Ben Field
All IMVHO obviously...
Let me guess- you need a $500 deposit and will send Early Adopters a contant stream of PDF's....
Electronic vs manual CCR
- Thread starter beto
- Start date
- Status
Let me guess- you need a $500 deposit and will send Early Adopters a contant stream of PDF's....
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
Let me guess- you need a $500 deposit and will send Early Adopters a contant stream of PDF's....
C'mon, this is not a fair comment.
RC is genuine and is making valid points and the concepts he is talking about have already been implemented and are in use - unfortunately not available to us recreational/civilian divers.
...feel free to write what you want, but this is a good thread and there is a lot to learn from it and it would be a shame if it turns in one of the far too common internet mumbo jumbo waste of time forum social activities.
anarchista
New Member
Several equipment manufacturers took note of all patents, yes there are mainly manufacturers of military equipment or civilian manufacturers.
"contant stream" Unfortunately, something like that is not there.
Remember the man, that you defended, he certainly knows about it.
(joke)
greet rc
Ben Field
All IMVHO obviously...
I'm not so sure- sorry, it was intended to be funny as well though
This thread is shot-to-sh*t already with regards staying on topic and we've been moderated once already at least for straying.
Bless anachrista and his pigeon trolling but as much as he might well know he is blatantly and constantly banging his own drum while refusing to discuss openly his concept (despite its transparent simplicity) and hides behind patent numbers- as if we can or want to copy his antiquated theory :nono:
Perhaps he or the mods could make a thread to "discuss pure dil, ventilation counted oxygen partial pressure maintenance with electronics"- its clear well off-topic Electronic vs Manual CCR (IMHO)
I think my "point" remains, CCR divers have been burnt by holy grail promises of individuals wanting to weigh in and make sea-changes to the industry who never reveal the true intent of their bond-villian-esque schemes.
I'm all for keeping these forum data rich but this constant harping in every thread about an alternative approach (that he can't or won't talk about) is questionable IMVVVHO.
Ben Field
All IMVHO obviously...
We ALL know, its old-school
There is a reason its not used- you know the answer (to coin a phrase)
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
I'm not so sure- sorry, it was intended to be funny as well though
This thread is shot-to-sh*t already with regards staying on topic and we've been moderated once already at least for straying.
Bless anachrista and his pigeon trolling but as much as he might well know he is blatantly and constantly banging his own drum while refusing to discuss openly his concept (despite its transparent simplicity) and hides behind patent numbers- as if we can or want to copy his antiquated theory :nono:
Perhaps he or the mods could make a thread to "discuss pure dil, ventilation counted oxygen partial pressure maintenance with electronics"- its clear well off-topic Electronic vs Manual CCR (IMHO)
I think my "point" remains, CCR divers have been burnt by holy grail promises of individuals wanting to weigh in and make sea-changes to the industry who never reveal the true intent of their bond-villian-esque schemes.
I'm all for keeping these forum data rich but this constant harping in every thread about an alternative approach (that he can't or won't talk about) is questionable IMVVVHO.
There is a language barrier to bridge, but RC has some substance, plus Poland is a repository of "know-how" and stuff which the U.S. would love to get their hands-on... once burnt, twice shy... but some interesting stuff RC has access to.
Give it a chance.
anarchista
New Member
I do not secrecy, is a simple method I published many times.
After counting a constant volume ventilation, deliver a constant mass of oxygen and an inert gas with a mass directly proportional to the hydrostatic pressure.
You do not know anything about this technique.
Why do Ben lie?
The similar behavior, I've got red on you,
Now you behave the same way.
Double standards Ben Field, double standards.
rc greet
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
What is mathematical formula of simple method?
anarchista
New Member
I wrote that I use dependence.
"After counting a constant volume ventilation, deliver a constant mass of oxygen and an inert gas with a mass directly proportional to the hydrostatic pressure."
Save this sentence equations.
In addition, well-mixed each inert gas, does not have exchange anything in circulation. When changing the inert gas or a mixture of inert gases.
Canadians could not relate ventilation and dosage.
Variant pressure building regeneration dose is a new concept, he did not know the main constructor of Interspiro. Co-author of DCSC and IS-MIX.
rc greet
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
The problem is I/we do not understand what you say because of english/polish poor translation.
Language is no good. Mathematics is good.
I need numbers to understand: a. formulas, or b. data in Excel spreadsheet.
You are scientist inventor. Show formula or data.
Help full translation
At a certain depth the machine delivers a fixed massflow o2, and fills up the volume with inert gas, ie. It doses proportional to absolute pressure minus the pressure of o2. Do this as scr, ie dose more than the diver consumes, and you do not need o2 cells. Your ppo acurracy will depend on variations in comsumed o2, but if the design triggers by ventilation, this will dampen the varitations. The rest you fix by overdosing the flow enough that you are satisfied with the tracking precision of ppo thorugh the dive.
Now why i think this is monumentally stupid:
Bringing inert gasses, means that they will kill you at any depth, just like argon.
You are running wastefull scr, why would you do that?
The concept has many single points of failure, and without monitoring you would be dead if any gaspart of the system fails.
You need two tanks just to do a dive, so its no better than a ccr in this regard.
In essence its an intersting idea, it has the up side of the depth for any mix being unlimited by ppo, besides this i just see a lot of downsides.
I very rarely run into a dive where my dill is too hot, when i do, i just say **** it, and breathe down the loop. So even here i see no real advantage. You have to bring the correct ppo bailout anyway......
If the design could be demonstrated to be much much more reliable than a normal ccr or pscr or what ever, you could argue that it could be dived alpinist, but since it relies on a scrubber, thats never going to happen, so the design concept is interesting but has no real advantages, and no real use in covilian world, where the dive is planned ahead and the depth is known ahead of splashing.
If you want something similar, just use tx 10/50 and you are good to 120 ish meters on a regular ccr. Ohh wait thats how many ccr divers are diving.....
To mimic the design use a inert diluent on you ccr, and you are good to any depth. Is stupid to do but easy.
In a small nice in military where you want a maching thats allways ready, with no startup delays, and ready for any depth it could be better than a ccr, or whatever thay are diving. No electronics means less signature for a mine also.... In techdiving it menas nothing.
Hanssing
Last edited:
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
That is why we need a formula and we need to model it to see how pPO2 changes with a change in variables like a. ventilation, and b. the overdosing (and of course all other things like depth/pressure/inert gas mix...).
You can achieve something similar with a standard SCR and constant ventilation (like on deco) with the attached spreadsheet (simple model, not what RC is proposing), but pPO2 mathematically cannot be constant:
http://www.rebreathermallorca.com/video/CCRX/SCRmodev1.xls
RC formula or spreadsheet and we can understand, please.
Last edited:
anarchista
New Member
You can get e-mail on the Polish version, there is a derivation of the algebraic form. Used where the language is very closed a few people in Poland uses the vocabulary.
greet rc
anarchista
New Member
Start by reading the ventilation model DCSC.
There fraction remains constant. In other types of SCR is not as good. The CMF depends on the effort, the CVR falls on small depths.
Knowledge of equations describing operation voltage frequency converter with load balancing, is also helpful.
I used the system that the any depth provide appropriate respiratory mixture.
Such is appropriate in the excess of oxygen, which is consumed.
I can because of the simplicity smoothly change the dose of oxygen and it does not change with depth.
I do not know of such structures, is not any known you type SCR.
This is the elegance of the solution.
greet rc
Last edited:
anarchista
New Member
I do not use "fixed MassFlow o2". Only Constant Mass Ratio,
part of the oxygen is consumed. but the dosage is in excess. That is the basis of security in the SCR. I add to the rest of the inert gas in the system, such as the CMR, except that the supply pressure is directly proportional to the hydrostatic pressure p(h)=krgh.
Now begins the circus, what type of regulator it provides.
Yes, there is such an option.
greet rc
Canstant mass ratio as a ratio to what? Ventilation?potatoe potato... Ie it does not matter. Its in my view still a complex design, that i see no real use for.
And since i get how it works when it works, and think it s a bad idea, i. Dont really care which laminar-flow-thingy is used to realize the design. Its a dead end.
Regards hanssing
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
It is not complex at all.
Simpler than using a small signal from galvanic sensors carried by an antenna like wire collecting "noise" and then amplifying the lot and then run it through an ADC and then a processor and then manipulate it with software and then feed the lot to a power hungry OLED display - all dependent on single point of failure battery and battery contacts.
Mechanical solution by RC very attractive hypothesis.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
Email received, thank-you.
It is beyond my ability to model (but can understand it).
I pass the formula to a Quant ("in-house" - so will remain Confidential) to build a simulation model in Excel.
If target pPO2 is 1.0, then what pPO2 (range, statistical distribution...) do you get with your solution (under tested conditions)?
anarchista
New Member
Mystery is not there it could be in the description.
Until more is the elementary physiological knowledge.
Ventilation divided by the mass of oxygen consumed is constant for most of the population.
For large efforts in people trained this limit is higher.
The Interspiro DCSC
That's what you have on paper is incredibly quick derivation of this relationship, the steady states.
greet rc
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
This (click link below) is pPO2 graph (pPO2 vs. Depth) of experimental "mechanical mixing" rebreather ("mmSCR") I played with.
Do you have pPO2 graph of your simple and elegant solution?
www.rebreathermallorca.com/video/CCRX/automix.jpg
- Status