- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
I think the controlled descent and controlled ascent can be automated.
Patent Pending Number ________
- Thread starter Lee Taylor
- 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
I'm sure it can be, but I'll not be trusting something that isn't connected to my brain.
I mean there's devices that will open my parachute perfectly well at the appropriate altitude. However they can't see we had to exit the aircraft over high terrain, or see the airplane closing in that will mow us over if we open at the normal altitude, or any other series of potential emergencies. I will pull handles myself, thank you.
All the best, James
I mean there's devices that will open my parachute perfectly well at the appropriate altitude. However they can't see we had to exit the aircraft over high terrain, or see the airplane closing in that will mow us over if we open at the normal altitude, or any other series of potential emergencies. I will pull handles myself, thank you.
All the best, James
OP
- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
I absolutely would not trust it.
I use my automobile cruise control to excess BUT I can over ride it in an instant.
I see the auto descent and auto ascent as a direction for the industry. The "return on investment" will have to be acceptable before the BC manufactures put it on the market.
For the type diving I do it would make the dive more enjoyable to put things on cruise control. Auto holding a constant depth would be a nice feature.
I use my automobile cruise control to excess BUT I can over ride it in an instant.
I see the auto descent and auto ascent as a direction for the industry. The "return on investment" will have to be acceptable before the BC manufactures put it on the market.
For the type diving I do it would make the dive more enjoyable to put things on cruise control. Auto holding a constant depth would be a nice feature.
Automated pressurization (ascent and decent) controls arent unusual on saturation diving systems or in industry, but the current state of the art makes it more cumbersome for a free swimming diver than it is worth. You would have to develop a superior system that didnt rely on this prior art to get a protectable patent.
Lets face it, decompression computers are the least reliable piece of gear divers use. They have been under development for ~30 years and have relatively recently become main-stream. Having to add control for remote solenoid or pilot valves compounds the problem.
There is an impression that deviating from 30 FPM ascent rates is horribly dangerous. The reality is there is a lot of leeway, to the point that 60 FPM was the ascent rate during most of my life. It was 25 FPM for a while before I was born. I would try to solve automated neutral buoyancy control throughout a dive profile before tackling ascent and descent, which is a subset of your goal.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of patents only make patent attorneys rich. Dont get me wrong, I hope you are the guy that gets rich from an innovation that makes my life better. Nobody wants to see anyone go broke due to gaps in their research.
Lets face it, decompression computers are the least reliable piece of gear divers use. They have been under development for ~30 years and have relatively recently become main-stream. Having to add control for remote solenoid or pilot valves compounds the problem.
There is an impression that deviating from 30 FPM ascent rates is horribly dangerous. The reality is there is a lot of leeway, to the point that 60 FPM was the ascent rate during most of my life. It was 25 FPM for a while before I was born. I would try to solve automated neutral buoyancy control throughout a dive profile before tackling ascent and descent, which is a subset of your goal.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of patents only make patent attorneys rich. Dont get me wrong, I hope you are the guy that gets rich from an innovation that makes my life better. Nobody wants to see anyone go broke due to gaps in their research.
inventor
Contributor
I came up with a variable emergency ascent/USB system. Just can't see there being any market.
OP
- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
Hello Akimbo,
I just threw the idea out there to see what I got in response. Has absolutely nothing to do with personal profits. Frankly I don't need any more patents in my name. I have my share of patents. The only reason I used patents in the past is for claims of infringement and royalties. The first task of a patent attorney (patent attorneys please comment if you like) is to do a patent search and determine what parts of your creation are patentable. But all that is really not interesting to me.
The interesting part to me is designing and building new and innovative devices. I have an inflation valve and I have a depth gauge. I can imagine these two items talking to each other.
Why do you feel a "cruise control" for diving would be cumbersome? Is that based on your knowledge of prior art?
I see the inflation and deflation buttons on a common BC being operated by a depth gauge and computer.
I just threw the idea out there to see what I got in response. Has absolutely nothing to do with personal profits. Frankly I don't need any more patents in my name. I have my share of patents. The only reason I used patents in the past is for claims of infringement and royalties. The first task of a patent attorney (patent attorneys please comment if you like) is to do a patent search and determine what parts of your creation are patentable. But all that is really not interesting to me.
The interesting part to me is designing and building new and innovative devices. I have an inflation valve and I have a depth gauge. I can imagine these two items talking to each other.
Why do you feel a "cruise control" for diving would be cumbersome? Is that based on your knowledge of prior art?
I see the inflation and deflation buttons on a common BC being operated by a depth gauge and computer.
I can relate. Development is a lot more fun than production and admin, let alone finance.
The problem is controlling displacement in any attitude. Sensors are a minor part of the problem, though precision is on the low side in shallow water. The simplest solution is to use hard tanks like a submarine because you dont have to constantly compensate for gas compression. In practice, the weight and power requirements are prohibitive. Even then there are attitude issues.
Just getting batteries to work reliably in salt water is a challenge. Now add cables (solenoid) or hoses (pilot) to dump gas at whatever point happens to be the highest at the moment. Again, a hard tank makes it simpler. You really dont want to blow excessive gas constantly as the diver meanders up and down.
I have designed automated analog and digital decompression systems for saturation diving complexes and studied/borrowed related techniques a much simpler task than you propose. The physics starts to make it cumbersome pretty fast. Start with your maximum buoyancy compensation range. Take twin 100 Ft³ cylinders and a 7mm wetsuit. That would be about 15 Lbs of air weight as the cylinders empty and perhaps 15 Lbs of displacement loss due to suit compression. Thirty pounds of displacement is a little under ½ Ft³ of displacement. A hard tank would start getting pretty bulky and expensive.
Controlling a flexible bladder like a jacket BC or wing not only introduces dramatically more cycles to the mechanism but magnifies the problem of getting your dump valve to pull gas from the high point without the diver cooperating by changing position. It gets into the whole personal preference issue of inflation bladder geometry, which rivals religious debate on this forum anyway.
You also have to tune the system down, or provide a counterlung, so breathing cycles dont cycle your system. A large guy at moderate work will move 3-4 liters per cycle. That is ~6.6 to 8.8 Lbs of displacement change. However, if you cant keep the customer at +/- a pound I suspect they wont be satisfied with the product. We havent even cracked ascent and descent rates.
As far as descent rates, what would you use? I know I am really old school but I duck-dive from the surface and descend a 120 FPM in Scuba (200 FPM freediving). You could limit ascent to 30 FPM, which drives valve sizing.
I always enjoy design reviews. I hope you have ideas that will make me slap my forehead in one of those why didnt I think of that salutes.
OP
- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 79
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
I ask myself this simplistic question, can I build a battery operated sealed system to do precise what I do in regards to opening and shutting inflation and deflation valves during the course of a dive. Yes. Can I build it into the design of a BC so it is unseen. Yes. Can it be programed to monitor and control "itself", using a depth gauge and a computer. Yes. Can it incorporate cruise control type ascents and descents. Yes. Can it have an over ride function. Yes
The first step would be to document a very detailed operational design qualification. The qualification would be used during testing of the product to validate operation and reliability.
The first step would be to document a very detailed operational design qualification. The qualification would be used during testing of the product to validate operation and reliability.
Lee: The technology to open and close BC valves is simple. How can you reliably deflate a BC without the diver cooperating by changing attitude so the valve you open is at the high point? I suppose you could have lots of valves and calculate the highest one to open. It is very difficult to develop a method of physically moving an internal exhaust valve intake hose to a high point given all the anthropometric variations. A float on the end of the tube works well on a spherical hard tank, but not inside a plastic bag.
What about buoyancy changes due to breathing cycles that open circuit divers choose to ignore at certain times and not at others? At rest, perhaps at a decompression stop, depth control is comparatively easy. What about when the diver’s head is deep in a hole hunting lobster and kicking to change reach deeper? How would the system determine the difference between being 20 lbs negative on the bottom and neutral mid water? Depth sensors wouldn’t know the difference.
To be acceptable, I believe the system would have to know the swimming velocity of the diver because of the dampening effect on the displacement caused the by breathing cycle. The system can’t constantly cycle gas in and out of the BC countering lung inflation because it would virtually double gas consumption.
Like most design problems, the simplistic analysis usually glosses over the details where the devil lurks.
What about buoyancy changes due to breathing cycles that open circuit divers choose to ignore at certain times and not at others? At rest, perhaps at a decompression stop, depth control is comparatively easy. What about when the diver’s head is deep in a hole hunting lobster and kicking to change reach deeper? How would the system determine the difference between being 20 lbs negative on the bottom and neutral mid water? Depth sensors wouldn’t know the difference.
To be acceptable, I believe the system would have to know the swimming velocity of the diver because of the dampening effect on the displacement caused the by breathing cycle. The system can’t constantly cycle gas in and out of the BC countering lung inflation because it would virtually double gas consumption.
Like most design problems, the simplistic analysis usually glosses over the details where the devil lurks.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,789
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
We built such a system for an autonomous ROV. It had a pressure sensor as well as two tilt sensors coupled to the controllers of four rather small reversible motors. Each motor caused a piston to move up and down in a cylinder on a threaded shaft. One side of the piston pressed against "captured" air, the other side was flooded and water was free to move in and out. If you needed to increase the buoyancy of the system you told the motors to push water out of the tube, permitting the air chamber to expand, to decrease buoyancy you reversed the motors and compressed the air.
There was a down control, an up control and a "stay here" button. It was also possible to tilt the vehicle in any direction while maintaining depth or changing depth. All run with a Z80, using machine language, writing the code on the bare metal, like real men.
I always thought it would have been fun to take two of the tubes and strap them on each side of my MK-15, only maintaining the "stay here - on" or "stay here - off" functionality.
There was a down control, an up control and a "stay here" button. It was also possible to tilt the vehicle in any direction while maintaining depth or changing depth. All run with a Z80, using machine language, writing the code on the bare metal, like real men.
I always thought it would have been fun to take two of the tubes and strap them on each side of my MK-15, only maintaining the "stay here - on" or "stay here - off" functionality.
Similar threads
