Dangerous gear?

[John C. Ratliff]

On CO2 cartridges, there were a number of types. Most for surface use were 16 grams. Those used for diving were typically 25 grams. The ones used by the military had 50 gram cylinders. When we used Underarm Life Preservers (LPUs) in the service, they had larger cylinders (50 grams, I think), because their bladder was large, and one under each arm. We dove them, but they (like all CO2 activated systems) were normally meant for surface use. The danger was activation underwater where the diver used them as a breathing source, unknowingly getting no O2 and toxic CO2. It was rarely enough to be a real danger for a buoyant ascent (although the Navy may have had something like what is described above).

On the most dangerous regulator, I'd also vote for the USD Aquamatic. But, every regulator can be made dangerous by neglect. Vintage divers for the most part learn about their regulators to keep them it tip-top shape. But I once analyzed a very good regulator which had over 6 inches of suction pressure simply to flow air; it was involved in a fatal dive accident, and had not been maintained for years.

Elmer, I have to say that the Healthways original SCUBA (which you call the Blue Label, but that designation is usually used for the second generation of that regulator) was not as bad as you say. It was marketed with two exhaust valves, the diaphragm built into the box and a short duckbill valved nestled into that chamber and held there by a circlip spring. It did not have this problem that you describe when so equipped. This was my first regulator in 1959 or so, and I dove it for several years without any of what you describe with the water coming into the exhaust hose. Equipped the way Healthways did, it was a very nice regulator. I have experimented with the diaphragm design for over a year now, and recently took my SCUBA regulator into the pool (last Sunday) without the second duckbill in it. Yes, some water does come into the hose, but it is very easily removed. The water comes in when in a head-down position, as the diaphragm is no longer held against the sealing surface of the tube. But it was easily expelled. I used a home-made diaphragm of the material from a nitril chemical glove. This glove is very flexible, and did a very good job of sealing the tube. I also experimented with a fast-running facet water stream down the tube (it performed as well as a Mistral for water flow). It also did not come off or break. Sunday, I jumped into the pool with it, and again it did not have any effect on the integrity of the diaphragm. This is with the home-made version of the diaphragm. The actual diaphragm is rubber-impregnated nylon, and very, very tough (although, as you know, it does not hold up to a sharp screwdriver). I have now (tonight) put back together my "Hybrid Regulator," a Healthways original Scuba with the innards of the third generation SCUBA regulator. In my pool test of just the diaphragm, with the original configuration, it performed very well and the exhaust was very, very easy (once the water was out of the tube).

Note--this photo was shot several years ago of the Hybrid Healthways SCUBA, with a latex diaphragm from a clean room glove. I've been experimenting with this for a while.

Tonight I also took a normal USD duckbill, and cut it down to fit into the inner tube of my Healthways Hybrid SCUBA regulator. I don't have time tonight to describe that modification tonight, but it seems like it will work and I did take photos--maybe tomorrow I can post them. With the two valves, this regulator is pretty good, comparable to the Mistral. The original Healthways SCUBA was in my opinion at the time as good as the Mistral (as a teenager, I picked it over the Mistral). But tests show that not to be the case. However. the Hybrid Healthways SCUBA should rival the Mistral.

SeaRat

 

[AfterDark]

The Scubapro Pilot reg known to fail in a no air condition.

 

[captain]

The snorkel mask was meant for snorkeling, not diving.

Was the CO2 inflator just for surface use or wasn't it? When I hear of multiple cartridges for deployment at depth, I have to wonder which it is. I always heard surface only. What does the military know that we don't?

That you can safely do a buoyant emergency accent.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

On CO2 cartridges, there were a number of types. Most for surface use were 16 grams. Those used for diving were typically 25 grams. The ones used by the military had 50 gram cylinders. When we used Underarm Life Preservers (LPUs) in the service, they had larger cylinders (50 grams, I think), because their bladder was large, and one under each arm. We dove them, but they (like all CO2 activated systems) were normally meant for surface use. The danger was activation underwater where the diver used them as a breathing source, unknowingly getting no O2 and toxic CO2. It was rarely enough to be a real danger for a buoyant ascent (although the Navy may have had something like what is described above).

On the most dangerous regulator, I'd also vote for the USD Aquamatic. But, every regulator can be made dangerous by neglect. Vintage divers for the most part learn about their regulators to keep them it tip-top shape. But I once analyzed a very good regulator which had over 6 inches of suction pressure simply to flow air; it was involved in a fatal dive accident, and had not been maintained for years.

Elmer, I have to say that the Healthways original SCUBA (which you call the Blue Label, but that designation is usually used for the second generation of that regulator) was not as bad as you say. It was marketed with two exhaust valves, the diaphragm built into the box and a short duckbill valved nestled into that chamber and held there by a circlip spring. It did not have this problem that you describe when so equipped. This was my first regulator in 1959 or so, and I dove it for several years without any of what you describe with the water coming into the exhaust hose. Equipped the way Healthways did, it was a very nice regulator. I have experimented with the diaphragm design for over a year now, and recently took my SCUBA regulator into the pool (last Sunday) without the second duckbill in it. Yes, some water does come into the hose, but it is very easily removed. The water comes in when in a head-down position, as the diaphragm is no longer held against the sealing surface of the tube. But it was easily expelled. I used a home-made diaphragm of the material from a nitril chemical glove. This glove is very flexible, and did a very good job of sealing the tube. I also experimented with a fast-running facet water stream down the tube (it performed as well as a Mistral for water flow). It also did not come off or break. Sunday, I jumped into the pool with it, and again it did not have any effect on the integrity of the diaphragm. This is with the home-made version of the diaphragm. The actual diaphragm is rubber-impregnated nylon, and very, very tough (although, as you know, it does not hold up to a sharp screwdriver). I have now (tonight) put back together my "Hybrid Regulator," a Healthways original Scuba with the innards of the third generation SCUBA regulator. In my pool test of just the diaphragm, with the original configuration, it performed very well and the exhaust was very, very easy (once the water was out of the tube).

Note--this photo was shot several years ago of the Hybrid Healthways SCUBA, with a latex diaphragm from a clean room glove. I've been experimenting with this for a while.

Tonight I also took a normal USD duckbill, and cut it down to fit into the inner tube of my Healthways Hybrid SCUBA regulator. I don't have time tonight to describe that modification tonight, but it seems like it will work and I did take photos--maybe tomorrow I can post them. With the two valves, this regulator is pretty good, comparable to the Mistral. The original Healthways SCUBA was in my opinion at the time as good as the Mistral (as a teenager, I picked it over the Mistral). But tests show that not to be the case. However. the Hybrid Healthways SCUBA should rival the Mistral.

SeaRat

John,

I'm actually working on an upgrade can cover that has a hose mount and a duckbill or duckbill eliminator that will replace the original cover. The current exhaust port will be sealed shut and not used. So the reg will be more like a USD with a rotatable cover that you can change the clocking.

I can keep you up to date with PM's if you wish since I know you are into these regs?

 

[Couv]

It took me a while Captain, but now I know what you are referring to: the ScubaPro Bend-o-matic is how I've always known the SOS decompression meter. Seems like a fitting moniker.

Some of the more unusual "safety" devices, like the Shark Dart generally made your buddy who carried one more dangerous to you than most sharks ever were.

Bend-O-Matic: Yes, that's what we called them too, much to the dive shop owner's consternation. I know two guys who got bent while using them. I had a Farallon deco meter. Fortunately it was recalled shortly after issue. I took it to Crystal River, FL and it showed me in near deco at 30 feet with less than an hour worth of BT. It came in a console with an SPG that developed an internal leak in the bourdon tube. The case had no safety plug so the lens and face plate gave way and whistled past my ear at .8 Mach. The depth gauge developed an air bubble and became inaccurate, and a compass that leaked all the oil out. Luis mentioned the ankle brace fins already. I borrowed a pair for one dive and while it looked like a cool idea, I could not seem to develop any thrust even in calm water. I also had their Tri view mask which had to have rubber pieces installed in the skirt to clear my boney proboscis. Farallon did have a great snorkel though, the tube was made of stiff but flexible rubber, had a moldable and adjustable mouthpiece.

c

 

[Luis H]

Farallon did have a great snorkel though, the tube was made of stiff but flexible rubber, had a moldable and adjustable mouthpiece.

c

Yes, I still have mine. The most amazing part to me is that it still fits me after 35 years.
You can see it in both of my avatar pictures (35 years apart).

 

[elmer fudd]

Elmer, I have to say that the Healthways original SCUBA (which you call the Blue Label, but that designation is usually used for the second generation of that regulator) was not as bad as you say. It was marketed with two exhaust valves, the diaphragm built into the box and a short duckbill valved nestled into that chamber and held there by a circlip spring. It did not have this problem that you describe when so equipped.

SeaRat

You're right about that. I think that's the second time you've informed me of it too.:doh: What happened is after looking at it and realizing that finding the proper replacement duckbill was fairly unlikely, I decided to just go without one, (which should make it breathe easier), but then I also kind of forgot about it when I posted that, (I can be extremely forgetful). In a way though, I still do think the HW design was bad compared to other exhaust valves of the day. It's just kind of an inelegant, kludged together way of being different enough from USD to avoid patent infringement.

 

[Luis H]

Other poor designs (again, maybe not dangerous, just poor):

Most vintage mechanical or oil filled depth gauges (there are a few exceptions like the Scubapro Helium)

US Divers horse collars (and many later BC’s) with a bladder. The bladders will always crack and are not reparable.

The original Scubapro Mk-1. Not the one that replaced it, but the one that was totally re-called. There are a few that survived the re-call and are owned by some collectors. It must have been unsafe, but not much is known about it.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

You're right about that. I think that's the second time you've informed me of it too.:doh: What happened is after looking at it and realizing that finding the proper replacement duckbill was fairly unlikely, I decided to just go without one, (which should make it breathe easier), but then I also kind of forgot about it when I posted that, (I can be extremely forgetful). In a way though, I still do think the HW design was bad compared to other exhaust valves of the day. It's just kind of an inelegant, kludged together way of being different enough from USD to avoid patent infringement.

Elmer, I'm too tired tonight to get the photos out of the camera and onto here. But I will comment on the original Healthways exhaust. I think it was a pretty elegant solution to the Cousteau patent. It brought the exhaust not back to the diaphragm, but instead created a new exhaust diaphragm which ran an the air pressure differential between the main diaphragm and the exhaust diaphragm. This works in most positions, and would work wonderfully today if introduced to DIR divers who never get off a horizontal position. Unfortunately, us vintage divers like to surface dive, swim upside down, swim down, etc., and it becomes "unbalanced" (to use Fred Roberts' term) with water entering the hose. So they placed a small duckbill in the tube--redundancy. This is the only regulator with two redundant exhaust systems. It breaths very nicely.

I now have three Healthways SCUBA regulators, this hybrid that I described above (with the Hope-Page mouthpiece), an actual Blue Label (with the innards of my original and a USD hose/mouthpiece system), and the Healthways Gold Label, with their original mouthpiece. The original Healthways Mouthpiece was too small in diameter for good breathing, and has a baffle in the center to prevent blow-by. The baffle is great, but I carved out the wagon wheels for the intake hose (actually, I have that for both hoses, but am currently using it only on the intake). So I have a pretty good collection of Healthways double hose regulators now.

ZKY, I am interested in what you are doing with the exhaust of the original Healthways. Apparently, you are creating a new box for it so that the exhaust is below the diaphragm. It will be an interesting experiment.

SeaRat

 

[Walter]

Some of the more unusual "safety" devices, like the Shark Dart generally made your buddy who carried one more dangerous to you than most sharks ever were.

Why do you believe this? The dart is carried in a sheath. It can't hurt anyone while in it's sheath. If you pull it out of the sheath, it has a safety that prevents it from discharging the CO2. It's less dangerous than a knife with the safety on because it only has a sharp point, no sharp edges. Even with the safety off, it has to be stabbed into something to discharge the CO2. I'd be much more afraid of diving with a buddy I thought was stupid enough to stab me than I would be of diving with a competent buddy carrying a dart.