Is this IT?!

[Meng_Tze]

Personally, I think the rebreather for the masses already exists... pick any production manual injection rebreather (KiSS, rEVO, Pelagian, Copis meg) and you have recreational friendly and safe (1 known fatality between them).

..

I don't entirely agree with you here. Without going in to the discussion of electronic vs manual and safety, the 'masses' is what needs to be examined.

If you look at the average recreational diver, their understanding of dive physics is at a different level than that of tech divers/RB divers. This is no disrespect to recreational divers, it just highlights the difference in required understanding at the training levels.

The MK VI looks to 'do things for the diver' There is little, from my very limited exposure, that a divers on the MK VI has to do; just 'don and dive'. Even the brochure mentions to 'forget about PO2'. The 'masses' Poseidon seems to go after are the recreational divers who do not focus on dive physics in depth as all other RB divers do. I would certainly not push any current production RB (electronic or manual) on those 'masses' without ample training. But with that training they seize to be part of the 'masses'

 

[ScubaDadMiami]

It seems to me that electronic injection rebreathers are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist on manual rebreathers. It's the automated systems that have nearly all the fatalities associated with them (150ish fatalities) and those fatalities are often what causes people to fear rebreathers of all kinds, ironically leading them to gravitate toward automation because manual injection sounds scary even though it's very streight forward to learn and has an impressive track record.

There is an old Latin expression, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning roughly because of this, therefore that follows, that expresses this circular logic. Your statements imply that the electronics were a factor in the accidents. It is not becauseof the electronics that divers died on the electronic units. It was, unfortunately, because of the actions of the divers.

Every unit on the market, whether electronic or manual, has a plus and a minus. For example, manual units can be a big problem in a cave or wreck during a complete silt out because the diver can't see the PO2 readout and does not know when to add oxygen, or how much oxygen is in the loop. The point is: no matter which unit you choose, you must remain engaged with the unit at all times while conducting the dive. Once you get into the habit of doing this, CCRs are a great tool to use in diving.

 

[SFLDiver3445]

I don't entirely agree with you here. Without going in to the discussion of electronic vs manual and safety, the 'masses' is what needs to be examined.

If you look at the average recreational diver, their understanding of dive physics is at a different level than that of tech divers/RB divers. This is no disrespect to recreational divers, it just highlights the difference in required understanding at the training levels.

The MK VI looks to 'do things for the diver' There is little, from my very limited exposure, that a divers on the MK VI has to do; just 'don and dive'. Even the brochure mentions to 'forget about PO2'. The 'masses' Poseidon seems to go after are the recreational divers who do not focus on dive physics in depth as all other RB divers do. I would certainly not push any current production RB (electronic or manual) on those 'masses' without ample training. But with that training they seize to be part of the 'masses'

That's a good point Meng! I do not feel as though you are desrespecting anyone with your comment - It's simply a fact that the average recreational diver doesn't remember squat from their certification class, which was informationally non-specific to begin with!

Historically speaking, other diving manufacturers have capitalized on that knowledge deficiency and developed products that ensure that, even the average diver can safely use their product, as long as they design their products to provide divers with simple "dummy-proof" instructions. Isn't that precisely what most dive computers do for the diver? You don't have to know much of anything to use a dive conputer, all you have to do is follow it's simple "dummy-proof" instructions. If you ascend too quickly, they tell you to slow down...If you pass your stop, they tell you to return to a certain depth and stop there...if you don't look at your computer, it starts to beep and flash to get your attention...etc.

I remember when I got certified, and at that time, dive computers didn't even exist. I bought my first dive package the day I finished my dive class, and my top of the line package came with a built-in bottom timer within the spg, which was the BEST they had at the time - And I'm only 42 now!

That's why I feel that, if the Mark VI generation of rebreathers follows the same pattern and can make a "dummy-proof" rebreather, say good bye to open-circuit dive equipment, much quicker and faster than anyone suspects!

 

[Meng_Tze]

I have great expectations for this unit. Regardless of its success in the rec. space, it will force current RB manufacturers to (re)think some of the historic and evolutionary developments. I for one am excited.

 

[Gill Envy]

I don't entirely agree with you here. Without going in to the discussion of electronic vs manual and safety, the 'masses' is what needs to be examined.

If you look at the average recreational diver, their understanding of dive physics is at a different level than that of tech divers/RB divers. This is no disrespect to recreational divers, it just highlights the difference in required understanding at the training levels.

The MK VI looks to 'do things for the diver' There is little, from my very limited exposure, that a divers on the MK VI has to do; just 'don and dive'. Even the brochure mentions to 'forget about PO2'. The 'masses' Poseidon seems to go after are the recreational divers who do not focus on dive physics in depth as all other RB divers do. I would certainly not push any current production RB (electronic or manual) on those 'masses' without ample training. But with that training they seize to be part of the 'masses'

Even though I don't entirely disagree with you, the Mark VI appears to fall into an entirely different category. Yes, it is electronic, but it is my understanding that it is intended to be a dummy-proof electronic rebreather exclusively for recreational purposes. It appears like the design incorporates more of a green light / red light approach to diving and doesn't even incorporate mannual gas addition buttons. Most modern electronic rebreathers rely on the diver's quick action / judgement to determine the best way to resolve any problems (i.e., diluent flush, manual gas addition, semi-closed operation, bailout, etc.), but it appears that at any sign of inproper operation, the Mark VI will immediately ask you to bail-out to onboard oc mode via the BOV and terminate the dive, without giving you other options - This simplified approach, especially in conjunction with the cartridged scrubber and the self calibrating sensor(s), appears to have the most potential in making the mainstream diver feel comfortable with rebreathers and making them more generally acceptable.

However, the questions still remains, will they be able to pull it off?

If you look at the average recreational diver, their understanding of dive physics is at a different level than that of tech divers/RB divers.

It will be very interesting to see if anyone can make an automated system that can adequately overcome the need for understanding on the divers part, and overcome the dangers of complacency that it will likely encourage. seems more likely that learning to rely on such an automated system will leave the diver more dangerously unprepared and unpracticed in basic rebreather survival skills for when things really do hit the fan, weather caused by diver error or malfunction or environmental conditions. It's very appealing to think artificial intelligence can be more reliable than a real brain, but so far my experience and the stats i've looked at seem to confirm that nothing beats required awareness.

What about malfunctions? Will the the MK VI be 100% flawless, because that is what's going to be expected... is flawless even possible? I can say one thing for sure, the recreational market it not going to put up with having to send in the unit with any kind of frequency. Open circuit folks have the luxury of being able to take their favorite computers and regs diving with them in remote locations and if something goes wrong they simply rent the needed gear. This will not be the case for the recreational rebreather diver for quite some time to come. a rebreather for the masses must be field serviceable with parts that are relatively easy to get or take with you. Components need to be easy to swap out without much technical know how. the system needs to be redundant enough to use safely for continued diving even if one of the monitoring systems fails.

Even if it were possible to create a 100% reliabel system, would that not simply encourage more complacency? Diver error is claimed to be the prime cause of most accidents... would a more reliance dependent technology not merely increase complacency and ultimately increase risk?

Even with complacency and diver error being at the top of the accident list, the reality is that electronics do fail and they tend to do it at the least convenient moments. manual systems start out with less dependence on electronics for the most critical life sustaining functions so they have fewer points of failure in the areas that count the most. this entrains consistent monitoring. the manual injection and self monitoring of the system increases the chances of catching critical mechanical and electronics failures as well as diver error, before it's too late. If someone can come up with an automated system that instills good habits and provides steller reliability, then i'll shell out the extra clams for it. Is the the MK VI such a system? Time will tell but I have my doubts.

On one hand I don't think rebreather diving will ever be a good choice for someone who just wants to throw a tank on their back and go... to me, that is a dangerous fantasy and feeding into it is irresponsible.

On the other hand, the avid recreational diver's abilities are underestimated in my opinion. I don't find that diving a manual rebreather is all that difficult and I don't think rebreather diving is only for the super human, hand picked elite forces as some suggest either. I believe someone with even moderate intelligence and even poor attention span can learn to dive an mCCR safely.

a manual injection system is perfect for someone coming into this without technical background. One can't make it out of the pool sessions without getting the basics, enough to perform the life sustaining po2 monitoring and maintenance... it's actually deceptively simple. By the time you get done with the open water portion, you have an understanding of the concepts adequate to safely and steadily build skills and confidence for gradually more challenging diving. The level of diver involvement that is required, is in my mind the cornerstone to safety... it's not rocket science. it's like you have an instructor built right into the machine that keeps training you long after the class is done. the school of natural consequences is more forgiving and more effective on an mCCR than an eCCR because the rules and limits are extremely consistent.

If you forget to turn the o2 on, you are so in the habit of pressing your MAV and verifying the effect that that had on the po2 that you are many times more likely to catch it as soon as you get on the loop. If you left your dilluent turned off, you are more likely to catch that as you descend and your po2 starts to climb and your ADV doesn't kick in. If the electronics are not turned on, the increased monitoring interval entrained through manual injection would increase your chances of catching it. Pre-breathing and verifying the loop to make sure cells are tracking before getting in the water is pretty much mandotory on manual rebreathers...that single act will catch most mistakes and it comes naturally.

But most importantly, on an mCCR you never expect the rebreather to maintain itself and that simple fact effects your vigilance while diving it and your attention to detial from the moment you start setting it up to the moment you are done with the dive.

Bottom line, there are lots of recreational divers diving manual systems, and so far, recreational divers on manual add rebreathers seem to have the best safety record. it appears to me that the highest risk group is the experienced tec diver on an eCCR. creating a dummy proof rebreather is a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

I question what the real motivation for developing a fool proof rebreather is. It seems to stem from the market pressure to address recreational divers fears... and up-sell a much more expensive and complicated unit at the same time. Why encouraging people who don't know any better to purchase more than they actually need? Maybe because distributors/instructors and manufacturers make more money selling more expensive units to people who are searching hard for a rig they can trust.

I can relate to the fears and apprehensions of a recreational OC diver, I was a recreational single tank diver just a few years ago, when I first started looking for the perfect rebreather. Two and half years ago manual systems gave me the hee bee gee bees. I just was not comfortable with the idea of being so responsible for my own well being and i kept reading about all those fatalities. I baught the most automated system I could find because I thought that was safer.

After putting considerable hours on it and watching a variety of mechanical failures and after noticing the increep of a laxidasical attitude and after finding out that almost all fatalities are on eCCR's, I finally connected all the dots and switched over to a manual system (a copis Meg with shearwater electronics). My experience of diving a manual system has radically changed my thinking about all this, at least it comfirmed most of my suppositions and revealed startling holes in my previous habits. now I strongly recommend that recreational divers in particular try and see past their fears of manual injection and consider at least starting out with a manual add system to see if it's adequate for their needs.

There are lots of valid reasons to go with an eCCR (you like cool electronics, You like the convenience, you want to be a hands free videographer, special ops division in the millitary, etc.) but the assertion that they are safer is purely conjecture at this point, while the closest thing to evidence we have points in the opposite direction -fatalities on eCCR's continue to rise on a monthly weekly basis.

why must manufacturers continue to go further to fix a problem of mindset with a technologically based solution. a rebreather for the masses already exists, and if mass produced could come down in price enough to be within the financial reach of a much larger number of avid recreational divers. This is where I think the future lies and where the greatest profits are to be made.

 

[Meng_Tze]

....
On one hand I don't think rebreather diving will ever be a good choice for someone who just wants to throw a tank on their back and go... to me, that is a dangerous fantasy and feeding into it is irresponsible.

You may be right, but it seems Poseidon clearly sees a market there. The success of the MK VI in that space will be the proof in the pudding.

On the other hand, the avid recreational diver's abilities are underestimated in my opinion. I don't find that diving a manual rebreather is all that difficult and I don't think rebreather diving is only for the super human, hand picked elite forces as some suggest either. I believe someone with even moderate intelligence and even poor attention span can learn to dive an mCCR safely.

I don't think the abilities of recreational divers are underestimated, but the requirements put on them (i.e. 'back on the boat with 500 psi and stay within NDL)' are of a different level. Re-read my post again and you will see that nuance. I agree that with proper training people can learn to dive a RB. But when you decide to throw a RB into the rec space (status quo), because of the difference in understanding, you HAVE to make it more plug and play without having to do more intensive training than we currently see at that level.

We can disagree all we want with throwing a RB in that space as a 'don and dive', even argue mCCR vs eCCR, fact of the matter is that MKVI is soon to be here and it is going to impact the whole RB space. I am hopeful it will for the better. To me it is a catalytic entity, kind of what the iPOD was for personal MP3 players.

 

[SFLDiver3445]

We can disagree all we want with throwing a RB in that space as a 'don and dive', even argue mCCR vs eCCR, fact of the matter is that MKVI is soon to be here and it is going to impact the whole RB space. I am hopeful it will for the better. To me it is a catalytic entity, kind of what the iPOD was for personal MP3 players.

That's right Meng - With the release of the Mark VI, the "plug and play" rebreather era is here, that's just the reality, whether we agree it should exist or not! And I suspect it will only be the first generation of future recreational rebreathers that will get more and more automated ("dummy-proof") and therefore be more and more friendly to the masses.

With regard to Gill's debate of whether mccr o eccr is the direction the industry should go because of the safety issue, whether or not Gill is correct, the argument is a futile effort to fight the natural evolutionary course of things! As a society, we demand that everything be automated and handle minute details for us. Manufactures never focus their efforts on trying to change the consumer's habits:no, because that is generally a losing battle and less profitable when dealing with lazy homo sapiens; instead, they try to come up with ways to have electronics satisfy our lazy whims (i.e., remote controls, washing machines, cruise controlled autos, central air conditioning, automatic transition, escalators, elevators, cell phones, dive computers, segways, gps', automatic pilots, electronic rebreathers, voice recognition software, etc. and I could go on forever!). Trust me, if you are a manufacturer, it's exponentially easier to develop an electronic system that will do the job for your consumer, instead of trying to convince humans to do it for themselves! And in most cases, once the technology is perfected, it's safer to have the electronic systems running things, because humans are really good at finding ways to screw things up!

You can swim upstream like salmon and fight the natural order of things or you can go with the flow - Which do you think the manufacturers are ultimately going to choose?

 

[Gill Envy]

There is an old Latin expression, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning roughly because of this, therefore that follows, that expresses this circular logic. Your statements imply that the electronics were a factor in the accidents. It is not becauseof the electronics that divers died on the electronic units. It was, unfortunately, because of the actions of the divers.

Perhaps you are right, and i'm simply using circular logic to connect two unrelated things and i'm willing to look at that. I do think that a set point controller is the common suspect in rebreather deaths but not so much because of their failure rate but because of the effect that that level of automation tends to have on the habits and attitude of the diver and because those are the type of unit that are accumulating nearly all the fatalities. I don't think that can easily be explained away by saying there are more eCCR's than mCCR's as the % difference is still worlds apart. What really convinced me was when my personal experience started becoming consistent with the claims of higher risk you hear so much from OC folks, it became hard to ignore... and after digging deeper I began to see how the circular logic that "more electronics means safer rebreather" appeared to have no statistical basis, in fact the opposite seemed to be true. The sales pitch for the eCCR I was sold was that it was "safer" and I know i'm not the only one being fed that line.

I think the safest way to dive an eCCR is to assume it's more dangerous and if you are successful at convincing yourself of that, you may just be that much more vigilant and less likely to make a fatal error.

Every unit on the market, whether electronic or manual, has a plus and a minus. For example, manual units can be a big problem in a cave or wreck during a complete silt out because the diver can't see the PO2 readout and does not know when to add oxygen, or how much oxygen is in the loop. The point is: no matter which unit you choose, you must remain engaged with the unit at all times while conducting the dive. Once you get into the habit of doing this, CCRs are a great tool to use in diving.

So on one hand you suggest that it's not the rebreather that is the deciding factor in diving safety and then you imply that manual rebreathers are more dangerous in the cave diving application? I think that type of argument is an emblematic example of what i'm talking about. Seems logical but it's not bearing out in the real world. there are an endless number of scenarios that are frightening to think about and easily become the basis for one's choice of rebreather in the absence of experience to give perspective. People are doing just about any kinds of dives on manual injection rebreathers. So, lets take a look at this particular claim: "you can't maintain po2 in zero viz with a manual system". First off, i'm guessing that it's common practice to dive an eCCR with a HUD in a cave. Just like with any kind of risk assessment, you certainly need to be prepared for the likely things you will face and I can not imagine diving without a HUD in an overhead environment or in dark merky water (like we have here in the north west) without a HUD on either an mCCR or eCCR. Diving an mCCR in an overhead environment where zero viz is a potential requires a HUD that reads actual po2, IMHO. I've been in water I can't see my guages in (just this weekend) and I could still see my HUD and maintain my po2 just fine. I even went so far as to test just how poor the vis could be and found that in the worst case scenario, since I have a detachable HUD, I can press it against my mask if I find myself in pea soup. You've probably seen the video:The Shearwater HUD in Pea Soup...Zero viz! - Rebreather World
But if you have not used a manual system under such conditions I can see how it would stir up irrational fears and make you think that only an automated system would work in such cases. That said, i'm not a cave diver and perhaps there are other ways that an mCCR would not fit the job but so far I'm not hearing complaints from mCCR cave divers and they appear to be living to tell about it and even having fun!

 

[Gill Envy]

With regard to Gill's debate of whether mccr o eccr is the direction the industry should go because of the safety issue, whether or not Gill is correct, the argument is a futile effort to fight the natural evolutionary course of things! As a society, we demand that everything be automated and handle minute details for us. Manufactures never focus their efforts on trying to change the consumer's habits:no, because that is generally a losing battle and less profitable when dealing with lazy homo sapiens; instead, they try to come up with ways to have electronics satisfy our lazy whims (i.e., remote controls, washing machines, cruise controlled autos, central air conditioning, automatic transition, escalators, elevators, cell phones, dive computers, segways, gps', automatic pilots, electronic rebreathers, voice recognition software, etc. and I could go on forever!). Trust me, if you are a manufacturer, it's exponentially easier to develop an electronic system that will do the job for your consumer, instead of trying to convince humans to do it for themselves! And in most cases, once the technology is perfected, it's safer to have the electronic systems running things, because humans are really good at finding ways to screw things up!

You can swim upstream like salmon and fight the natural order of things or you can go with the flow - Which do you think the manufacturers are ultimately going to choose?

At this point more people are being turned off by the high fatality rate of eCCR's (1%?) than turned on by impressive electronics. The number of manual rebreathers being offered suggests a lot of salmon are figuring out that they don't need to swim up stream.

The injection of oxygen just may turn out to be the one thing that humans do better than machines.

 

[SFLDiver3445]

I've been in water I can't see my guages in (just this weekend) and I could still see my HUD and maintain my po2 just fine. I even went so far as to test just how poor the vis could be and found that in the worst case scenario, since I have a detachable HUD, I can press it against my mask if I find myself in pea soup. You've probably seen the video:The Shearwater HUD in Pea Soup...Zero viz! - Rebreather World

BTW, I did see the thread you posted reporting the results of your Pea Soup Test, and I have to say - Thank you very much! I had really never given much thought to whether or not the HUD would be visible under such poor visibility conditions. Hopefully I will never be in such conditions, but your test give me an idea of what to expect. Now I just need to test it with the Optima's HUD to see if it as visible as the Shearwater HUD, because that may or may not be the case. Perhaps there may be a pea soup test in my future!