Brad, you can't argue with the simple philosophy in CCR, laypeople will injure themselves more when they rely on automation. Thats what this is target at right? The layperson? I don't think as many apoc divers will know the status of their rig.
That is true, but the operation of the Apoc in closed circuit isn't automated in the least, it very much needs driving by the diver.
The only bit thats automated is the parachute to open circuit and if you take off the PPo2 POD in air the oxygen cell calibration when exposed to light.
If the diver doesn't know the status of their rig, I would be looking at the quality of training they have received as that issue will be unit generic.
But you are also taught to conserve bailout and stay on the loop when possible, you know that.
You were taught to stay on the loop when its not safe to breathe due to PPo2 either too high or too low, CO2 greater then the recommended safe %SEV or lack of Helium in the loop when deeper?
You should be commended for your loyalty to the project. I really hope I am wrong, and the unit is a success, and that it promotes and increases rebreather safety. That would be great for the industry. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to man up and apologize. But I don't think I am. Only time will tell.
If another rebreather manufacturer spent the same amount of dosh and did the same depth of research across the commercial, military and recreational range I would look elsewhere but from what I know currently there isn't much else. Looking at the design thoughts behind the unit and its engineering backed up by independent formal testing with published certification as opposed to just a good ole boy has dived it and says it works fine.
That said if ISC manage to get their Mk28 accepted into USN service for saturation use and offer a unit with the same design and certification to the public that could be interesting.
My personal opinion is DL is putting too much faith in the technology and forgetting about the human elements, and thats what will cause problems. And not for the few reasons I can come up with, but for the hundreds of reasons we haven't thought of yet.
Now this is something that could make for an interesting point of discussion. If DL were not publishing openly their testing involving the human elements FMECAs etc I would fully agree with you. I have also been involved in the manned testing so I do have a skewed view. That said should anyone cease R&D due to unknown unknowns or isn't that the reason for doing R&D in the first place! I know for a fact that some of the R&D DL have done has led to some very interesting findings about RB design which are incorporated in the Apoc despite its low price.
Look at a micro point in that all CCRs use oxygen cells. DL put 8 years into studying oxygen cells and found a heap of design faults that the current ones exhibited when used in CCRs.
Deep Life Ltd: Selected Design Validation Reports for Open Revolution Rebreathers
Simply by specifying oxygen cells that avoid the issues they identified their use of technology should benefit the diver and for that matter other rebreather manufacturers.
- look at the head of the Titan eCCR and compare the oxygen cells and infrastructure with an Apoc there are a lot of similarities though IIRC the Titan oxygen cells still have onboard temp compensation rather then this being done by better quality elecs in the rebreather pod.
- look at the new DR Optima DSV and compare the bore of that with the ALVBOV!
And the main problem which makes many people become 'detractors,' is because of the captain of your ship and his credibility.
Alex Deas - Why we have a hard time believing his claims
Not my fight, but fascinating what some rebreather manufacturers publish instead of disclosing the performance details of their rebreathers in verifiable detail isn't it!
What I think there is even less evidence to support is the marketing hype and claims about safety and automation... for quite a while and still even some today, people, particularly distributors, argue that automation makes rebreathers safer even though the body count is disproportionately higher on eCCR's.
The recreational version of the apocolypse is based on the premise that automation in injection of o2 is inappropriate for all but the most disciplined divers.
Further on the automation with injection of O2 as I understand it, DL didn't go down the path of using solenoids for oxygen supply in any of their designs as they couldn't get them certified as functionally safe if they did so, with EN61508 certification which they have being a core requirement of EN14143 currently.
It will be interesting to see if automation in the BOV doesn't play out in the same manner or simply show to not be much of a value over a more simple "manual" BOV. None of us have a crystal ball, we'll just have to see. After starting out on a system that did practically everything for me, I now prefer the control that manual addition of both o2 and dill gives me, mainly because simple systems are easier to service in the field. I am reluctant to see the apocolypse as anything more than just another mCCR.
I agree with you on this in that the Apoc really is just a mCCR in essence though one with the extra safety features required for CE certification and Co2 monitoring etc.
It really won't suit a diver who just wants to throw it on, race through the pre-dive setup and go diving with the unit doing everything for him.
The value in the BOV isn't really the auto-bailout, though thats a nice to have. Its the design features of the ALVBOV compared to other BOVs:
- Lower WOB then any other BOV currently available.
- OC reg is high enough performance to dive on par with a standard Apeks 2nd stage and isn't just there as an intermediate bailout step.
- Self shutting when removed from mouth > anyone forgotten to shut a DSV when talking on the surface!
- Integrated crown strap so no need for FFM.
- Super short and stretchy loop hoses.
- Neutral in water and out of divers view.
- Manual dil addition is retained muscle memory as its the reg purge button.
That it can be bought CE certified off the shelf by itself to fit to other units for about the same price as other BOVs does make me wonder if anyone will bother copying it.
I figure some clever rebreather diving entrepreneur will just crop up supplying adapters to retrofit it to other units such as someone has done I note on their Boris. Without the electronics that the iCCR unit has and the right adapters it would just seem to be a plug and play mod making it a very easy way of improving any rebreathers performance and possibly diver safety.
It appears to me that it's trying to improve on what is already a relatively slim margin of fatalities... that is of course assuming it ever comes to market. Honestly, the most revolutionary thing about it is the intent to mass market it at a relatively low price. If it ever gets off the ground it could still rock the world of this boutique industry.
Not sure if 18-20 rebreather fatalities odd a year could be called exactly slim. That said being able to tell my wife that I am diving a unit that seems to mitigate most of the risks and or doesn't at least have certain well known design flaws is useful.
The price comparison is interesting even though they have gradually raised it over time. One can see how the industry has responded even before its been shipped, so it will be very interesting to see the reaction with it readily available to compare against current gen CCRs.
It seems to also not just be the actual Apoc where there is a difference in prices but consumables as well, as I note that Add Helium are currently having a sale on EACs that appears to still be more expensive then OSEL have them listed for in USD.
Regards
Brad