BOV or no BOV?

[paulraymaekers]

I think quod erat demonstrandum is the appropriate end note that fits. OSEL/DL have apparently got it certified for use to 100m noting that there is no 50m depth limit on it in their manual so the reality trumps the naysaying. In fact looking through my emails I got the below back from then what I asked about the open circuit depth rating of the BOV a few years ago.


A little off topic but my understanding is that you must submit a technical file thats audited by the NB to the appropriate standards to obtain a CE certificate. Indeed having once looked at the one for the Apoc submitted to SGS it was rather thorough.... As that technical file and indeed the whole CE process was then audited by UKRS one presumes all was found to be in order.
Glancing through OSELs newsletters, I thought that the issue identified with how you bypassed the intent of the point of certification was that you had not and I believe still haven't demonstrated as shown by lack of a CE certificate indicating it that your product passes all testing to a published standard be it EN14143:2003 or EN14143:2013.
To stay on thread track, whats the WOB of the rEvo DSV? If its more than the ALVBOVs you could even offer your customers a CE certified BOV with the right gas flow direction that plugs straight on, integrated ALV and reduces your units WOB whilst still retaining the gag strap. I wonder however if before supplying it wholesale to you if OSEL would first require you to have the rEvo audited to EN14143 by SGS with the obvious result. An amusing concept anyway that would give your customers an off the shelf BOV solution :sarcy:

Regards
Brad

once again you show to have either no understanding of CE type approval, either deliberately write false statements regarding CE type approval

and (search the forum) the published WOB for albov is not what we found when we tested it ourself

 

[henri69]

Dave have first-hand experience of how difficult is to change to oc when co2 hits, Youtube> 2010 Workshop/Dave Sutton

 

[Simon Mitchell]

Brad,

Every discussion you choose to involve yourself in is inevitably used as an opportunity to draw unfavourable comparisons between other rebreathers and the Apocalypse; frequently in respect of testing and certification. I think it is time you gave up on this. The aftermath of the release of a small number of oxygen Apocalypse rebreathers reveals the true value of its allegedly extensive "unmanned and manned" testing program, and reminds us that the CE certification process cannot be expected to reliably unveil deficiencies in such programs.

So,

To stay on thread track, whats the WOB of the rEvo DSV? If its more than the ALVBOVs you could even offer your customers a CE certified BOV with the right gas flow direction that plugs straight on, integrated ALV and reduces your units WOB whilst still retaining the gag strap.

I think the reason Paul would not consider this is that he currently has a product that does not leak, fall apart underwater, or free flow. He probably values those characteristics ahead of a small reduction in the WOB.

Which brings me to...

The design flaws you have picked up are just what should have been identified by unmanned and manned trials way before CE cert and then sale occurred.... I may as well pick on OSEL - any issue identified with their BOVs has apparently been met as a warranty issue and rectified

Can you not see how you shoot your own foot off here? The fact that the O2 Apoc had so many "issues" (including life threatening faults) discovered within weeks of release to real divers puts a very sobering perspective on the "unmanned and manned trials" and "CE cert" processes that you constantly imply are a point of difference between the Apoc and other manufacturers.

Simon M

 

[Igor]

And yet again the glove have been thrown. Looking forward to the debate:cheers:

 

[Mark Chase]

If its something that is commercially imported or sold in Europe testing is compulsory anyway and its been a barrier to entry in Europe for the past decade so its not as if anyone selling into or out of Europe hasn't known it needs to be priced in. However, it would be fascinating to see the different cost of CE compliance from each manufacturer:flypig:

The design flaws you have picked up are just what should have been identified by unmanned and manned trials way before CE cert and then sale occurred.... I may as well pick on OSEL - any issue identified with their BOVs has apparently been met as a warranty issue and rectified - which it sounds as if thats a policy you could have used a few times over.
Meeting CE for BOVs is obviously achievable and affordable as the APD OCB and OSEL ALVBOV are both available CE marked independent of their CCRs. The Sentinal and Poseidon ones apparently also meet the same standard so there is diversity.


This I would love to see some science formally address! One would presume to do this they would first need to test all the available BOVs for you to define what is a low performance BOV.....

Regards
Brad

Simon has already said it but to show i am not ignoring you, I also see the isues with the Apoc as definitive proof CE isnt what id needs to be to avoid all the issues.

I have dived CE marked items and units with quite obvious design flaws. I am amazed how such things got past R&D a they seemed to show up well within 50 hours of actual usage.

ATB

Mark

 

[CCR Josh]

I have dived CE marked items and units with quite obvious design flaws. I am amazed how such things got past R&D a they seemed to show up well within 50 hours of actual usage.

ATB

Mark

Anything directly related to BOVs? If so, please share.



Sent from my rebreather using Tapatalk...

 

[Garth]

I dive a BOV 100% of the time.
... 100% of the time it works all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk