MatthewA said:
Brad, I'm a bit dissappointed that you are claiming that you can't recall Alex ever saying he would produce a safe (as in safer than every other ECCR out there that he was busy slagging off) for $1k. You may not have been around then, but I'd be very surprised if you hadn't gone back and read Alex's forum posts etc. The rest of us certainly do recall it.
None. It would be stupid.
Nah - there are at least two essential differences between this thread and a train wreck -
YESSSSSSS! I've finally figured out what Alex, Brad and the Apoc are really aiming to do... guys like Zirk innocently start these threads then realise what a bad idea that was and then slash their wrists... so Alex, Brad and the Apoc create skills maintenance opportunities and job security for us paramedics - it's awesome - much better than a train wreck!
So your diving what the Poseidon BOV with FFM and the WOB of just the BOV is the same as the BOV + FFM?That's because I haven't found anything negative to report
So why do yourself a disservice then and claim to have not been refunded for something you apparently never even contacted a company about let alone ordered?
Jeez, let the guy dive it first before your bias kicks in about what he may or may not say and why.
How does the addition of PPO2 monitoring to an Apoc change its engineering, gas flow or breathing performance etc etc etc?
No, of course there is no specific need to get feedback from industry professionals to meet CE. It does raise the question of what would an industry professional might look like, what input they might provide with reference CE standards and how their input might effect the units performance if incorporated... CE is an engineering standard not a marketing product meeting. What is required is feedback from divers who test dive it against a number of very specific criteria inclusive of unit ergonomics - been there, done that.
You didn't answer my question about how the Hollis Explorer manages to prevent the diver drowning if they go unconscious as per 5.10.1 of the CE standard???? Your claim that it can do that not mine!
Matt, please advise which part of the Apoc is untested and doesn't meet CE?
Is the Apoc with NA90 pod CE certified as configured, Yes*. *based on the information available to me. I understand the trick is getting elecs that are CE certified for use for PPO2 monitoring to 14143!
Mike the closest I can get is that Alex offered a functionally safe rebreather and planned for it to be an eCCR. When the costings came out the rebreather was $995. When Alex identified that an eCCR couldn't be certified as functionally safe the iCCR was engineered for recreational divers. As this was all known greater than 5 years ago..... I am not sure why its a big deal now.... heck, them meeting any functional safety cert is no longer required for CE certified rebreathers!
I think it was more a case of put up or shut-up... Hence the Apoc/Incursion/Umbilical units are the result, all with functional safety to 61508 certification, so obviously fact would be that he did indeed do it!
We typically don't know how the Apoc compares against other rebreathers as there is no data published for most of them or minimal... Where minimal typically the Apoc has better performance... WOB would be a case in point I think.
I must admit I am looking forward to seeing exactly what those prototype elecs offer over and above what we have already seen and how much more capable than the CE'd Apoc iCCR or Incursion eCCR elecs they are. There isn't much published by DL about them as of yet.
So why did Martin et al write 61508 into the 2003 CE standard and why didn't each of them also engineer a rebreather that could meet the standard they wrote? I also find it interesting that 14143 only got rewritten to remove 61508 once Alex did prove that a rebreather could and does achieve that for recreational diving even if its not the eCCR which we would all prefer....
I picked my unit up so a change in shipping cost wasn't a factor but that OSEL did provide the $995 units, considering the Apollo A320 reg is $695 each that seems a fairly big commitment on their behalf .http://apollosportsusa.com/Products/Regulators/A320D.htm to honour. i do have to wonder if there would have been any upper limit to the number of $995 units that OSEL would have kept the price at that level for?
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!
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.
The experts on rebreathers from QinetiQ and NEDU at that DAN Tech Conference would appear to disagree with you!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
Much as I hate to support brad, but AFAIK the Narked@90 pod for the Apoc CE documentation was for the pod and an Apoc as a complete unit. Doing it any other way gets you in all sorts of trouble as soon as you say it's to fit a specific rebreather.
That's exactly what I'm looking forward to. Surprising as this may seem to you Brad, I do not have a bias (hell I'll even state on here that I like the Posiedon and Explorer CCRs). I'd like to see a review however by someone who does not seem to spend all their time slagging other units based on a bucket load of pdf's but who dives rebreathers.
