As I've said multiple times, this thread is for the layperson. Someone who is perhaps interested in CCR, but not a CCR diver. So their level of knowledge at a casual informational stage of research isn't required, nor is an in depth technical explanation.
Furthermore, a tech divers doesn't need to know the chemical properties of sorb. They just need to know that it absorbs CO2, how to use it safely not not to get it wet. A tech diver doesn't need to know the amount of chromium in the stainless steel, the exact composition of their batteries, etc.
You're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative at this point. We get it, you're a really smart guy who knows lots of stuff. You're confusing everyone else. Your english is a bit confusing and that's not helping matters.
This is an article for people to learn a bit more about the the concept of the mCCR, nothing more.
There is a lot of good material in your article, and the illustrations are very nice. However, I'm a little surprised at the pushback. You posted an article in a public forum. Someone pointed out what they saw as a problem with it, and you questioned his motives, made fun of him, accused him of "nitpicking" and ridiculed his grasp of the English language. You used a silly analogy - CCR divers don't control the chemical composition of sorb but they do need to understand how gas flow works, because it's under their direct control.
I don't think that fsardone was deliberately trying to confuse people or attack you personally. He was taking the time to point out an issue with your work. Many authors would welcome that, even if it wasn't a problem with content but the way that something was explained. Your article confused me a bit as well, so just saying that it's for laypeople and that means it doesn't have to be clear or precise isn't reasonable.
I dive an eCCR, I don't know much about mCCRs, but I was also not sure about some of your statements. So while I may be wrong, it would still make sense for you to look at the problems people have understanding the text.
You said "
as we go deeper the trickle of oxygen gradually decreases". I was under the impression that the L/min of O2 was constant until you reached the depth limits of the fixed IP first stage system. The upstream pressure isn't changing during a dive (assuming no first stage failure), so the density of O2 is unchanged, so isn't that where CMF comes from? The whole point is that your body uses the same number of molecules of O2 per minute at every depth within the range of the unit, so that's why the CMF delivers the same number of molecules, just below metabolic rate, with manual addition to make up for increased workload or ascent. The fact that after passing the orifice they expand to ambient pressure, and so there will be less volume at deeper depths than at shallower depths (PV=nRT) is irrelevant, but maybe that's what you meant by saying that the trickle gradually decreases? This isn't a question of oversimplifying for a non-technical audience, it seems to imply something different than what is actually happening. This is from
Paul Raymaeker's article.
Also, you said this: "
As we descend in the water column, diving physics increases our partial pressure of the oxygen, which means we need to add less oxygen into the loop." Maybe this is another case of confusing volume and mass, but that's an important difference, and it deserves a clear explanation, even if you are writing for an open circuit audience. I thought that the main point of the CMF orifice was that it delivered just under what your body metabolizes at any operational depth, and metabolism is not depth dependent.
fsardone is not the only person in this thread to have some concerns. So instead of ridiculing the person who has gone out of his way to give you feedback, why not look at your text and see if what you are trying to say could be explained more clearly?
