Hollis Explorer rebreather
- Thread starter Luc Sergerie
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
MichaelS.
Registered
You know I have not got a chance to dive my unit, but the pre production units I dove did not seem to this problem that I can remember could it be a packing issue or differance in pre production and now? What sorb is being used, packing technics are used? Please do not take this as anything more than a concerned owner.
darushin
Contributor
All of my dives are on my retail unit using 812 lime.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
MichaelS.
Registered
I wonder it they put to much nanny control in the latest software?
I had no issues with prototype unit. It was usually NDL and HP gas limiting dive time and I did several one hour dives where I used up full two hour scrubber duration
Michael I think you've hit the nail on the head
Whatever the problem is, the rigs I've personally breathed from will not beat an Aluminum 80 against a decent SAC rate without doing the scrubber cheat procedure. My theory is if you are pulling the scrubber between dives, letting it cool, reinstalling it, and then tricking the computer to think you installed a fresh scrubber you should simply mail the unit back to Hollis and wait for a fix before you eventually ace yourself. Personally, I think we should treat the Explorer with the same care as a fully closed circuit rig. Reloading a partially used scrubber in the rig is not acceptable when you have no clue how much is used - and it's begging for an accident as soon as someone accidentally loads basket #1 even though they were sure it was basket number 2.
kwinter
Contributor
I'm very late to this party, but with a voice of reason like Dave chiming in I want to ask a non-loaded question.
Assuming the Explorer is tweaked to run as the manufacturer said with approx. 2 hour limit, I would still like to know the advantages and disadvantages in a side-by-side comparison between OC nitrox and 2 different approaches to SCR -- the Explorer and the GEM. I'm not even throwing in active SCR like a Draeger. Just because something can be done electronically doesn't necessarily mean that it should. And this is coming from an eCCR guy.
I can understand a little about a market for recreational CCR, and that will definitely be more complicated. But for recreational SCR, what advantages does a complex electronic system have over a passive system that is almost like being on OC nitrox, but with an extended gas supply. I guess in theory the system could decided whether a 5:1 ratio is better at this depth than a standard 3:1 and could maximize the supply. But putting all the limitations on it seems to throw away any advantages it might have.
I just don't see the allure, and I wasn't at DEMA. Please enlighten me.
darushin
Contributor
The number one issue for low scrubber life count by the system is the solenoid. Every time it fires the system counts it and every click counts off a scrubber life (whether used or not). This is why I use 40% with dcp in manual mode at less then 40. With a CO2 sensor, it somewhat overrides the click counter with real data from the sensor.
Daru
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Daru
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Douglas Ward
Contributor
Correct me if I'm wrong but the CO2 sensor doesn't measure the amount of CO2 generated but measures the level of CO2 in the loop that would increase in the event of break through or scrubber failure. Technically the CO2 sensor should see nothing until the scrubber fails, so how would it be able to override the click count? Would it??
Similar threads
