Apocalypse Rebreather
- Thread starter zirk
- Start date
Mate, it might just be me but perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the problem is with CE marked units going through a dishwasher as I seriously can't work out why it would be a problem if you don't exceed the limits they have to be designed to meet. As they have to;
- handle being washed in 40C water
- handle cleaner at twice the recommended concentration
- handle being stored at 70C
I am sure plenty of dishwashers have settings that don't exceed whats required for CE'd rebreathers so where is the issue?
EN14143 said:
I could be wrong but I understand the CE issue was identifying elecs marked to EN14143 to enable use with a rebreather. AFAIK just EN13319 doesn't cut it as that only covers depthtimer use and not PPO2 monitoring.
I note my BIO350 is marked IEC EN 61508 Sil2, EN14143:2003, EN13319 and PPE89/686/EEC which I understand is a first for a dive computer.
Simon, You sure about that?
AFAIK the CMR Incursion uses the same elecs as the BMCL one, it just suits a different tactical mission profile....
Simon, are you seriously promoting that incorrect CE testing should be the norm?
I still am waiting to find out how adding the same elecs as fitted to other CE marked rebreathers to an Apoc actually effects anything?
Simon, Ever considered that the data you have access too gives insufficient evidence to make any conclusion?
K, I presume your doing the WOB testing on manned dives rather than unmanned? At what point in J/L can you on a manned dive detect a change in WOB and by how much?
Simon, Surely a buyer of a CE marked product buys the product and if its CE marked should be able to expect the complete certification?
On that note, an easy question for you to answer Simon as I understand you have a couple of CE marked units to hand. How does either one "minimise the ingress of water during normal use and in the event of a diver falling unconscious or having a convulsion"?
I asked Randy the same simple direct question but don't have appear to have got a response and MatthewA seems to have failed to mention how the Hollis explorer prevents one going unconscious if diving it.
Bingo. BUT, have you considered an alternative hypothesis for "why" that might be the case
Perhaps it shall come to pass that the iCCRs delay points to the opposite hypothesis and that despite the commercial and PR cost to OSEL withholding it the reason is due to OSEL being more of a competent and reliable manufacturer who you do really want to deal with than you have considered but for reasons not seen elsewhere in recreational rebreathers.... just a thought!
Simon, Perhaps they would opt to go through me if they were insufficiently informed to not be able to contact the source directly!
Really? As it only takes a second to find proof in the public domain that your wrong on at least 2 points out of 3 I guess your sources are a little suspect!
Simon, I am just a simple layman but I presume if you were honestly interested rather than simply biased you could perhaps address your concerns and questions directly to SIRA who audited the Apoc to 61508! I know I for one would be interested in the answer as I understand you wouldn't be the first to question the Apocs cert process due to not knowing how they achieved it.
An interesting question. Currently as setup I have DIN as used on every other CE marked rebreather outside Europe. That said I would prefer to be using M26 for all my oxygen cylinders as it gives an additional level of safety on filling and using the cylinders.
Regards
Brad
Mark Chase
ATB=AlwaysTalkingBollocks
Brad I flit between thinking your answers are so boring I am losing the will to live and thinking OK he***8217;s given a detailed explanation on some of the issues.
I think if you stuck to the facts it would be better.
The CE mark on existing units issue has some merit
All the responses about Simon***8217;s posts were just white noise.
Simon said it***8217;s a bit rich you and Apoc being so uptight about CE and then selling a unit which was promoted for modification into a non CE ECCR
Which I believe is a perfectly valid point.
He said it***8217;s a bit rich you going on about quality and standards and then putting out a unit on which divers quickly discovers serious design & build issues
Which again seems a perfectly reasonable comment to me
Then Simon suggests that a lot of noise was made by APOC about how easy it would be to do things properly over six years ago and yet they have still failed to bring a non commercial diving unit ECCR unit to market
Which to me screams they have had significant problems doing what they thought would be simple
I think if you stuck to the facts it would be better.
The CE mark on existing units issue has some merit
All the responses about Simon***8217;s posts were just white noise.
Simon said it***8217;s a bit rich you and Apoc being so uptight about CE and then selling a unit which was promoted for modification into a non CE ECCR
Which I believe is a perfectly valid point.
He said it***8217;s a bit rich you going on about quality and standards and then putting out a unit on which divers quickly discovers serious design & build issues
Which again seems a perfectly reasonable comment to me
Then Simon suggests that a lot of noise was made by APOC about how easy it would be to do things properly over six years ago and yet they have still failed to bring a non commercial diving unit ECCR unit to market
Which to me screams they have had significant problems doing what they thought would be simple
Oh Brad, I sure hope that this is your idea of a joke?! If not, I suggest you go and have a little think for a while before posting in future. Whilst amusing, your tone suggests you actually might have meant this as a statement? Either that or the dead-pan humour didn't carry very well!
Last edited:
Ben Field
All IMVHO obviously...
Brad,
All this proves is you have or have experience with Sh*t dishwashers (Is it CE marked, if so it it actually in compliance? Good God man, think of the danger your exposing your dishes too, I feel faint....)
The cheapo dishwasher here goes up to 70 to wash and 90 to dry, also the dishwasher tabs are in no way comparable to a squirt of Buddy Clean.
I'm pretty sure it would melt large parts of any available CCR beyond usage- not to mention destroy exposed electronics
FWIW- Don't think anyone cared if Alex pee'd in his unit then complained- either way he did not follow manufacturer guidelines, now he is the manufacturer and still recommending people break the "rules", hypocritical doesn't even get close!
Mr fish
Active Member
Brad see text below adw words ,
28 December 2000
I had a severe flood, the corrosion from which was damaging
everything. Rinsing everything in water, even under a jetwash did not
remove the white residues that was continuing to cause corrosion, so I
tried putting the handsets in the dishwasher
So your saying its fine to wash your breather head and hand set in the dish washer after use , well as long as it HAS THE CE mark, /longphonenumber , :cry:
IT was a wast last ditch Attempt. to save THE all ready fooked up ccr head
as for it working or not, that dont matter as the hole thing had to go back to the Manufacturers for a complete rebuild,
so im sorry but your talking out you arse as is the Norm , on behalf of that other arse
i also think i read, it only went in the dishwasher as the Washing machines was full with mr wards soiled thongs, french knickers, frilly panties. that he had on when he flooded his unit , understandable must have been a shock ,:cheers:
Best Wishes
Ps
im thinking of giving N@90 a pm , Ask if that apox pod is dishwasher frendley :thumbsup:
as i cant seem to find much about dishwashing in the apox Training manuals :disappoin
will you be washing your apox pods in the dishwasher some time soon , if so will you be jetwashing first lol .
now be a nice guy, and feek off ,
date of text 2000 , 5 years later adw is still having problems calibrating his unit , he maybe smart , but im thinking ist that Savant smart .
28 December 2000
I had a severe flood, the corrosion from which was damaging
everything. Rinsing everything in water, even under a jetwash did not
remove the white residues that was continuing to cause corrosion, so I
tried putting the handsets in the dishwasher
So your saying its fine to wash your breather head and hand set in the dish washer after use , well as long as it HAS THE CE mark, /longphonenumber , :cry:
IT was a wast last ditch Attempt. to save THE all ready fooked up ccr head
as for it working or not, that dont matter as the hole thing had to go back to the Manufacturers for a complete rebuild,
so im sorry but your talking out you arse as is the Norm , on behalf of that other arse
i also think i read, it only went in the dishwasher as the Washing machines was full with mr wards soiled thongs, french knickers, frilly panties. that he had on when he flooded his unit , understandable must have been a shock ,:cheers:
Best Wishes
Ps
im thinking of giving N@90 a pm , Ask if that apox pod is dishwasher frendley :thumbsup:
as i cant seem to find much about dishwashing in the apox Training manuals :disappoin
will you be washing your apox pods in the dishwasher some time soon , if so will you be jetwashing first lol .
now be a nice guy, and feek off ,
date of text 2000 , 5 years later adw is still having problems calibrating his unit , he maybe smart , but im thinking ist that Savant smart .
Last edited:
Simon Mitchell
Well-Known Member
You were touting an eCCR Incursion (its there quoted in the earlier post in your own words). The unit on the Apollo website is not an eCCR. An interested commentator has sent me photos of a unit seen at a show recently, and it was also clearly not an eCCR.
You still don't get it even though everybody is saying the same thing. Virtually everyone agrees that there is nothing wrong with "adding the same elecs as fitted to other CE marked rebreathers to an Apoc". What people are complaining about is the hypocrisy implicit in your demands that everyone else dot every i and cross every t in relation to CE whilst you peddle a unit that you know will have its CE invalidated by every user who wishes to dive it deeper than 6m. Its unbelievable actually.
I am not drawing any conclusions based on any data. Any comments I make here are demonstrably the same as many comments I have made in the past.
Yes, of course. But my point is that all you have to promote in relation to the iCCR is a CE certificate. Its not much use without the product.
Well, I suppose one answer, given that you obviously think these units have not met the standard, would be along the lines of your own answers on such matters (see below). Thus, "Brad, I am just a simple user but I presume if you were honestly interested rather than simply biased you could perhaps address your concerns and questions directly to SGS who audited those units to (insert random phone number here)!" But since I am not a serial obfuscator like you, I will give you a proper answer.
"During normal use" the diver holds the mouthpiece in their mouth. The teeth are used for the holding, and the lips are used for the sealing.
"In the event of the diver falling unconscious or having a convulsion" things are less clear. I personally have a Drager gag strap on all the rebreathers that I dive. My Mark 15.5 came with one, and from the moment I used it I have not dived without one since. I believe Paul Haynes has it exactly right when he suggests that they are a simple precaution that MAY save you in such a situation. However, clearly they do not come of the units as standard. How can that be if the units are considered to meet the standard which is allegedly worded in the way you describe (I have not read it). I suppose the implication is that the standard is open to interpretation and auditors must interpret it differently to how you and I might. I actually believe that this is an example of how adherence to standards cannot always be relied upon to produce the right outcomes... (see Brad, this is called honesty) just like I don't believe the standards prescriptions have any guidance on what constitutes accurate monitoring of end tidal CO2 or how you test for this (which was my similar question to you).
I could happily buy this answer Brad if it came with a bit more humility, a bit less opposition bashing, and a bit more transparency than we have come to expect from you and Alex and your organisation.
Still no phone number, contact address, etc etc.
Show me the proof that an eCCR Incursion is available for sale right now.
Why don't you just answer this question honestly and admit that there is no specification in the various standards for auditing the accuracy of end tidal CO2 measurements.
Simon M
Iain3
Big Member
What is your involvement with Appoc, Dias and Deep Life? I have friends who will defend their rebreather as it is a reflection of their good investment, but the way you defend the Appoc goes beyond the realms of buyer advocation.
If they paid me I wouldn't do what you do for them. Actually thinking about it I really wouldn't, I don't think it does them any favours.
Do you work for them or are you just a really big fan?
GLOC
real name: Gareth Lock!
Brad,
I work in the Defence Industry where lots of things are shown at the shows with the inference that they are available for sale right now. Many of these items are at low Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) even though they may show prototypes that look like the real thing and glossies/videos showing how it could be used.
I do not see this to be any different to what is being marketed at the moment.
Many folk on here have contacts within the military & SF diving world and the capabilities being described here aren't exactly mega-secret, and therefore it would be known whether something like what you describe had been deployed for real.
Regards
I work in the Defence Industry where lots of things are shown at the shows with the inference that they are available for sale right now. Many of these items are at low Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) even though they may show prototypes that look like the real thing and glossies/videos showing how it could be used.
I do not see this to be any different to what is being marketed at the moment.
Many folk on here have contacts within the military & SF diving world and the capabilities being described here aren't exactly mega-secret, and therefore it would be known whether something like what you describe had been deployed for real.
Regards
Last edited:
MeRodent
New Member
I think the classic here was the Apollo site that was referred to earlier which showed a computer rendering of the rebreather.
Since it's much easier to take a picture of a real live unit it would suggest one does not actually exist to be photographed.
Mr fish
Active Member
10 or more years ago mr ward posted a link to another apollo web site , it had at the time llinks back to mr ward , and his boarding ladder, A hand-drawn plan by mr ward was knocking about on the www, . of said ladder
now the funny thing about this other apollo web with links back to ward , was it looked like a top end sales out let , but when you had another close look it was run from some one,s 3 bed sime , , ward posted the link as he was bragging about hs ladder . and other bits he was flogging back then .
same ladder, boot,s and bits seem to be on this new Apollo Military web outlet . make of it what you will .
mr ward has been unable to take a photo for the last 10 years , fog and what ever , dont you know ,
Last edited:
narked at 90
Member
My name Keep being dragged into this, so this will be my one and only post on this matter, i do not have the time and energy to be dragged into this type of crap.
Narked at 90 asked at the very beginning if we could make a pod for the apoc so we could attached dive computer, it was agreed as long as we adhere to OSL***8217;s standards and testing.
We agreed this and using the apoc loop parts and dimensions supplied by the manufacture to keep the loop flow and WOB the same.
The conditions of us building the pods was to have them fully tested, this was done with the help of the apoc manufacture.
I have sitting here all the test documents, manuals, impact assessments, compliance reports, sensors testing reports.
The ONLY thing not completed was the final report with SGS for their certification services.
And the only reason for us not going forward and paying out even more money to finish what we started was because we were spending all the time, money and effort on CE when another 3rd party manufacture was selling pods under our production cost and without any of the testing we had carried out.
So for me to waste any more time and money on this product was point less so i pulled the plug there and then.
OSEL have our pod details and paperwork and if they wanted to finished the certification of it, it would be no issue for them to do so, it was designed to be part of the rebreather and testing was being done on there rebreather,
Have OSEL completed the CE on my POD? i have no idea i have not had any contact with Alex or his staff.
But If they are showing a pod and say it now has CE i would assume that is the case.
As i said this will be my one and only post on this matter, far better things to do with my time.
Kind regards john routley
Narked at 90 asked at the very beginning if we could make a pod for the apoc so we could attached dive computer, it was agreed as long as we adhere to OSL***8217;s standards and testing.
We agreed this and using the apoc loop parts and dimensions supplied by the manufacture to keep the loop flow and WOB the same.
The conditions of us building the pods was to have them fully tested, this was done with the help of the apoc manufacture.
I have sitting here all the test documents, manuals, impact assessments, compliance reports, sensors testing reports.
The ONLY thing not completed was the final report with SGS for their certification services.
And the only reason for us not going forward and paying out even more money to finish what we started was because we were spending all the time, money and effort on CE when another 3rd party manufacture was selling pods under our production cost and without any of the testing we had carried out.
So for me to waste any more time and money on this product was point less so i pulled the plug there and then.
OSEL have our pod details and paperwork and if they wanted to finished the certification of it, it would be no issue for them to do so, it was designed to be part of the rebreather and testing was being done on there rebreather,
Have OSEL completed the CE on my POD? i have no idea i have not had any contact with Alex or his staff.
But If they are showing a pod and say it now has CE i would assume that is the case.
As i said this will be my one and only post on this matter, far better things to do with my time.
Kind regards john routley
Simon Mitchell
Well-Known Member
Hello John,
Thank you for your post. I can understand your obvious annoyance over this issue. Others among us, under various circumstances, have also been dragged into the controversies that have dogged the Open Revolution project over many years. For my part, it was as an expert in gas exchange under hyperbaric conditions who was told very publicly that I did not know what I was talking about. Unfortunately I do not have the self control you exhibit in avoiding making posts on the matter.
I think I have made my opinion about "your part" fairly clear every time it has come up in discussion, but in case there is any misunderstanding at all, allow be to be very explicit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the equipment you make for the Apoc, or with using it attached to the Apoc. Indeed, I would have no doubt whatsoever that it is made and functions to the extremely high standards you maintain in everything you do. As you know, I have various bits of your equipment occupying pride of place in my dive locker and on the rebreathers I use, and I have NEVER had any problems with ANY of it. I am certain the Apoc pod is no different and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree.
The only reason you get mentioned in this saga is that Apoc proponents constantly attack other manufacturers around technical points in relation to CE whilst happily endorsing the modification of their own unit (with your product) into a "technically" non-CE compliant state by virtually every user who buys one. No one (and least of all me) is suggesting that there is anything wrong with the modification per se. I have tried to be clear about that in my posts on the subject. It is the principle of the issue, and in particular, the implicit hypocrisy that gets people riled up.
It would be very unfortunate and completely the wrong message if anyone gained the impression that N@90 or their products were being criticised.
Simon M
Ivan Calcoen
CCRX Supporter
Zirk and others interested (others interested means if you're not interested : back off) :
some news of my crossover IT.
http://us7.campaign-archive.com/?u=...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]
some news of my crossover IT.
http://us7.campaign-archive.com/?u=...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]
Last edited:
Atlas
New Member
Mr fish
Active Member
what,s the point of your post m8 . what s news .more pdf whats for sale now , same as always , o2 rebreather maybe and some others 3 party ppo2 pods or computers , all the other bollox is on the , rolling out slow . lol
still no EA ,s breather , you know the one (co2 gizmo and autobail out )and now much much more ,
other wise what you got , a sfa ..
and whats with the back off remark . lol iv not even had a read of the no news letter yet , some more back tracking and slow roll outs is it ,
your link to PVR
as for pimvan well fooking woo hoo, his been running after the money for as long as i can remember . has more card s than a feeking crib players club
best
steve ,
edit
read it , still see nothing new, thats not on the slow roll out must say i like the backteacing , about training , even giving it away well half price , lol did i see something about the price of a unit going up .. ( fire sale once again ) he,s played that card be4,
plus the same old rants and half truths , not new is it tho
whom is BTW IT on many other rb's as well
think you may find that things are about to change in that regard, id say its not just adw that keeps a naughty list ,
manufacturing association like to keep list,s to i would think ,
Last edited:
silentbob
Member
There is a humorous short story, titled "The She Wolf", by H.H Munro writing (in 1914) under the pseudonym Saki.
It concerns one Leonard Bilsiter, abundantly gifted at deceit, who finds himself out manoeuvred and eventually humiliated by his lies. The opening paragraph below works well with any of the Hydra's heads, be that Brad's or Alex's, in place of Leonard's.
It concerns one Leonard Bilsiter, abundantly gifted at deceit, who finds himself out manoeuvred and eventually humiliated by his lies. The opening paragraph below works well with any of the Hydra's heads, be that Brad's or Alex's, in place of Leonard's.
Ben Field
All IMVHO obviously...
Oh crumbs... not content with insulting the public, its customers, competitors and even its associates, OSEL are now laying into the Rebreather Forum delegates, is there no limit to their self-destructive tendencies?
Fixed this for them-
"Just as ignorance has abused the word apocalypse, turning something good into something horrifying, ignorance in rebreather manufacturing can change the experience into one that destroys."