Modern Doublehose???
- Thread starter oldmossback
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
oldmossback
Contributor
I started this thread with a simple question and I have read many different ideas, concepts etc.......much appreciated............
Regarding the BC interference with a double hose.....I have only used two different wings, a Zeagle and my new Aries Reef Rider....neither have given me trouble. I can not say about others.
As to the speculation of manufacturing a new doublehose reg.......I am not at liberty to say, however, mass production of such a thing would be risky business as the the market is small, vintage or otherwise.........
As stated within this string, training is geared toward the singlehose reg. Trying to break into the beginners cycle would be extremely difficult at best I think and probably futile.
The advance diver, one who wants to utilize the advantages of a double hose, women who do not like the bubbles and noise in their face/ears.......(my ex was one of these).....photographers, researchers etc........perhaps would be good candidates.
But mass marketing I believe would be pointless. I believe the vintage crowd is saturated with the older models and would not expend the funds for something new that does the same thing their older models do. (however, upgrade kits from other sources might sell a few)
So, a small market, means a higher cost regulator. (Aqualung knew this with their Mentor)...........brass prices are going out of sight........so plastic or composite construction would be the norm to keep costs down..........and any exotic electronic air delivery system would be way too costly for the number of regs sold.....the mechanics would have to remain the same as most regs today and the shape resemble those all are familar with........
I do not think a new modern double hose could be made in the USA........nor Europe.....the price would be too high for the return.........
However..........there may be something in the wind........who knows?
Mossback.............
Regarding the BC interference with a double hose.....I have only used two different wings, a Zeagle and my new Aries Reef Rider....neither have given me trouble. I can not say about others.
As to the speculation of manufacturing a new doublehose reg.......I am not at liberty to say, however, mass production of such a thing would be risky business as the the market is small, vintage or otherwise.........
As stated within this string, training is geared toward the singlehose reg. Trying to break into the beginners cycle would be extremely difficult at best I think and probably futile.
The advance diver, one who wants to utilize the advantages of a double hose, women who do not like the bubbles and noise in their face/ears.......(my ex was one of these).....photographers, researchers etc........perhaps would be good candidates.
But mass marketing I believe would be pointless. I believe the vintage crowd is saturated with the older models and would not expend the funds for something new that does the same thing their older models do. (however, upgrade kits from other sources might sell a few)
So, a small market, means a higher cost regulator. (Aqualung knew this with their Mentor)...........brass prices are going out of sight........so plastic or composite construction would be the norm to keep costs down..........and any exotic electronic air delivery system would be way too costly for the number of regs sold.....the mechanics would have to remain the same as most regs today and the shape resemble those all are familar with........
I do not think a new modern double hose could be made in the USA........nor Europe.....the price would be too high for the return.........
However..........there may be something in the wind........who knows?
Mossback.............
rstofer
Contributor
I hope it comes to pass! In the meantime, I am waiting for Oceanic to come out with the Omega 3 (or whatever it will be called). I have several Omega II's and I love them. Yes, I know, there are better regulators around. But I LIKE them.
Same thing for vintage double hose. Here, I know absolutely nothing about them but am willing to spend a little money to play with them. I have the DA AquaMaster soon to be upgraded to PRAM and I have purchased a back pack (the kind with cam bands) and fully intend to dive it. A modern diaphragm and valve components should result in a very nice regulator. I look forward to it!
A 'new' double hose regulator may not be interesting if the cost is more than some number, perhaps $600. But it would need to look a lot like the original vintage regulators. Kind of like the PRAM in that regard. Modern conveniences but a nostalgic appearance.
Richard
Same thing for vintage double hose. Here, I know absolutely nothing about them but am willing to spend a little money to play with them. I have the DA AquaMaster soon to be upgraded to PRAM and I have purchased a back pack (the kind with cam bands) and fully intend to dive it. A modern diaphragm and valve components should result in a very nice regulator. I look forward to it!
A 'new' double hose regulator may not be interesting if the cost is more than some number, perhaps $600. But it would need to look a lot like the original vintage regulators. Kind of like the PRAM in that regard. Modern conveniences but a nostalgic appearance.
Richard
But you see, it is an axiom, simple questions always have complex answers and complex questions always have simple answers, something like E=MC2.
As to a new double hose, anything is possible, there could be some parallel evolution ocurring here.
OK, a simle answer, since almost all of the parts are available now for a brand spanking new Aqua Master except for the cans and the body and a few other small bits, it would be easier just to make a new Aqua Master, much the way you can kit build some of the AR15 stuff. As to what would interest me, the Mentor would interest me.
I would want to reduce the height (length) of the regulator assembly as well to inlcude the LP and HP ports but retain the original length of the assembly. The new silicone duckbills are excellent but hey, if we are talking new, I would want the domed top can with a large mushroom exhaust valve.
The biggest untapped market may potentially be, as I said, the rebreahter crowd, both for training and to retain the feel and equipment arrangement between open circuit and closed.
Let me add, everybody when asked this question, past and present, has there ideas and is not interested in the other persons ideas, myself included. I have my own design as well, it would be a servo operated design, it would be small, smaller than the Trieste, about the same size as a large hub cap style second stage. It would use the diaprham from a Legend or Titan, it would be an internal piston frst stage, it would have a DSV mouthpiece and it would use a mushroom exhaust valve and use standard 1.5X1.0 hoses.
N
Last edited:
That is pretty much it in a nutshell. It is very hard to justify re-inventing the wheel if you can't also economically justify using advanced technlogy and happen to live in a world with all kinds of surplus wheels available.
Examples abound but in short, any new double hose would look and perform an awful lot like an updated vintage double hose such as the PRAM.
Personally, I think if you produced a licensed version of the PRAM based on a set of composite cans and used off the shelf currently available reproduction parts, you'd get maximum performance for minimum cost even with the small number produced as the R&D would be minimal and the vast majority of the parts are in at least limited production already. Your prototype costs would be minimal and the bulk of the cost would be in developing the composite case, license fees and manufacturing agreements. The major production cost items would be the brass body and nozzle. It would be similar to the off the shelf approach Aqualung took with the new Mistral, except it would be based on an already proven design that actually works.
Personally, I'd still prefer mine to have a duckbill exhaust unless the new mushroom valve and redesigned case gave the same degree of exhaust diffusion.
I have a different approach for you to consider. We don't need to design the whole regulator. Current first stages will do very well. We only need to design the second stage. With that in mind, let me make some observations:
--One of the best-breathing regulators I have is a USD pre-Mistral called the DX Overpressure Breathing regulator. It has the "hose-within-a-hose" concept, and brings the venturi to the mouthpiece. That is the old metal mouthpiece, and it provided more air than any of its successors. But it used three drilled holes in a small diameter metal tube that the hoses attached to, which allowed the air to become a mist of water/air when some water got into the tube. If instead, the mouthpiece were a different design, and the end tube had a venturi like eithe the Scubapro and Dacor single hose regs (a long slot rather than 3 drilled holes), it would not only be dry, but also very efficient, and very simple.
--The regulator location is critical. I don't know whether many people know what it's like to have a double hose regulator down below the shoulder blades, in mid-back position. But the DX Overpressure Breathing regulator I have has SCBA hoses on it, which are quite a bit longer than conventional scuba double hose hoses. I have experimented with that regulator very, very low on my back, and it breathed like magic. With modern plastic materias, and silicone diaphragms, it would also be quite small yet maintain a mechanical simplicity.
--With a regulator second stage independent of the first stage, it could be positioned anywhere the diver wanted. With enough hose length, and the hose-within-a-hose concept (which negates the length of hose by the small diameter of the venturi hose), a regulator very low on the back, say beneith the BC and tank, could be managed. It could, with different length hoses, also be chest-mounted.
--With the regulator in this position, then exhalation air could be utilized for buoyancy compensation with a proper activation mechanism (a three-way spring-loaded valve with a rod actuator). No good breathing air would be lost to the BC this way, but you would also have the advantages of manual inflation without removing the diver's mouthpiece.
--It would be good to allow more than one, two and perhaps three first stages to mate the the LP air chamber of the second stage. This would allow all modern double manifolds, and even a triple tank system, to be utilized without a manifolding issue.
These are some points to consider...
SeaRat
--One of the best-breathing regulators I have is a USD pre-Mistral called the DX Overpressure Breathing regulator. It has the "hose-within-a-hose" concept, and brings the venturi to the mouthpiece. That is the old metal mouthpiece, and it provided more air than any of its successors. But it used three drilled holes in a small diameter metal tube that the hoses attached to, which allowed the air to become a mist of water/air when some water got into the tube. If instead, the mouthpiece were a different design, and the end tube had a venturi like eithe the Scubapro and Dacor single hose regs (a long slot rather than 3 drilled holes), it would not only be dry, but also very efficient, and very simple.
--The regulator location is critical. I don't know whether many people know what it's like to have a double hose regulator down below the shoulder blades, in mid-back position. But the DX Overpressure Breathing regulator I have has SCBA hoses on it, which are quite a bit longer than conventional scuba double hose hoses. I have experimented with that regulator very, very low on my back, and it breathed like magic. With modern plastic materias, and silicone diaphragms, it would also be quite small yet maintain a mechanical simplicity.
--With a regulator second stage independent of the first stage, it could be positioned anywhere the diver wanted. With enough hose length, and the hose-within-a-hose concept (which negates the length of hose by the small diameter of the venturi hose), a regulator very low on the back, say beneith the BC and tank, could be managed. It could, with different length hoses, also be chest-mounted.
--With the regulator in this position, then exhalation air could be utilized for buoyancy compensation with a proper activation mechanism (a three-way spring-loaded valve with a rod actuator). No good breathing air would be lost to the BC this way, but you would also have the advantages of manual inflation without removing the diver's mouthpiece.
--It would be good to allow more than one, two and perhaps three first stages to mate the the LP air chamber of the second stage. This would allow all modern double manifolds, and even a triple tank system, to be utilized without a manifolding issue.
These are some points to consider...
SeaRat
Last edited:
mrvideosawyer
Registered
I own a Minstral reg. I like it, but, if long surface swim looms the reg. free flows. Normally I don't turn on my air (if I have a surface swim) until we get to where we are going to drop down. If I am upside down taking a picture you will get a gulp of air so I try to get done with what I am doing and move on. I switched back to my Dive Rite Reg. when my DHR was getting serviced and what a diffrence - bubbles in the face, air under the hood and very noisey. So there are trade offs pick what you want. Also when I am on a dive trip it is always the topic of conversation which livens up the boat.
Jim Sawyer
Jim Sawyer
reefrat
Contributor
If I might interject in this discussion..
It seems to me that before designing a "new" double hose regulator it is necessary to define exactly what we are trying to achieve by doing so!
What are the characteristics of the current standard single hose that we are trying to get away from?
Personally, I found the "bubbles in the face issue" to be easily solved with a wider exhaust tee on my Atomics second stage; however (on some dives more than others) and even wearing a hood the noise of bubbles around my ears is almost painful- really annoying!
And, as a keen (but relatively untalented) u/w macro photographer I find the exhalation noise of bubbles scares the crap out of many subjects that I try to sneak up on (yeah I know- but you can only hold youre breath for so long!).
So, the ideal reglator for me would be one that is quieter in both inhalation/ exhalation phasaes and exhausts bubbles in a quiet and diffuse manner somewhere behind me.
Over the last 2 years I have been looking at rebreathers and done a number of try dives but have not yet commited due to the state of the technology being (IMO) not sufficiently refined and the prohibitive cost. The new Open Revolution mCCR unit has my attention at the moment, although I have reservations about the auditory PPO2 monitoring system. But, in reality I don't need all the expense and hassle of a rebreather if I could just get rid of exhalation bubble noise!?!
Then again, maybe that's exactly why I DO need a rebreather!
It seems to me that before designing a "new" double hose regulator it is necessary to define exactly what we are trying to achieve by doing so!
What are the characteristics of the current standard single hose that we are trying to get away from?
Personally, I found the "bubbles in the face issue" to be easily solved with a wider exhaust tee on my Atomics second stage; however (on some dives more than others) and even wearing a hood the noise of bubbles around my ears is almost painful- really annoying!
And, as a keen (but relatively untalented) u/w macro photographer I find the exhalation noise of bubbles scares the crap out of many subjects that I try to sneak up on (yeah I know- but you can only hold youre breath for so long!).
So, the ideal reglator for me would be one that is quieter in both inhalation/ exhalation phasaes and exhausts bubbles in a quiet and diffuse manner somewhere behind me.
Over the last 2 years I have been looking at rebreathers and done a number of try dives but have not yet commited due to the state of the technology being (IMO) not sufficiently refined and the prohibitive cost. The new Open Revolution mCCR unit has my attention at the moment, although I have reservations about the auditory PPO2 monitoring system. But, in reality I don't need all the expense and hassle of a rebreather if I could just get rid of exhalation bubble noise!?!
Then again, maybe that's exactly why I DO need a rebreather!
Similar threads
