YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

Newsletter

12K views 67 replies 23 participants last post by  simon mitchell 
#1 ·
Can't wait for the next one.

Already bought the pop corn!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
#6 ·
There should be one due any moment - the last quarterly one was 18 May, so by rights there should be one this weekend sometime.

Of course, they weren't specific about what kind of quarter they were talking about - it could be a quarter decade, century, millenium.......
 
#8 ·
Servants' quarters? You know what these Russki oligarchs are like.

I'd almost forgotten about the Pox. Well apart from a snotagram when I mentioned DrD elsewhere recently (and not even Bowenworld).

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: gobfish1
#24 ·
I can put my arse on the scanner if you like. Probably contains more useful information.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
 
#29 ·
Interesting response to a question from Ivan on FB. Ivan asked what the Type II CCR referred to in the 'newsletter' update was. The response from OSEL was 'The Type II is a longer duration modular variant of the Apocalypse Type IV CCR. Further technical details to follow in due course'.

I wonder how they will achieve that. Kitty litter?
 
#30 · (Edited)
I wonder how they will achieve that. Kitty litter?

... or... or.... as a result of extensive R&D, adherence to ISO9001 and 'cost optimal development'...... just change the test limit in the pdf to 4% sev.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Also helps if there's a decent rumour like 'their competitor ripped off their counterlung placement and that lawyers will be presenting the lump-hammers shortly'........
Given the potential for uniqueness is reduced perhaps they are thinking about alternate placement like bottom or crotch mounted...... :)
 
#68 · (Edited)
And we got there in the end, great rant at the end!!

Pure class "a New Zealand medic".....pmsl.
I do have to admit, it is very funny.... virtually the whole thing. I have reached the stage in relation to the Apoc where I just feel pity rather than anger when the distortions and half truths come out. The rant at the end is fascinating because it is out of all proportion to the post it responds to. Unfortunately, I think it suggests Alex doesn't understand the post:

Simon Mitchell in post 41 of the Update on debate over appropriate limits for scrubber break through testing thread said:
Apoc 2% defence number 1. The Apoc has such low work of breathing that the “impediment to ventilation” risk factor is largely eliminated, thus allowing safe exposure to a higher inspired CO2.

We are told that the work of breathing is low in the Apoc; lower than any other rebreather. If this is true, then it is an undoubtedly a good thing. But this metric essentially reflects the external resistive load of the device, which is only one of a number of “impediments to ventilation” relevant to rebreather diving. What about static lung loads during immersion, whose potential effects (including breathing at higher lung volumes, decreased lung compliance, negative end expiratory pressure and dynamic airway compression) can markedly impair ventilation? There is no proof, nor even any substantive reason to believe, that the allegedly low WOB in the Apoc will reliably mitigate the risk of 2% inhaled CO2. There are still plenty of impediments to ventilation.
As you can see, I do say "If this is true" which I think is perfectly reasonable given the number of false claims they have made in the past. I certainly don't say its not true, and I don't imply I have any alternative numbers as Alex seems to suggest... so why all that stuff about a test facility etc? In fact, I'm reasonably complimentary about the putative low WOB ("undoubtedly a good thing"). I leave it to you to judge whether the newsletter passage seems to be an over-reaction. Personally, I can only conclude that Alex thinks the rest of the paragraph is an attack on the Apoc's WOB. He appears not to grasp the key point, which is only tangentially relevant to the latter. Specifically, 2% inhaled CO2 is dangerous underwater because even if your device has a low work of breathing there are other impediments to ventilation which, when combined with the high inhaled CO2, are very likely to lead to dangerous CO2 retention. I must say I find the corporate lack of understanding around these issues to be very scary.

Just to be clear, everything I say in the above quote from the other thread is 100% correct. It is beyond debate.

Simon M
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top