gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
+1 Thread split
How long will you let the scrubber sit
- Thread starter opheim
- Start date
+1 Thread split
matt
Well-Known Member
Yup, go ahead and split, where to split is not clear, I guess WOB lives here and other CE lives somewhere else...
Matt.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
So, back on topic and based on "best science" as published by NEDU and Warkander:
A. For He (1)(2):
CIS Lunar has a 2.66 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 96% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.98 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
MK16 has a 1.85 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 67% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 93% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
MK16 Mod 2 has a 2.08 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
Stealth MOD has a 1.71 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
Viper E Stealth MOD has a 1.82 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 66% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 91% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
B. For Air (1)(2):
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.50 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 75 RMV = 90% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
(1) where EN14143 safe limit is 2.75 j/l (no available scientific proof) and Warkander safe limit is 2.0 j/l (widely available peer reviewed scientific publications)
(2) based strictly on published NEDU numbers, and where these are not available, third-party independent published research (i.e. QinetiQ), and where this is not available, manufacturer published research on its official website, and where this is not available, manufacturer published numbers on its official website.
Does anyone have figures to add for other rebreathers?
A. For He (1)(2):
CIS Lunar has a 2.66 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 96% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.98 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
MK16 has a 1.85 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 67% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 93% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
MK16 Mod 2 has a 2.08 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
Stealth MOD has a 1.71 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
Viper E Stealth MOD has a 1.82 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 66% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 91% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
B. For Air (1)(2):
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.50 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 75 RMV = 90% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
(1) where EN14143 safe limit is 2.75 j/l (no available scientific proof) and Warkander safe limit is 2.0 j/l (widely available peer reviewed scientific publications)
(2) based strictly on published NEDU numbers, and where these are not available, third-party independent published research (i.e. QinetiQ), and where this is not available, manufacturer published research on its official website, and where this is not available, manufacturer published numbers on its official website.
Does anyone have figures to add for other rebreathers?
Last edited:
matt
Well-Known Member
I thought you also showed some Meg figures which you could add?
You've omitted the JJ ones that are available (you've need to interpolate them to 300ft, I guess).
Given Martin bothered to post you could include those figures in your summary too.
Mk16 Mod 2 doesn't have %'s.
A table would be easier to read.
I'd drop the personal analysis from the table as I'm not qualified at least to say what's too risky and what's not.
Anyway, it's an interesting analysis using the available data.
Matt.
You've omitted the JJ ones that are available (you've need to interpolate them to 300ft, I guess).
Given Martin bothered to post you could include those figures in your summary too.
Mk16 Mod 2 doesn't have %'s.
A table would be easier to read.
I'd drop the personal analysis from the table as I'm not qualified at least to say what's too risky and what's not.
Anyway, it's an interesting analysis using the available data.
Matt.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
I do not want to add interpolations and conversion (BTPS to ATP or XYZ) as this would be subjective and questionable.
I use strictly NEDU numbers, and where these are not available, third-party independent published research (i.e. QinetiQ), and where this is not available, I use manufacturer published research (on its official website), and where this is not available, manufacturer published numbers (on its official website).
There were a few errors in the table and I corrected them, and the table is incomplete, just a start... please help filling in the blanks.
matt
Well-Known Member
Not sure what XYZ is, but mixing ATP and BTPS isn't useful.
What qualifies you to indicate (too risky) and (safe) and by implication (not safe)?
Matt.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
I am not qualified to indicate too risky or safe based on my personal subjective judgement, and I do not do that.
"Safe" or "too risky" is based on the EN14143 published "safe" limit (2.75 j/l) and the Warkander published safe limit (2.0 j/l).
These are two available best references in respect of the two approaches to safety (one EU which is "standard" based, and the other U.S. which is scientific research based).
That is only looking at WOB in isolation. I have not looked at elastance and hydrostatic imbalance which should be maybe added to the table, but let us start with WOB and complete the table with data currently available for all rebreathers.
Some will fare better than others in terms of WOB, but there is Ferraris and Fiats and Skodas, and consumers are free to compare and chose, and vote with their wallet (in a democracy).
Dave Sutton
Banned
+10
Guys: State Facts as Facts... Opinions have value, but... they are not facts. In discussions of this nature it's all too easy to allow ones passion for the subject to begin to present opinions as facts. Subjective things need to be presented as such. There are no absolutes, so please... let's qualify grey areas as grey.
It's a lot of work to split the thread, so please: "Someone" start a new one if you wish to persue this line of discussion. Please, also: We moderate with velvet gloves here, and with that ethos, we expect members to be the ones who see a thread wandering and then on their own initiative go start a new one. Threads are free... take up as many as you like.
Back to our regularly scheduled programme now.
Dave
.
matt
Well-Known Member
How is this table to be read:
Is this not saying that the limit for Heliox (SP=1.3, 13/87) at 297ft (90m) is 2.42?
I think mixing your comments with the Warkander table is confusing at best.
Matt.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA550047 pp8 said:
Is this not saying that the limit for Heliox (SP=1.3, 13/87) at 297ft (90m) is 2.42?
I think mixing your comments with the Warkander table is confusing at best.
Matt.
matt
Well-Known Member
Remind me what the purpose of this thread is! Does WOB discussion stay or go?
Matt.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
Categorically, I pass no judgement on the published research and the safe limits established by EN14143 and Warkander respectively, except that I personally adopt Warkander's insofar they are supported by scientific and peer reviewed research.
2.75 j/l is the max. safe acceptable limit under EN14143.
2.0 j/l is the max. safe acceptable limit under Warkander 1992 research.
Just because the unit you favour does not score high based on objective published research, it does not mean we should not discuss WOB, here or elsewhere, as applicable.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
Added a few data points (facts) as requested:
So, back on topic and based on "best science" as published by NEDU and Warkander:
A. For He (1)(2):
CIS Lunar has a 2.66 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 96% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.98 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
MK16 has a 1.85 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 67% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 93% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
MK16 Mod 2 has a 2.08 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
Stealth MOD has a 1.71 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
Viper E Stealth MOD has a 1.82 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 66% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 91% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
JJ CCR rebreather has a 1.71 j/l WOB at 100 meters and 83.5 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
ISC Radial rebreather has a 1.69 j/l WOB at 100 meters and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
B. For Air (1)(2):
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.50 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 75 RMV = 90% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
JJ CCR rebreather has a 1.89 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 84 RMV = 69% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 95% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
(1) where EN14143 safe limit is 2.75 j/l (no available scientific proof) and Warkander safe limit is 2.0 j/l (widely available peer reviewed scientific publications)
(2) based strictly on published NEDU numbers, and where these are not available, third-party independent published research (i.e. QinetiQ), and where this is not available, manufacturer published research on its official website, and where this is not available, manufacturer published numbers on its official website.
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS EXCLUDED. SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
So, back on topic and based on "best science" as published by NEDU and Warkander:
A. For He (1)(2):
CIS Lunar has a 2.66 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 96% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.98 j/l WOB at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
MK16 has a 1.85 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 67% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 93% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
MK16 Mod 2 has a 2.08 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = in excess of both EN14143 (outside safe limit) and Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
Stealth MOD has a 1.71 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
Viper E Stealth MOD has a 1.82 j/l at 300 feet and 75 RMV = 66% of EN14143 (within safe limit) and 91% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
JJ CCR rebreather has a 1.71 j/l WOB at 100 meters and 83.5 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
ISC Radial rebreather has a 1.69 j/l WOB at 100 meters and 75 RMV = 62% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 85% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
B. For Air (1)(2):
AP Diving Inspiration has a 2.50 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 75 RMV = 90% of EN14143 (within safe limit), but in excess of Warkander limit (outside safe limit)
JJ CCR rebreather has a 1.89 j/l WOB at 40 meters and 84 RMV = 69% of EN14143 (within safe limit), and 95% of Warkander limit (within safe limit)
(1) where EN14143 safe limit is 2.75 j/l (no available scientific proof) and Warkander safe limit is 2.0 j/l (widely available peer reviewed scientific publications)
(2) based strictly on published NEDU numbers, and where these are not available, third-party independent published research (i.e. QinetiQ), and where this is not available, manufacturer published research on its official website, and where this is not available, manufacturer published numbers on its official website.
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS EXCLUDED. SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Last edited:
Dave Sutton
Banned
ACHTUNG!!
If further comments are not discussing HOW LONG WILL YOU LET YOUR SCRUBBER SIT AFTER USE they will be deleted.
Alles Klar? :smackbum:
Smile, it's time to start a new thread. Matt? Gian? Have at it.
Dave
.
If further comments are not discussing HOW LONG WILL YOU LET YOUR SCRUBBER SIT AFTER USE they will be deleted.
Alles Klar? :smackbum:
Smile, it's time to start a new thread. Matt? Gian? Have at it.
Dave
.
Last edited:
matt
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it is easier to rename this one!
There's no answer to the original question, just opinion.
I guess we're done with this topic.
Matt.
gianaameri
gian @ gian.ameri.name
matt
Well-Known Member
Discussion continues here: http://www.ccrexplorers.com/showthread.php?p=126769
anarchista
New Member
Reviewed the topic, as usual, appeared to determine the CO2 absorber working, without specifying at what metabolism is what is specified.
Determining such a simple lack of knowledge about the problem.
I talked to a chemist Dr Danuta Grzywaczewska (Participated in the implementation of licensing Faser sold to the U.S. for escape oxygen rebreathing apparatus), Polish production run Ostaryt soda lime. (Talking about the oxygen generating mas it was a piece of industrial spying)
I had the opportunity to talk to many times with Professor Ryszard Klos to modify the production of soda lime Polish. Is the author of the book "Lime Soda in Military Applications"
Also, some of the information from Molecular I have. Some species tolerate lime soda restarting and freezing wet lime. Others do not allow such a procedure.
So I can not say that they have reason to review all types of lime, available in the market.
I'll show you a simple test to assess whether lime is not used or worn.
If you know the basics of chemistry, we can easily determine how much CO2 bound sample.
If we can determine whether the reaction zone deposits came to finish, it we can determine the time of the scrubber live. Of course, for a fixed level of metabolism.
http://rebreathers.pl/forum/download.php?id=14
Ca(OH)2 + 2CH3COOH -> Ca(CH3COO)2 + H2O
CaCO3 + 2CH3COOH -> Ca(CH3COO)2 + CO2
rc greet
Determining such a simple lack of knowledge about the problem.
I talked to a chemist Dr Danuta Grzywaczewska (Participated in the implementation of licensing Faser sold to the U.S. for escape oxygen rebreathing apparatus), Polish production run Ostaryt soda lime. (Talking about the oxygen generating mas it was a piece of industrial spying)
I had the opportunity to talk to many times with Professor Ryszard Klos to modify the production of soda lime Polish. Is the author of the book "Lime Soda in Military Applications"
Also, some of the information from Molecular I have. Some species tolerate lime soda restarting and freezing wet lime. Others do not allow such a procedure.
So I can not say that they have reason to review all types of lime, available in the market.
I'll show you a simple test to assess whether lime is not used or worn.
If you know the basics of chemistry, we can easily determine how much CO2 bound sample.
If we can determine whether the reaction zone deposits came to finish, it we can determine the time of the scrubber live. Of course, for a fixed level of metabolism.
http://rebreathers.pl/forum/download.php?id=14
Ca(OH)2 + 2CH3COOH -> Ca(CH3COO)2 + H2O
CaCO3 + 2CH3COOH -> Ca(CH3COO)2 + CO2
rc greet
anarchista
New Member
anarchista
New Member
Espacenet - Bibliographic data
Espacenet - Bibliographic data
Pat posted. applies to soda lime deposits.
I know how to behave with soda lime deposits re-run or chilled with ice. I researched this issue five years ago.
There was no chance for a patent, I gave up this issue.
Without knowledge of: the CO2 absorber, without information from the producers of lime soda, without the knowledge of evaluation methods absorber acting, without knowledge of methods to determine how long after diving absorber can work.
We can discuss about anything, the diving board.
greet rc
.
Espacenet - Bibliographic data
Pat posted. applies to soda lime deposits.
I know how to behave with soda lime deposits re-run or chilled with ice. I researched this issue five years ago.
There was no chance for a patent, I gave up this issue.
Without knowledge of: the CO2 absorber, without information from the producers of lime soda, without the knowledge of evaluation methods absorber acting, without knowledge of methods to determine how long after diving absorber can work.
We can discuss about anything, the diving board.
greet rc
.