Generally I find most improvements in one area come with a compromise in other areas, for example improved OC WOB at the cost of CC WOB.
Iain, This is why I like the Apoc's ALVBOV so much. It offers the lowest CC WOB 0.57 J/L, 40m, Air, 75lpm and the same OC WOB as my Apeks regs... both are way lower than any other BOV that I can find data on!
I reckon if you focussed on really nailing the CE measures so on paper the product looked amazing, you could really have nailed it and produced something amazing or you could produce something that on non-CE measuremed aspects, and in actual use, is a bit of a lemon.
Agree 100%, you need both unmanned and manned approaches. I can't think of any manufacturer who has gone with only the unmanned testing approach but it seems there are plenty who are a little light on with the unmanned side of things... I wonder if the RNs reason for conducting a full range of test and eval years after buying their new UBA before returning it to operational service as previously linked will ever be disclosed - that could be an interesting case study.
I think steering away from CE measures and WOB values, just finding a bunch of divers and getting them to do a series dives and rating them on very qualitative criteria, just as marks out of 10 for how easy to bail-out, how easy to breathe CC and OC, how easy to clean and maintain, etc. It will bring it down to significant differences and get to the actual stuff that matters to the potential buyers.
The experts on rebreathers from QinetiQ and NEDU at that DAN Tech Conference would appear to disagree with you!
How about we tweak it even further, "In the real world where MOST of us live it would be nice to have paperwork backing up a good rebreather but we'd rather dive one that works and is available before we get so old that we can no longer dive anything".
The advantages of living in a free world. We can both choose what suits and as you obviously missed the fact that the Apoc is shipping and works as designed too, it kind of negates the issue you have with it.
I use a FFM because I believe it gives me a better chance of being rescued in the event of an incident - not only is my airway protected so I'm not inhaling water, but because the loop is attached to the mask there is no risk of it dropping out of my mouth while still open which then floods the unit and makes the diver a lot more negative and thus more difficult to get to the surface.
Mate, I would also be interested in an FFM option but I can't find any reporting on the negative effect that this has on the performance of a rebreather if added to the loop. Does the addition of the FFM make the onset of any issue more likely? What happens to the loop if you suddenly need to bail off the FFM?
If you drop the Apoc ALVBOV it also doesn't allow water into the loop as the act of puling it out of your mouth against the necklace also closes the loop.
Brad, this is revisionist fantasy. The entire Apoc concept was the iCCR; the cheap ultra-safe rebreather that incorporated multiple features to mitigate all the important hazards identified from evaluation of fatal accidents. It was to include features like end tidal CO2 monitoring, voice annunciation of PO2 status, and auto-bailout in the face of any hazardous condition in the loop. That's what hasn't got to market! It currently does not work or we would have seen it long ago. To deny this is utterly ludicrous. Will it work in the future? Who knows. I hope so, but as the years go by this seems increasingly unlikely.
Crikey Simon, how many much history are you trying in vain to rewrite at once...
Initial Apoc sales were dual streamed - you could buy the $995 Apoc by itself or you could buy the US$995 Apoc + iCCR elecs. I had to individually add the iCCR elecs to my Apoc order so it was always very much an optional choice. AFAIK all those that ordered the $995 Apoc have received it...
AFAIK the iCCR only came about cause first DL couldn't get an eCCR CE'd for sports diving and then couldn't get an mCCR CE'd either to 14143:2003 so they took the middle ground with the 61508 cert'd iCCR the result. The Apoc loop itself was designed to handle any elecs and being eCCR, mCCR, iCCR or even SCR.... and I have dived 3 of those options!
The end tidal CO2 monitoring, voice annunciation of PPO2, depth, etc, and auto-bailout in the face of any measured hazardous and alertable condition in the loop certainly worked whenever I dived the iCCR or supervised others diving it. Again as we have had this discussion many a time before I agree with you that it will be good once OSEL ship it.
All we have seen on the market is a basic loop with low work of breathing.
It offers a little more than just a low WOB doesn't it but as your blatantly close minded if it concerns the Apoc on the subject of what with regards rebreather design might improve dive safety you couldn't care less.
I cannot understand your trumpeting its CE certification because this is invalidated by every user who modifies it to dive below 6m. I personally think modifications with high quality products (eg N@90) are fine, but how do you rationalise the invariable invalidation of CE for the unit you promote against the massive overarching importance you appear to place on proper testing and certification when discussing any other rebreather?
If you have looked into it you would realise that the NA90 pod doesn't change anything with regards the Apoc. If nothing has been changed all the benefits of the Apoc as offered by it meeting or exceeding by far what is required for CE still remain intact in all regards! The benefits of testing and certification then would also remain fully intact as the diver hasn't actually changed anything... fancy that!
Now if Apoc owners were doing the mods that those on other CCRs seem to do like adding a BOV of unknown WOB, changing to CLs of unknown WOB etc etc I might agree with you but as no one seems to be invalidating anything design related as far as safety goes with the Apoc and leaving the loop and O2 addition as supplied, I really don't get your beef!
Unless its that OSEL isn't shipping mCCRs and if thats all your worried about they seem to have changed their tune on that and are rolling that option out to customers base don a customer ordering one with an AV1 PPO2 Monitor with CE.
Of course you could be indicating that invalidation to any CE the Apoc has is caused by the elecs folk are adding to Apocs not meeting CE for rebreather use as a PPO2 monitor. If thats the case as those elecs may appear on numerous other rigs that claim to meet CE you could be opening a real interesting can of worms
It is also worth remembering that the Apoc's much touted testing and certification process missed multiple faults that were revealed within weeks of release to a small number of users.. including one life threatening fault that resulted in a recall. This sort of thing causes me to doubt the value of the testing whether it subsequently remains valid or not.
Sorry Simon, what faults?
Lets see I am aware of OSEL offering an improved O2 button, tougher faceplate and better wing all being supplied free to all customers where required.... you have an issue with a rebreathers design being improved upon after it ships? Or is the issue only if it occurs to the Apoc? I guess you also support manufacturers charging the earth to fix design flaws which might be the real point your getting at.... OSELs stance of actually providing free improvements can't be real popular amongst some circles!!!
As you seen to know stuff about the Apoc that I don't, Please advise what was the life threatening fault? Please advise what was recalled?
This has been the subject of much debate which is not hard to find. There is a long history of an initial design flaw in the CO2 monitoring system, and a subsequent modification in the way the CO2 readings are processed to allegedly compensate for this. I still think it is unlikely that the end tidal CO2 monitoring works accurately enough to fulfil its original intended function. Time will tell.
Simon, And yet again what "initial design flaw" do you know of and how have you confirmed it was a design flaw? What has subsequently been modified with the iCCRs end tidal CO2 monitoring?
Regards
Brad
