Apocalypse rebreather

[Brad_Horn]

Could you not have added the following to your list.....

G’Day Simon,

Perhaps. One could also compare the list of both the known and the swept under the rug issues with the unit you dive and compare them…. Battery bounce anyone, floods, caustic cocktails, forgotten O-rings, stuck MAVs, dual current limited cells, unknown WOB in OC and CC modes, vague scrubber duration testing and the list goes on.

Claims to have extensive testing but starts to fall apart the moment it is released to real world divers.

Strange. None of the actual testing Deep Life Design Team: Selected Design Validation Reports for DL & Open Safety Equipment Ltd's Rebreathers has been proven to not be as per that experienced by real world divers.

The lowest WOB of any unit on the market and lack of caustic cocktails when diving it are certainly nice.

Had an obvious safety flaw like a manual oxygen addition button that sticks on.

Simon, Feel free to identify a MAV that can’t stick on?

In OSELs case. Yes 2 maybe 3 users experienced their Oxygen Injector sticking on at depth. This gave them both audible white noise of this and tactile feedback that it was stuck on. Delivering a constant 10L/min of O2 for the ascent and allowed the divers to feather their valves and maintain PPO2 for their ascent.

What did OSEL do about this compared to what divers normally experience when they report an issue with their rebreather. Tweaked the design of the self cleaning injector button such that it is now theoretically impossible to tilt and jam. Then posted this out – free of cost - to all users whom reported a problem.

They also did the same when a single user reported the COTS waterdumps weren’t quite up to their expected standard to ensure reliable flood recovery each time. This cost a bit more, roughtly Euro140k in R&D, in order to offer a waterdump that now seals every time and doesn’t allow water ingress whilst the unit is being drained of water when submerged. It has also allowed OSEL to improve their BCD safety as well.

OSEL spent more on re-engineering this better waterdump than some rebreather manufacturers have spent on their units entire R&D and testing budget….

Whose manufacturers have the bald faced temerity to claim that the oxygen add sticking on does not matter because the flow is slow and the diver should be able to feel that the button is stuck on.

Simon, As both divers surfaced safely post dive in order to report the issue. This would appear to be born out in reality.

However, the fail-safe nature of the Apoc’s oxygen injector is a matter of good design, not luck. As previous, it has an audible white noise whenever high flow is occurring and tactile feedback from the button.

It is obvious when the button is up and delivering a constant ~0.7L/min O2.
Also obvious to feel if the button is stuck down and delivering a fixed 20L/min.
A 20L/min O2 flow rate is quite controllable and allows the valve to be feathered if you want to stay on the loop or time to turn the O2 off; if your going to bailout to the integrated BOV within the loop. One that has the same WOB of a good Apeks 2ndstage…. http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/DV_DL_ALVBOV_Breathing_Params_A3_100318.pdf

Further I assume your also aware already that if the Oxygen injector on the Apoc is broken, it fails-safe by only supplying oxygen at a steady 10L/min. One way you can do this is to bend the injector hose rated to 300bar over too sharp an angle and break the internal hose but it is rare that this has occurred.

Which initially employed a method of end tidal CO2 measurement which multiple experts immediately recognised (and proved) would not work correctly, and whose manufacturers have failed to release any data demonstrating that their new approach works.

Simon it is most peculiar that you keep trotting this strange line of BS out. Especially noting your fully aware that Deeplife haven’t changed their method of end tidal Co2 measurement in the Apoc’s iCCR Monitor. Why would they when it has been used as a checksum for their mass spec!

As proven by http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/Fault_Study_CO2_Bypass_110314.pdf
“This report characterises the fault mode, supported by detailed flow analysis and breath-by- breath CO2 measurements taken at seven locations around the rebreather breathing loop, and compares eight different types of one-way valve.
The purpose of this report is to support a FMECA by providing the evidence that the one-way valve in the ALVBOV as shipped is likely free of the fault, and also to provide the data to enable the fault mode to be exploited to manage certain performance features during compliance and evaluation processes prior to products being supplied onto the market.
This report also considers the extent to which this fault mode is detected by the CO2 monitor in the O.R. rebreathers (Umbilical/Incursion/Apocalypse), should the fault occur.”

I guess you might have a claim to make IF you could prove DL wrong in their CO2 bypass study of DSV and BOV flapper valves at 100m. I note I’ve heard crickets about anyone else even looking at this potential can of worms... so a few manufacturers might not be too happy with you, if you do look a bit deeper under this rock

Yes. DL did also test on the same setup every DSV and BOV that they could get their hands on or buy when they proved that the ALVBOV didn’t have the issue of CO2 bypass. And they know where the resultant skeletons are.

Whose manufacturers appear to have a marketing policy based on denigration of other rebreathers and their manufacturers, whilst still failing (after more than 10 years) to produce an iCCR rebreather that meets the high standard that they hold everyone else to.

Agreed. OSELs marketing is certainly not the industry norm that you support http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/Rebreather_Marketing_vs_Engineering.pdf

OSEL certainly produced the iCCR. It is very hard to achieve CE certification if you don’t do this…. Open Safety Equipment Ltd
Or have it filmed working https://www.facebook.com/pg/OpenSafetyEquipment/videos/?ref=page_internal

The Apoc rebreather itself which features the greater majority of the functional safety upgrades that are available inclusive lowest WOB, flood recoverable, enclosed BMCLs and lack of caustic cocktails amongst a whole host of other improvements have been shipped and actively dived for years. As you well know.

The list could go on and on.

Yes it does doesn’t it. And it makes a great comparison. No other rebreather manufacturer or design agency other than perhaps Biomarine et al inc USN has spent so much time, effort and $m on R&D of a rebreather.

I know to you it doesn’t commercially add up that OSEL has put user safety first with release of the iCCR. But if divers on another make of rebreather hadn’t force dived their units despite them saying no-dive due to a non-safe loop. Then OSEL would have been shipping the iCCR in full for as long as the Apoc Type IV CCR has been. And you would have had a means to measure and investigate divers end-tidal CO2 whilst submerged; something that DL can do in house.

The ALVBOV CC to OC bailout trigger is now more robust and on the iCCR forces divers to bailout when the loop isn’t safe to breathe: either due to hi/lo PPO2 or unsafe high CO2.

Now that OSEL is in a larger factory that ought to be sufficient to keep up with current demand, they can clear their backlog and focus on the new iCCR Monitor build with integrated solid state O2 cells.

Can you please name the militaries that use the Incursion?

No comment

Brad, you have thoroughly earned the levels of respect and credibility being shown to you on this thread.

Simon, Duck >> water. What is telling to me is that not one commenter has suggested an alternative rebreather that has sufficient testing to actively compete with the Apoc: one to one.

I actively want to buy another make of rebreather just to have something different to dive. But you can’t even tell me the WOB of your unit, if you had to bailout onto your BOV. And that’s about as basic a requirement as you can get! Nor can you tell me why you had to add an aftermarket retainer strap to its BOV despite this paper Increasing the probability of surviving loss of consciousness underwater when using a rebreather. - PubMed - NCBIand it being a CE requirement.[/QUOTE]

 

[Brad_Horn]

Hey @Brad_Horn , since you're still on this board and active. How about you tell your mates to update their list? Until then, I would recommend hiding below 100m with your "rebreather". Especially since I see you are still promoting that "list" of garbage which you should know damn well is a lie. Weren't you there when court told you you were wrong ?

If you have a correction or update to any particular rebreather fatality that DL list, just contact them direct. Deep Life Design Team: databases and analysis of rebreather accident data

P.S: Yes those rebreathers exist, one has been delivered a few years back in Switzerland, it was only 7 years late apparently (how can you be 7 years late when people can build O2 rebreathers in less than 2 days?!). And ccr #90-something was in France back in 2011. So my guess is there's maybe 500 of those running around in the wild? Do note that none of those are up to the specs that were originally claimed.

The pre-shipping tests on each Apocalypse take more than 2 days
But if you order a new Apocalypse rebreather it will be shipped to you.

However, you have me curious as to in what manner the Apocalypse Type IV CCR as delivered is not up to the spec originally claimed?

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

Perhaps. One could also compare the list of both the known and the swept under the rug issues with the unit you dive and compare them…. Battery bounce anyone, floods, caustic cocktails, forgotten O-rings, stuck MAVs, dual current limited cells, unknown WOB in OC and CC modes, vague scrubber duration testing and the list goes on

You are completely missing the point. The point is I am not claiming my rebreather has no faults. I am not on the internet extolling the virtues of the rebreather I dive and ignorning its faults whilst systematically slagging off everyone else's units. You are. That means you are seriously flirting with hypocrisy.

Strange. None of the actual testing Deep Life Design Team: Selected Design Validation Reports for DL & Open Safety Equipment Ltd's Rebreathers has been proven to not be as per that experienced by real world divers.

Well, the testing did not detect an endemic life threatening fault in the manual oxygen addition button. I'd say that's proof of a major flaw in the testing. And once again, I am simplyt pointing this out because you are constantly criticising the testing of other units while ignorning obvious problems with your own.

Simon, Feel free to identify a MAV that can’t stick on?

That is a very evasive response. I've never heard of another unit's manual add valve sticking on. Clearly it can't be impossible if that is what you are trying to say, but the key point is that I don't know of any other manufacturer that had multiple sticking events within a few months of releasing their unit to the market.

In OSELs case. Yes 2 maybe 3 users experienced their Oxygen Injector sticking on at depth. This gave them both audible white noise of this and tactile feedback that it was stuck on. Delivering a constant 10L/min of O2 for the ascent and allowed the divers to feather their valves and maintain PPO2 for their ascent.

Give me a break Brad. I can only imagine what Alex Deas would say if it was the inspo manual add valve that was sticking and Martin Parker trundled out a lame rationalisation like that. A task loaded diver distracted by any number of other problems might EASILY fail to notice that the button was stuck and panic because their buoyancy is going out of whack, the counterlungs are full, etc etc.... just before they have a seizure that is.

What did OSEL do about this compared to what divers normally experience when they report an issue with their rebreather....

Yes, great response. But the point is it happened, despite the test program and the CE certification etc etc that you talk up so much. AND you ignore it when criticising other manufacturer's test programs.

OSEL spent more on re-engineering this better waterdump than some rebreather manufacturers have spent on their units entire R&D and testing budget….

Excellent. Good work. If its true.

Simon, As both divers surfaced safely post dive in order to report the issue. This would appear to be born out in reality.

Oh come on Brad. Two divers survive a potentially life threatening fault and you think that justifies an inference that there is no functional safety issue?? Here is how an eye witness described one of those events:

Then the heartskipping moment I saw the bubbles from my dive buddies bailout as he tried to battle with the stuck open o2 manual add at 60mtrs......thank cluck I was on the boat at the time...the dive of course having been lost!! Why an instant recall on both the units they have sold was not immediate is beyond me....but what the hell eh?.....its a managable fault, and what harm is a bit of excess 02 at depth eh??

Does not sound very benign to me.

However, the fail-safe nature of the Apoc’s oxygen injector is a matter of good design, not luck. As previous, it has an audible white noise whenever high flow is occurring and tactile feedback from the button. etc etc etc

Sorry to point out the obvious, but good design would have been a valve that did not stick on in the first place. The rest sounds like self-serving rationalisation.

Simon it is most peculiar that you keep trotting this strange line of BS out. Especially noting your fully aware that Deeplife haven’t changed their method of end tidal Co2 measurement in the Apoc’s iCCR Monitor.

Actually Brad, I am fully aware they did change their method because Alex Deas said so on the internet. He clearly described one method which multiple experts pointed out to him would not work. Then he disappeared for about 18 months and reappeared describing a completely different method. The only thing the two have in common is that the same CO2 sensor sits in the loop and measures CO2 (which I suspect is how you justify your own "BS claim" that there's been no change to yourself), but how the data are interpreted to derive an end tidal CO2 from that measurement is completely different between the two methods. I have all the original posts and can put them up here if you want to keep debating this.

As proven by http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/Fault_Study_CO2_Bypass_110314.pdf
“This report characterises the fault mode, supported by detailed flow analysis and breath-by- breath CO2 measurements taken at seven locations around the rebreather breathing loop, and compares eight different types of one-way valve.
The purpose of this report is to support a FMECA by providing the evidence that the one-way valve in the ALVBOV as shipped is likely free of the fault, and also to provide the data to enable the fault mode to be exploited to manage certain performance features during compliance and evaluation processes prior to products being supplied onto the market.
This report also considers the extent to which this fault mode is detected by the CO2 monitor in the O.R. rebreathers (Umbilical/Incursion/Apocalypse), should the fault occur.”

What has any of that got to do with measuring end tidal CO2? This is completely irrelevant to that issue. No where in that report does is there any data demonstrating that the unit measures end tidal CO2 accurately. I can state that quite categorically.

I guess you might have a claim to make IF you could prove DL wrong in their CO2 bypass study of DSV and BOV flapper valves at 100m. I note I’ve heard crickets about anyone else even looking at this potential can of worms... so a few manufacturers might not be too happy with you, if you do look a bit deeper under this rock

Again, what has any of that got to do with measuring end tidal CO2? You did not understand that issue 10 years ago, and you still don't appear to understand it now.

OSEL certainly produced the iCCR. It is very hard to achieve CE certification if you don’t do this…. Open Safety Equipment Ltd
Or have it filmed working https://www.facebook.com/pg/OpenSafetyEquipment/videos/?ref=page_internal

Well it received CE 8 years ago, and the videos are a similar age. But still none have been delivered to customers. So something is wrong.

The Apoc rebreather itself which features the greater majority of the functional safety upgrades that are available inclusive lowest WOB, flood recoverable, enclosed BMCLs and lack of caustic cocktails amongst a whole host of other improvements have been shipped and actively dived for years. As you well know.

You mean the oxygen rebreather that requires modification with 3rd party products to make it useful? That is not what was promised Brad, or what you took deposits for 10 years ago.

I know to you it doesn’t commercially add up that OSEL has put user safety first with release of the iCCR. But if divers on another make of rebreather hadn’t force dived their units despite them saying no-dive due to a non-safe loop. Then OSEL would have been shipping the iCCR in full for as long as the Apoc Type IV CCR has been.

You'll have to forgive the cynic in me for being suspicious that these claims are just covering for the fact that it does not work properly, and that it has taken you this long (so far) to fix it. Why would I harbour such cynicism? Because I know the truth of the end tidal CO2 saga, and have seen the way you have misrepresented that. Basically, I am sceptical about anything you say.

And you would have had a means to measure and investigate divers end-tidal CO2 whilst submerged; something that DL can do in house.

If this is true I will be the first to pat you on the back. But it does not alter the fact that we were right about the way you intended to do it originally. We have formed a strong collaboration with a group with the resources to test the new method using immersed working divers, and simultaneously measuring true end tidal CO2 at the mouth, and comparing it with the number your device produces. I am looking forward to performing this evaluation because although you have been asked for such data many times, you have never produced it.

Simon M

 

[lv2dive]

What it should tell you is that your reputation has preceded you, and very few in the rebreather community feel the need to comment on, or reply to fiction.

<snip>
Simon, Duck >> water. What is telling to me is that not one commenter has suggested an alternative rebreather that has sufficient testing to actively compete with the Apoc: one to one.

 

[fsardone]

I am no expert in rebreather design but a few things on gas dynamics are know to me ...

Factory configured to 19bar, the stock Apollo A320 first stages in oxygen service, are rated for CMF use to ~180m.

In order to make sure a Costant Mass Flow orifice works, the flow needs to be sonic in the orifice and the condition for it is that the pressure upstream is at least twice as the one down stream. Now at 180 mt you have 19 bar and the first stage is working at 19 bar to the CMF is not working at constant flow.

If you are doing such a mistake in such a basic (and I dare say fundamental) issue, I am a bit concerned.
You might find this useful:
Choked flow - Wikipedia

Regards

 

[abnfrog]

Simon you are right of course but you are arguing with alex pretending to be brad