in diving re-breather technology?

    Any comments however diverse are openly encouraged, I welcome challenge, and invite any questions or suggestions.

    Section 1

    (Please feel free to write as extensively as you see fit, or have time for. Understand also that you answers may be quoted in the final dissertation and only release appropriate information or ideas. Just as I have been exposed to commercially sensitive material, I do not expect or whish anyone to compromise themselves.)

    (Please put the 3 most important in order for each question):
    (e.g.1cde, 2fba, 3cfe)

    a) Safety
    b) Simplicity
    c) Cost
    d) Durations
    e) Availability
    f) Customization
    g) Loyalty
    h) Other?

    1) Reason for personal re-breather selection:
    2) Improvements desired:
    3) Expected Development:

    Section 2

    1) What fundamental values exist in the products you use/deliver?
    2) What makes you opt for a new bit of kit? e.g. Forum evaluation
    3) In your opinion, considering the next ten years, will re-breather systems undergo Refinement or Innovation? Why?

    I will be posting daily, some past and future ideas I have encountered for open discussion over the next few days, and will be highly active for the next 2 weeks particularly. E.Oldfield

  2. #2
    for a world of water OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity is a splendid one to behold OceanOpportunity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Providence, RI USA
    Posts
    1,385
    homebuild/custom

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    the future of rebreathers is a very interesting topic. The questions you propose seem to track the market, rather than innovation/R&D itself however.

    a few thoughts from me...RB's are funny because they pre-date open-circuit scuba, yet for any number of reasons have hit some really hard walls in making a break into mainstream. This is due to the downfalls of the technology: 1) galvanic oxygen sensors (limited the rigs in the 60's and 70's, however enabled this new wave starting in the 90's). These are still problematic as they dont like moisture. The 'logic' in any rig is up for debate..how many cells are necessary, and why? The various computers account for cell failures in different ways, and this has not yet been standardized in the industry. Likewise, displays adn alarms ahve not been standardized. 2) carbon dioxide sensing/understanding scrubber capacity. Two different approaches are out there...measure the gas, and measure the exhausted scrubber (heat). Again, we need some standardization here to understand the logic between and across systems. 3. overall unit configuration standardization. There is no perfect rig, and every rig has just enouigh variance that the training agencies feel the need to require training on unit X, Y, and Z even if you are 'rebreather certified'.


    In my opinion, we will see progress in each of these 3 areas over the next 10 years, but not without an expanding market. Those that do dive RB's seem to own several units over a period of time, and make additions/upgrades, but this will not sustain a major push in innovation. We either need more RB divers (which is a catch 22 if the three issues listed aren't first solved), or alternatrive markets for new technologies. OR, find the necessary technologies in alternative markets (on their timetable for innovation), and bring them to RB's. It's a difficult nut to crack.

    I think the best thing that can happen on the front end of this next decade is standardize training and identify core competencies for the end-user and the manufacturers to focus on. Doesnt necessarily mean re-vamping entiure products, rather packaging their operational processes up with supportive literature that makes it easy for an agency to accept that Joe diver can dive unit Y after being trained on X, and so on. I think more folks would jump in the game with less of this hassle, and at least try-dive a unit.

  3. #3
    I like wrecks Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity has a spectacular aura about Captain Calamity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Weymouth, England
    Posts
    69
    Inspiration Vision

    Homebuild

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    Section 1

    (Please feel free to write as extensively as you see fit, or have time for. Understand also that you answers may be quoted in the final dissertation and only release appropriate information or ideas. Just as I have been exposed to commercially sensitive material, I do not expect or whish anyone to compromise themselves.)

    (Please put the 3 most important in order for each question):
    (e.g.1cde, 2fba, 3cfe)

    a) Safety
    b) Simplicity
    c) Cost
    d) Durations
    e) Availability
    f) Customization
    g) Loyalty
    h) Other?

    1) Reason for personal re-breather selection: ahe (h: large numbers already in use - I have no wish to be a test pilot/guinea pig for a new unit).
    2) Improvements desired: adb
    3) Expected Development: adb

    Section 2

    1) What fundamental values exist in the products you use/deliver?
    Tried and tested by many divers - less potential for undiscovered failure modes, plus widespread availabilty of knowledge and spares. Made locally - ease of product support.
    2) What makes you opt for a new bit of kit? e.g. Forum evaluation
    Recognising that this will make my diving safer and/or easier. Peer review and comment on performance/suitability/value for money.
    3) In your opinion, considering the next ten years, will re-breather systems undergo Refinement or Innovation? Why? Yes. Historically battery/sensor/electronic technology moves forwards relentlessly and it is unlikely that any advances will not be utilised in such a technology dependent system as a rebreather. Newer and more reliable sensors (O2, CO2, and possible He) are likely, along with longer lasting power supply systems. Better self diagnosis of faults and multiple redundancy of software code and hardware is likely. Perhaps telemetry will become standard to relay problems with the rebreather (and possibly even the diver) to nearby divers or the support boat. Underwater navigation systems are likely to be developed. Finally rebreathers are likely to be refined so that keyed components prevent wrong assembly, with sensors which allow the Rebreather to be disabled if incorrectly assembled or if the correct predive sequence is not followed (i've seen plenty of muppet Rebreather divers strap the unit on, switch it on and then jump in - and no, they hadn't done the checks before boarding the boat, I saw them assemble the unit on the way to the dive site).

    I will be posting daily, some past and future ideas I have encountered for open discussion over the next few days, and will be highly active for the next 2 weeks particularly. E.Oldfield

  4. #4
    BioPak60 Deathbox! rchrds will become famous soon enough rchrds will become famous soon enough rchrds will become famous soon enough rchrds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dothan, AL
    Posts
    201
    BP-60, Revo Mod1

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    Quote Originally Posted by seadivelanddive  View Original Post

    (Please put the 3 most important in order for each question):
    (e.g.1cde, 2fba, 3cfe)

    a) Safety
    b) Simplicity
    c) Cost
    d) Durations
    e) Availability
    f) Customization
    g) Loyalty
    h) Other?

    1) Reason for personal re-breather selection:
    2) Improvements desired:
    3) Expected Development:

    Section 2

    1) What fundamental values exist in the products you use/deliver?
    2) What makes you opt for a new bit of kit? e.g. Forum evaluation
    3) In your opinion, considering the next ten years, will re-breather systems undergo Refinement or Innovation? Why?
    Section 1:

    1)e(closely related to c), b, h(size)
    2)h(size), b, a
    3)d,a,b

    Section 2:

    1) As I build my own rebreathers for a specific mission (remote sump diving) none of the current production rigs suitably fit the requirements of my diving. The most important criteria for my rebreather seem to be:
    a)Size and weight- for most who dont have to carry or crawl and drag their equipment this would not be a factor at all, but as this is a common method of approaching the water for me, the dry size and weight of the machine are very important. Smaller and lighter are better.
    b) Simplicity. one would think that a rebreather intended for cave use would be simple- both in operation and structure. However, only roughly half of the models available today seem to follow this. I dont find chest mounted counterlungs, or the number of external breathing tubes required to support any sort of external counterlung to fall under the category of structurally simple- The same falls under huge strings of cobbled together swagelock fittings to manage gas mixtures external to the unit. The argument can be made both for and against fully electronic control, and I am not partial to either, integrated correctly, both can be satisfactory. As for simplicity in operation, as most explorers have the need for either both onboard and offboard gas supply or the need to switch from one to another, this capability must be integrated into the unit, not added on by the end user, as seems to be the case with most production units. Electronic controls still vary widely, and has been mentioned above, a standardization would go a long way towards simplifying these systems, as one standard would be taught, and learned by the user from the beginning.
    c)Safety- Suprisingly, this is not as high on the list as some would think- Exploration Cave diving is not a safe endeavor as it is, so safety has to be approached from a mitigation standpoint. At no time is the rebreather the sole method of gas delivery, nor the sole method of extrication from the cave- it is merely a gas extender. The better integrated into your open circuit bailout, the safer the unit. I find a bailout valve to be absolutely required- the reaction time from breathing an unbalanced mix is too short to be removing a gas source from the mouth and searching for another. Some sort of simple and rapid gas analysis is also necessary- a HUD is a nicety, but the diver should be looking at the primary display frequently enough that the HUD is only redundant.
    d) Duration- this is a lesser concern- most dives will either be well under the scrubber capability, or well over, requiring a mix of both OC and CC during the dive, or multiple units- a very long scrubber would be nice, but the current technology limits this based on flow restriction through a media, and the efficiency of current media.
    e) All of the rest of the concerns relate to production units, and hold little value to someone who must manufacture their equipment to meet specific needs.
    2) Failure of current systems, lack of capability of current system (depth or duration) or significant technical improvement in other units used in similar diving situations. For example- my current system uses a orifice to meter oxygen, which limits it to a certain depth. I wish to take the unit significantly deeper, so I look towards units of similar function diving at the 400 foot range for extended periods- and I integrate their system into mine.
    3) Rebreathers are limited to the application of new technology. The design and function of a rebreather has changed very little in the last 10 years- the integration of electronics has been the largest recent change, coupled with the design of a suitable solenoid. However the next real quantum leaps will be a result of significant improvement in the area of oxygen/gas sensing, where that might include the loss of galvanic oxygen sensing for some other method made portable, or a significant improvement in the water tolerance of current sensors. In addition, I expect to see some headway made in the CO2 sensing field, which, coupled with integrated display technology, will significantly increase the safety associated with rebreathers. The last and most significant improvement would be in scrubber media- increase in duration, decrease in work of breathing due to some artificially constructed micro-shaped media that increased surface area while reducing work of breathing. Do I expect to see this in the next 10 years? The sensing, perhaps, the media, not likely.

    jason

  5. #5
    So many CCR So little etc Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase has a reputation beyond repute Mark Chase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    5,205
    JJ Hybrid

    Inspo, Hammer Head, KISS rEvo

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    As some of you know, Iím a BSc Industrial Design finalist with a very keen interest in Re-Breathers and the associated technologies, currently writing my final year dissertation before embarking on real life.

    Now, for the most part members are keen divers, but there are a few active Re-Breather industry professionals, I am interested in both sides equally, however it is beneficial to the quality of research that I know this, privately or publically if possible.

    Development is organic; divers demand, industry produces what it can.

    The working title: What will the next ten years bring in diving re-breather technology?

    Any comments however diverse are openly encouraged, I welcome challenge, and invite any questions or suggestions.

    Section 1

    (Please feel free to write as extensively as you see fit, or have time for. Understand also that you answers may be quoted in the final dissertation and only release appropriate information or ideas. Just as I have been exposed to commercially sensitive material, I do not expect or whish anyone to compromise themselves.)

    (Please put the 3 most important in order for each question):
    (e.g.1cde, 2fba, 3cfe)

    a) Safety (Wont hapen till we find another way to analise 02)
    b) Simplicity (Will go down the toilet in persuit of false safety)
    c) Cost (Will go up in persuit of false safety)
    d) Durations (Not relevent to 95% of divers)
    e) Availability (Unlikley to change)
    f) Customization (Clashes with CE mark but posably)
    g) Loyalty ( ? )
    h) Other? (Inovation in compact design and weight for transport)



    1) Reason for personal re-breather selection: (Trimix cost)
    2) Improvements desired: (Weight and transportabuility via air, 02 cells)
    3) Expected Development: (In all the wrong directions)

    Section 2

    1) What fundamental values exist in the products you use/deliver?

    Size, weight, flexabuility, redundancy of oporation system,


    2) What makes you opt for a new bit of kit? e.g. Forum evaluation

    Size, weight, flexabuility, redundancy of oporation system,

    3) In your opinion, considering the next ten years, will re-breather systems undergo Refinement or Innovation? Why?

    Obviously they will thats the nature of progresion, but i dont know if its good or bad

    [B]I will be posting daily, some past and future ideas I have encountered for open discussion over the next few days, and will be highly active for the next 2 weeks particularly. E.Oldfield

  6. #6
    RBW Member chrismc will become famous soon enough chrismc will become famous soon enough chrismc will become famous soon enough chrismc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North west, uk
    Posts
    75

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    a) Safety
    b) Simplicity
    c) Cost
    d) Durations
    e) Availability
    f) Customization
    g) Loyalty
    h) Other?

    1) Reason for personal re-breather selection:
    As the industry develops, the range of rebreathers will develop and a wider selection will be availbile for diffrent purposes. This will enable people to select a rebreather based more on their specfiic needs. We have already seen this market open up with low weight (pelagian), low cost (open safety), deep tec (boris), adaptable (revo) etc. This trend will continue and enable people to choose a product that is more in line with their personal requirements and less of a compromise.

    I find it difficult to order your criteria, I think advances will be made in all areas, as manufacturers promote their unit as more effective at whichever they regard as important, just as buyers will based on their personal list. One area that you havent covered is advertising, image and location. Currently inspos are biased to the uk and megs are biased in the US. Export charges make the units are lot more affordable in their hosting countries.

    For me I need a unit that will cover my needs, at the lowest cost and weight possible. However I'm willing to compromise on anything to promote others. Most of the crtieria has a minimum acceptable threshold after which perfromance is largely irrelevant. For example duration needs to be 2 hours, preferably 3. After this its more of a nice to have.

    My ultimate perfect rebreather would be a modular system, that can shrink down to a less than <5kg travel scr configuration, and expand upto a full trimix config. At present the pelagian seems closest to this.

    Safety and simplicity are both subjective, and will change as the user base develops regardless of the underlying technology.

    2) Improvements desired:
    As mentioned a more modular system would be ideal choice. This could be supported by standardisation between manufactures, which is becoming more and more common. In the same manner as OC, where effectively you carry the same equipment for 5m as 100m , just more of it. For example the ability to have 1 or more scrubbers, directly in line or as a bailout, variable size supply cylinders, typcial 2, less or more (already partly done), front or back lungs, or both. Also MCCR, ECCR, SCR modes.

    Already progress has been made in this area, for example a meg can be ultra lightweight (mini can, 1l cylinders) upto dual radial scrubbers. However to have the hardware capable of moving between these effectively means you buy 3 expensive rebreathers.

    Ideally you would buy the electroncis package(s) you like, then scrubbers(s), lung option(s), connection(s) etc. and you would be able to change this at any time. It would be relatively low cost, so a new scrubber assembly should be around £300. This would make it feasible to hold diffrent scrubbers for difrent purposes.

    3) Expected Development:
    I think each manufacturer (and potentially new ones) will drive in the path they think is most important. The larger selection will enable the user community to select what they think is most important. This will drive sales and hence how well a manufacturer does. As normal in the evoloution of technology manufactures share of the market will grow or shrink based on how well they predict user demand vs. their competitors. One example I got from a new sentinel diver was 'why would you want a vision when you can get a sentinel for the same money'. If this opinion is reflective of the overall user base then AP will be in for a tough time. Personally neither option would get my money as I want something significantly lighter than my classic.

    I dont think mass market will work that effectively. The user communaity is small and has the money to pay extra for the solution they desire. Getting a rebreather thats a compromise for a lower cost will appeal to a few but not the market as a whole.

    Section 2

    1) What fundamental values exist in the products you use/deliver?
    2) What makes you opt for a new bit of kit? e.g. Forum evaluation
    It enbles me to do something I couldnt do before, or significatly increases comfort and/ or safety e.g. 2nd dive computer, BOV.

    3) In your opinion, considering the next ten years, will re-breather systems undergo Refinement or Innovation? Why?
    Both yes. If done well it will increase market share of a growing industry. If a mnufactureer doesnt do this efftively it will die. For example the hammerhead increases the capbility of the inspo classic, the vision was made to compete with this and take as much of that share back as they could. The sentinel was aimed at taking more of the general market (as opposed to the boris). A mnufacturers success at this (or perceived success by the users - buyers) will dictate how well they do. I doubt any manufacturer who reamins static will do well. For example if AP had stuck with the classic, how well would they be doing now? Their will be more colation between manufactures to achive this, as 2 comapnies may achieve more than 1. Companies that do not work with others, will probably struggle.

  7. #7

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    AH-HAA and I thought you had a proper job.......Stu---dent

  8. #8
    Shearwater Copis Diver Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy has a reputation beyond repute Gill Envy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    2,011
    Copis Meg and rEvo III

    Evolution

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    a few ramblings:
    Quote Originally Posted by seadivelanddive  View Original Post
    ...

    Development is organic; divers demand, industry produces what it can.
    I would like to see a sea change in the development process. currently it appears to be driven a lot by fear and profit, with the industry offering features that are designed to appeal to divers with these fears, with the implication often being that such features improve safety. The industry lacks an objective, third party repository for fatality statistics and analysis. We all are left to read the tea leaves and speculate about what would make diving CCR's safer rather than relying on solid data, this is a travesty! There needs to be an objective system of accident analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by seadivelanddive  View Original Post
    The working title: What will the next ten years bring in diving re-breather technology?
    I would like to see a shift from relying so purely on physics and electronics to improve safety to relying more on behavioral sciences to help design systems which best mesh with human nature. Until we can best understand human tendencies, particularly the frailties, we will see systems being built that result in very smart people continuing to make stupid mistakes and paying the price with their lives. for now, it appears that manual injection rebreathers are a better match for us naked apes and we need solid research to either dispel this myth or help us understand why it's the case so that the critical design features responsible for improved outcome can be squarely understood.
    Last edited by Gill Envy; 16th April 2009 at 20:01.

    Gill Envy

  9. #9
    RBW Member jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake is a jewel in the rough jasondrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Completely homeless
    Posts
    183
    homebuilt mccr

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    Until someone comes up with a reliable way to measure pp02, rebreather development will just remain a refining of what is a deeply flawed system.
    You can't polish a turd.

  10. #10

    Re: RB's-The next 10 years....

    Firstly, great thanks to everyone who has replied, and indeed to those who may still reply, many different angles coming through here.

    A little provocative food for thought;

    Will the future lie in one of the following solutions?

    Expanding on "chrismc's" thoughts: A massively modular system, a basic rig, but with modular expansion depending upon demands.

    i.e. Will RBs become more akin to computers in construction.... This could go a few ways....

    a)Macs (essentially the current situation, each manufacturer with manufacturer specific components.
    b)Dell (highly customizable, but all done in house, e.g. what Meg seem to be edging towards)
    c)Custom (Basic rigs from manufacturers, yet endlessly customizable based on standardizing connections, just like replacing the hard drive in a computer, standard connections many manufacturers)

    Massively modular could mean Poseidon harness, Inspo chassy, Meg scrubbers...etc?

    Taking on board "Oceanopportunity's" concerns of training,and adding in another of testing and evaluatio, would the scale of standardization required for this type of system slow down development too much?
    Last edited by seadivelanddive; 17th April 2009 at 14:52.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts