JonG1
Contributor
Picking up on some of the recent threads on features to look for, important criteria to consider, one of the discussion points related to flood tolerance or recoverability, so not how resistant the unit is to a flood but if it floods can you de-water it and continue.
This got me thinking and wanting to understand the concept further.
First of all definition of flood is tricky, most units have traps or points that will allow a certain amount of ingress without functional impact.
It seems as if there are some floods that could not be recovered, e.g. traumatic damage to a hose, component fracture, etc. There could be slow insidious barely detectable leaks that allow water ingress, or user errors such as overly loose lips or DSV/BOV drops.
Obviously traumatic damage can't be fixed, so you are off the loop.
Small leaks could be periodically de-watered, user errors could be de-watered.
However depending on the unit is it possible that an incomplete dewatering could leave the potential for a caustic cocktail depending on unit design, trim, exit or ascent orientation etc, is it worth the risk?
What is the impact on scrubber duration post flood, does it change and if so how much if it's one short total drenching or a small but frequent leak? If you don't know would you chance it?
Does it affect WOB, I understand that even a change in WOB barely perceptible at the user level may result in a later hypercapnic event, does the risk of late onset breakthrough which apparently occurs quickly became more of a reality?
If so are these gambles that aren't worth taking?
Does sea water have a different effect on sorb than freshwater?
Is there a risk that having the capability doesn't necessarily improve the safety, given that it may encourage staying on the loop when a bailout would be safer all round?
Is the range of potential scenarios that de watering can resolve small enough that the extra failure point that the de watering device creates wouldn't stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
It seems from the recent threads that de watering at the major flood level is more useful to the longer range diver at the limits of penetration or depth/profile, is there an argument that it should be an add on or upgrade to avoid another potential failure point which has little relevance to the average diver carrying adequate bailout?
Just thought it may be worthy of discussion.
This got me thinking and wanting to understand the concept further.
First of all definition of flood is tricky, most units have traps or points that will allow a certain amount of ingress without functional impact.
It seems as if there are some floods that could not be recovered, e.g. traumatic damage to a hose, component fracture, etc. There could be slow insidious barely detectable leaks that allow water ingress, or user errors such as overly loose lips or DSV/BOV drops.
Obviously traumatic damage can't be fixed, so you are off the loop.
Small leaks could be periodically de-watered, user errors could be de-watered.
However depending on the unit is it possible that an incomplete dewatering could leave the potential for a caustic cocktail depending on unit design, trim, exit or ascent orientation etc, is it worth the risk?
What is the impact on scrubber duration post flood, does it change and if so how much if it's one short total drenching or a small but frequent leak? If you don't know would you chance it?
Does it affect WOB, I understand that even a change in WOB barely perceptible at the user level may result in a later hypercapnic event, does the risk of late onset breakthrough which apparently occurs quickly became more of a reality?
If so are these gambles that aren't worth taking?
Does sea water have a different effect on sorb than freshwater?
Is there a risk that having the capability doesn't necessarily improve the safety, given that it may encourage staying on the loop when a bailout would be safer all round?
Is the range of potential scenarios that de watering can resolve small enough that the extra failure point that the de watering device creates wouldn't stand up to a cost benefit analysis?
It seems from the recent threads that de watering at the major flood level is more useful to the longer range diver at the limits of penetration or depth/profile, is there an argument that it should be an add on or upgrade to avoid another potential failure point which has little relevance to the average diver carrying adequate bailout?
Just thought it may be worthy of discussion.