Regulator WOB - how do companies test?

[carlitos]

I have been researching the various regulators by the brand name companies:
Zeagle, Scubapro, Aeris, Atomic, Oceanic etc.

Some of them reference the performance of their regulators with some sort of standard Navy test which measures work of breath.

My question is when looking at that data is it really apples to apples comparision? For example the Zeagle tests indicate the pressure was at 750 psi, another company will run the same test but with 3K psi. If I"m comparing the WOB between both regulators do I assume if the WOB is about the same that the Zeagle performed better because it was run at lower pressure?

Secondary question would be why do some companies not even post that data for their products (Scubapro for example)?

Many thanks in advance for any info that can enlightment me on this topic.

 

[Scottri]

All regulators should be tested on a flow bench and at full tank pressure and then again at about 500psi.

Where did you get the information? If it is a magazine Scuba Pro may not have submitted a reg to test and therefore the data wasn't published. I'm sure Scuba Pro would send you that data if you requested it. Scuba Pro makes great regs as does Zeagle, Oceanic and Atomic. I can't comment on Aeris because I've never used or worked on them but I would guess they are as good as Oceanic.

As long as you buy a balance reg from a solid name in the business you should get decent performance.

 

[ScubaEngineer]

In the old days all regs were tested to USN Standards. USN specified supply pressures required to meet class A, B ratings. These days you can test to European(CE) specifications which are slightly different but they also specify supply pressures. Generally most testing is done at 1500 PSIG.
Test equipment has vastly improved now that most major manufacturers use ANSTI Test equipment. (Breathing Simulators manufactured by a UK company)
In most cases with modern balanced first stage regulators there will be no large difference w/ WOB w/ supply pressure. Large variations were common w/ old unbalanced designs. All modern regs from the major dive companies are good to that regard. Most companies like to post WOB charts as consumers like to view them, diving being a tech oriented pursuit. I am not sure why some brands would not.
ED

I have been researching the various regulators by the brand name companies:
Zeagle, Scubapro, Aeris, Atomic, Oceanic etc.

Some of them reference the performance of their regulators with some sort of standard Navy test which measures work of breath.

My question is when looking at that data is it really apples to apples comparision? For example the Zeagle tests indicate the pressure was at 750 psi, another company will run the same test but with 3K psi. If I"m comparing the WOB between both regulators do I assume if the WOB is about the same that the Zeagle performed better because it was run at lower pressure?

Secondary question would be why do some companies not even post that data for their products (Scubapro for example)?

Many thanks in advance for any info that can enlightment me on this topic.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Most WOB charts show inhalation and exhalation numbers and are generally accurate in that format. However some companies figure a total WOB that can be *******ized a bit to use the positive portions of the flow to offset the negative portions of the flow.

And mechanical numbers do not always reflect the "feel" of the breathing performance or the other more subjective things that make a large difference in the qualitative perfromace of the reg.

 

[Greg Barlow]

And mechanical numbers do not always reflect the "feel" of the breathing performance or the other more subjective things that make a large difference in the qualitative perfromace of the reg.[/QUOTE]

True, but....US Navy tests, along with those of Rodale's, and DIVER, have all demonstrated that a person can't accurately notice WOB differences until they exceed 0.4-0.5 j/l. The real problem (as you have described so well in the past) is case fault geometry and its impact on swimming in a horizontal position. Adjusting a cracking effort to achieve low scores often results in those agonizing leaks.

Me? Give me a reg that demonstrates a stable WOB of 1.4 or so at 150' and I am happy. Too much of a good thing is not always a good thing...


Greg

 

[carlitos]

Interesting that a person would only be able to start noticing a difference at .4-.5 j/l. The data I have seen from the companies that publish those results places most regulators in within that range, that is between .9 and 1.3 for eaxample.

Anyone seen any numbers for the Scubapro gear? Not listed at their website, does Rodale's tests have results for the spectrum of the SP line (low to high end)?

 

[Greg Barlow]

Interesting that a person would only be able to start noticing a difference at .4-.5 j/l. The data I have seen from the companies that publish those results places most regulators in within that range, that is between .9 and 1.3 for eaxample.

Anyone seen any numbers for the Scubapro gear? Not listed at their website, does Rodale's tests have results for the spectrum of the SP line (low to high end)?

When I was working for Rodale's magazine, we were using the industry standard ANSTI simulator. Most of the "top end" regs today can meet the US Navy Class A standards at depths of 198'. When one considers that this is considerably deeper than one should be breathing air then the performance issue is pretty well covered. If a reg can have a WOB of 1.5 j/l at 150' then it is a winner.

Greg
Former Science Edtior for Rodale's