Most Redundant OC SCUBA?

[ajduplessis]

A tech diver with a kit is not diving minimalist style. He or she thinks he or she "needs" all that gear, but to breath and swim underwater much of it is not necessary.

SeaRat

Maybe you can point out a couple of "unnecesarry" items

---------- Post added September 25th, 2013 at 09:19 PM ----------

The argument over the use of redundant/redundancy is literally the most useless thing I have ever read.

lit·er·al·ly
ˈlitərəlē,ˈlitrə-/
adverb

1.
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

2. informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.

---------- Post added September 25th, 2013 at 12:51 AM ----------



Minimalism is not a matter of NEED.

Main Entry: min·i·mal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmi-nə-mə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1927
1 : a style or technique (as in music, literature, or design) that is characterized by extreme spareness and simplicity

Really?!? Since you are so fond of google...

Need
/nēd/
Verb
Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".
Noun
Circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity: "the need for food".

Taking only what you need (simplicity - as you so kindly put it) nothing extra or not required.. The bare basics.

 

[nimoh]

The argument over the use of redundant/redundancy is literally the most useless thing I have ever read.

lit·er·al·ly
ˈlitərəlē,ˈlitrə-/
adverb

1.
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

2. informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.

I think many people agree with it being the most useless thing they ever read...until they get to your post.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

ajdudlessis,

What goes into a "kit"? You tell me that, and I'll tell you what is not absolutely necessary to be underwater and safe. Is this what you are talking about?

My favourite kit - Mark Powell - Divernet

SeaRat

 

[lowviz]

Yet again we watch truly creative people suffer "slings and arrows". No biggie, he is up to the task. I can only imagine what the first DCCCR designer faced.

Engineering: Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. ....

Luddite: Anything other than what works now is wrong or evil.

 

[Akimbo]

Yet again we watch truly creative people suffer "slings and arrows". No biggie, he is up to the task. I can only imagine what the first DCCCR designer faced...

Times were different when the Beckman Electrolung hit the streets in the mid-1960s. I don’t remember any of the nonsense that is prevalent today. Everyone knew how a pure oxygen rebreather worked because it was discussed in their “skin diving” class and there were war-surplus and home-brews around. SCUBA was an acronym then and included all forms of untethered breathing systems.

 

[lowviz]

And the English used ~80% during WW2 so they could just drag an enemy diver down until one or the other toxed out.

"You could die" is the pat answer for condemming any attempt at change. But then, yes, you could die. The true innovators usually manage to manage this permanent annoyance...

 

[Akimbo]

And the English used ~80% during WW2 so they could just drag an enemy diver down until one or the other toxed out...

I’m pretty sure that is a sea story. In practice the oxygen was never really pure because it is really hard to purge all the air out, but there was no way to control 80% and it would be suicide to try.

Most of the rigs were nothing more than a single bag (counterlung), an O2 cylinder with a manual or automatic replenish valve, and an absorbent canister. Most, but not all, had a supply and return hose with a mouthpiece shutoff valve. A lot didn’t even have an OPV since expanding gas would blow past your lips at the mouthpiece anyway. No diluent, batteries, sensors, electronics, BCD, or bailout gas. The majority of rigs were worn in the front.

I witnessed a blackout on an O2 rebreather because the rig was not purged before the dive. It only took a few minutes to consume enough oxygen from the air in the bag for lights out — from 21% down to 14-16%. The volume loss wasn’t enough to even suspect the need to makeup O2. Fortunately it was in a backyard swimming pool and CPR brought him back. I was about 13… made quite an impression.

 

[lowviz]

I’m pretty sure that is a sea story. In practice the oxygen was never really pure because it is really hard to purge all the air out, but there was no way to control 80% and it would be suicide to try. ...//...

IDK, here is all I "know" about it:

"Perhaps the best-kept secret of WWII was the use of oxygen-enriched air re-breathers by the British commandos defending Gibraltar. Those attacking the British stronghold were using 100% O₂ re-breathers. The deeper maximum operating depth of the British mixes (45-60% O₂) was a distinctive underwater combat advantage since opposing divers (using 100 % O₂) would be at “convulsive depths” while the British divers was still within their operating parameters. A major component of the British strategy was to simply take the opponent down until convulsions overwhelmed the enemy diver. This secret was so well kept, that much of this was not even revealed to the US Navy until the 1950’s."

reference:
Eanx History

 

[victorzamora]

Yet again we watch truly creative people suffer "slings and arrows". No biggie, he is up to the task. I can only imagine what the first DCCCR designer faced.

Engineering: Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. Perturb the system. Analyze the results. Re-design. ....

Luddite: Anything other than what works now is wrong or evil.

lowviz, I think you're being a little unfair. I totally get mCCR, DCCCR, eCCR, SCR, doubles (independent and manifolded), and sidemount. I would be more accepting of this, I simply don't understand why this setup is better. I've proposed multiple failure modes that seem to have just been accepted. I've not seen a benefit to this setup. When requested, I was told that this setup was "unique," "creative," and "makes people think." I just don't get how that makes anybody a "Luddite"...especially an Engineer with a constant yearning to improve the Status Quo. This perturbation needs a redesign. Unless I'm missing something.....in which case, PLEASE enlighten me. In what way is this better than any of the other "standard" OC setups? If it's not, then it has an increased number of failure points/modes with no benefit.

 

[lowviz]

No more unfair than his critics.

The setup appears to be better than John's previous rig, for John's specific purpose. He details why. Look at where he dives, I doubt that a CESA from anywhere on the bottom would be much of a task for anyone. I don't know about you, but I learned something from his efforts.

The term "Luddite" was intended to give people pause to reflect and determine if their opposition was just due to seeing something different.

Yes, the rig is full of issues. So is any new idea. Others may have done this before, I am unaware of it. So it remains, for me, a new idea.