Brad_Horn
Contributor
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 66
G’Day Simon,Could you not have added the following to your list.....
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.
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.Claims to have extensive testing but starts to fall apart the moment it is released to real world divers.
The lowest WOB of any unit on the market and lack of caustic cocktails when diving it are certainly nice.
Simon, Feel free to identify a MAV that can’t stick on?Had an obvious safety flaw like a manual oxygen addition button that sticks 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….
Simon, As both divers surfaced safely post dive in order to report the issue. This would appear to be born out in reality.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.
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.
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!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.
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.
Agreed. OSELs marketing is certainly not the industry norm that you support http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/Rebreather_Marketing_vs_Engineering.pdfWhose 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.
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.
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.The list could go on and on.
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.
No commentCan you please name the militaries that use the Incursion?
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.Brad, you have thoroughly earned the levels of respect and credibility being shown to you on this thread.
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]