Apocalypse mCCR - Page 607

Thread: Apocalypse mCCR

  1. #6061
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Thanked 731 Times in 127 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tunicates View Post
    I haven't grasped why end tidal PCO2 volume is so important - or even what it is exactly. For those of us that are sitting in the back rows eating popcorn, can someone do a dummies guide?
    Hello Tunicates, I will put up a "CO2 physiology and monitoring 101" post later today when I get some time.

    Simon M

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to simon mitchell For This Useful Post:

    1693 (27-10-11), jackdiver (28-10-11), Paul Evans (28-10-11), philsiswick (27-10-11), the diving tiler (27-10-11), The Duck (27-10-11), Tunicates (27-10-11), Two Hats (28-10-11)

  3. Remove Advertisements

  4. #6062
    Duvet Diver Simon A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Thanked 160 Times in 118 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan Calcoen View Post
    I had a 5 day trip to Spain this Friday which got cancelled due to storm and Transmontana following that :-((
    Another trip is planned to the Philippines end March 2012, 5 days live aboard (Apo reef) and 5 days Puerto Galera :-))
    The problems for the delay should be known to those who are waiting..
    Come to Malta, It's not too expensive. I might know where you can find a couple of Apoc divers as buddies......
    Simon A

  5. #6063
    Senior Member gobfish1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Thanked 850 Times in 577 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbutsilent View Post
    Sorry this is so long:

    My name is Clive Wilcox I am the MD of Amphilogic Ltd

    This feed back is directed to Iain/hsm and his poodle gobfish1 who have decided to take a swipe at me and my business.

    I would not mind the flack but neither of the two gurus to the dive industry had the decency or good manners to email us some questions or research the information before trying to imply they have the knowledge and understanding of what goes on in the industry.

    So to explain the attack from our perspective. Maybe we can undo some of the damage to our reputation without having to take any more action.

    “For example I was puzzled at Brad's post on this Amphilogic C02 detector.”

    We don't know why we are being compared like this either

    “The Amphilogic C02 detector is clearly no where near the same as the OSEL certified and quantified context or has the electronic certificationas the OSEL products.”

    When we started this product it was shown as a concept unit. We also had extensive talks with Alex and others on how the best way forward would be to produce a well made and tested product. So there are similarities in that sense, because we try and copy the model that DL uses to test and certify.

    “We have discussed Amphilogic before on YD. Three years before, but not discussed to the same level or detail. Yet despite a similar time scale to the OSEL produces I am not sure why Brad used them to show as an example, an example of what?”

    A concept unit that is used to show people an idea takes a long time to turn into and produce a safe and useable end product . 3 Years is nothing!

    “Clive Wilcox of Amphilogic and even wikipedia tells us of it having being patented when there is no such patent.”

    Since I don't edit wikipedia we can not be held responsible for it content. However they are in a sense correct. We filed for patent and we keep the patent in a pending state. This is our choice since it does provide some IP protection. If we publish (which it has not been – hence no public availability) we also have to provide a very large sum of money for the world wide issue. We can find better things to spend money on. It also makes the end product cheaper, but still provides protection of IP.

    “It is patently not patented. LOL”

    You are correct - it is pending with the same rights and protection as a published paper. Not so funny then!

    “Further as the product has also been in development for some three years now and despite discussion on YD there is no detail as yet regarding it's ability to detect C02 accurately or of any independent verifiable test results.”

    If you had asked we may have provided limited information, but as this kind of data is part of our building block of the equipment it perhaps would be premature to release it before the product is available. We do have competition out there so I don't think this is a valid argument. Try asking Shearwater or rEvo for the confidential data and see what the response is. Yes we do have independent resources that do the testing – You just don't have that information – So in all an unfair swipe.

    “This is in complete contrast to OSEL who have shown repeatedly, fully open test results that can be easily verified and reproduced.”

    We have several checks and tests left to do. We are validating the software at this moment in time. We also have one more test just to check out an idea in about two weeks on the ANSTI unit. The results will then be published. Yes - When they are finished - the same as DL. Even DL have to finish the testing before publishing.

    “Also as OSEL as a company has been criticised I think it only fair we should therefore by example compare Amphilogic.”

    I don't think it is a good comparison. I have asked no one for money up front. I have not promised delivery. We are not selling the item. All I have done is shown the development stages in public at our expense to keep people informed. It seems that being open is unacceptable now. Who else shows the development cycle from concept to finished product.

    “Amphilogic as a company shows zero cash in the bank and zero stock holding and to date has outstanding liabilities (debts) approaching £ 80,000.

    Let me explain. Zero cash. There are no sales of CO2 watchman units so £0. income.
    Debts of £80,000 - Correct, however if you had taken the time to look at the accounts; those are directors loans. That means our personal investment into the business. It will be more like £120k by the time we finish. It has to be accounted for and it seem you don't understand accounts. The fact you went to the trouble of looking it is a cheap shot. How would you like the development to be funded. B&Q plumbing parts. Stock is on the shelf as to its value you will have to wait till I submit my accounts and you can go and have another look,

    “As a sideline you may also consider why Paul for the REVO (I hazard a guess) got wind of the fly tricks of SGS and the CE committee and why he took his kit to RINA for testing. Away from all the back room SGS and CE closed shop folk. Alex sadly didn't.”

    Again thin ice.

    “Finally despite what you read on web sites and wikipedia about Amphilogic and C02 detectors for rebreathers it's not the worlds first C02 detector for divers or rebreathers either. It never was.”

    We never said it was. We are however the first to use this type of implementation and offer a viable sport version. We did not apply for Patent on CO2 sensing either. We applied for a Patent on a method of implementation not a concept. I doubt that you will know but a lot of work was done at DDRC on this very topic. In particular Stuart Clough and Dave Crockford worked on such units 20 odd years ago. They however did nor become commercial products and neither do they get the recognition they deserve along with others for the work they did in pioneering rebreathers. Just for you I will get the Website altered into language style you can read and understand.

    "On that you can be 100% certain".

    LOL - That's a first then.

    “What is not is the list of names and the vested interests of those on the CE committee. Holding us all up”

    Just make your toys and go diving. Standards who needs them. Yes we all have a vested interest. Some of use just get on and do some thing about it. We don't have time to waste on moaning about things. I am not on the committee.


    “Amphilogic and C02 detectors, just one more shop on the internet ,, feek all in the Stockroom and feek all on the shelving,”

    What do you know? We have 200 units in various production stages. The first 50 units are waiting for the software to be loaded. They will then be tested. I have not offered any thing for sale. There is no way for any one to purchase units. The website shows information only. When it is all finished it will have all kinds of data and products for sale – until then There is stock in the form of components and units waiting for code. We have provided a number of units to to a customer by special arrangement. We have made no sales to the public and we will not, until we are happy about the product.

    "show.s us all, not to Believe what you see ,, on the computer, / mr mitty land .. he would have us believe he has 5 rebreather on the go at this time ,, each one doing v will ,, sorry i stilllllllllllllllllllll see feek all in the Stockroom and feek all on the shelving,"

    Get out more

    im having a hard time holding my own piss , Waiting for the first apox diver to get auto bailed at 90m ,,

    Well - you have bladder problems – no more to say then other than you two have taken the P*** enough.

    Just as a side note. This is not a mickey mouse toy we are making. We have a business dedicated to this product. Including a Industrial unit, plastic injection machines, tools and CNC machines. Our electronics department is well stocked for on going R&D.

    We have two very well qualified electronics engineers besides myself. We also have a team of people that are or have worked or advised us like Dr Alex Deas, Dr Arne Sieber of which without their contribution the project would be at least another year away. We also work close to University departments as shown on the website of which we will soon add Cambridge and Bath.

    The DTI and MAS are also important in our business and offer excellent help and support.

    People like Dr Sarisa Martin offers medical know how to the team. Dave Crockford has a wealth of knowledge he brings. Yes the same one as before who worked on the original DDRC. Alex Owen is a QC. Her legal skills and advice are crucial in this modern age. We will be working with Narked at 90 developing the new CAN BUS system which they will then distribute.

    Yes we have a team of people – some have come and some have gone, some are University departments. We even keep the HSE fully informed of our progress on a regular basis.

    We are currently talking to three rebreather manufactures about integration of our equipment into there units.


    I suggest that in future you have the good manners to email us and we will be happy to provide information we see fit to release in good faith. We do not expect to be trashed in a forum for no good reason by people who have nothing better to do than under mine other peoples hard work just to boost the ego's and show their ignorance.

    Again, to the Forum. I apologise for having to present this in the forum and at this length. I tried to find a moderator to deal with this but could not work out how to get one.

    Sorry forgot to put my details on.

    Clive Wilcox
    Amphilogic Ltd
    woof woof. .
    Clive ,, i cant see why you have your nicker,s in a twist . i never said a thing about your work ,, i made a comment about a web site that was posted in this thread ,, the comment i still stand by ,, i looked at the www page and it had nothing for sale , maybe i should of said ( fookall in stockroom and fookall on the shelving. At this time ) im soory for that ,, as for the rest of your rant ,, feek off , im not intrested ,,

    I whould like you to know i have only meet Iain/hsm one time 20 years ago and i dont think he would remember me or know me at all. i only tell you this for Iain,s benifit , ,,

    Steve Geraghty

    now if your not happy with my reply, what can i say. Put me on your **** list . as i now have you on mine ,,
    Last edited by gobfish1; 27-10-11 at 10:50 PM.
    Dr F Gobber
    Success is not measured by what you have, but by what you can do without.
    His embarrassment was obvious when he surfaced, the face was as red as the beard!

  6. Remove Advertisements

  7. #6064
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Thanked 731 Times in 127 Posts

    Warning: long post

    Quote Originally Posted by Tunicates View Post

    I haven't grasped why end tidal PCO2 volume is so important - or even what it is exactly. For those of us that are sitting in the back rows eating popcorn, can someone do a dummies guide?

    This is long, but it is not a simple subject. If you are prepared to grab a coffee and concentrate for 10min or so I think you will end up knowing everything you need to about CO2 and its measurement in diving. For those of you who know about this already (especially my medical colleagues) it is not really intended for you. I have glossed over a few things and simplified others.


    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a product of metabolism of oxygen. It is constantly produced in the tissues and its elimination must equal its production otherwise it will accumulate and cause a variety of adverse effects which we will return to later. For elimination, CO2 enters the venous blood and is carried to the lungs where we breathe it out.

    Key point number one: The more gas you breathe in and out of the lungs, the more CO2 you eliminate, and vice versa. In other words, if you take a series of rapid deep breaths you can increase elimination of CO2, and this so-called “hyper-ventilation” is what some free divers do to intentionally lower their blood CO2 prior to a long breath-hold. Equally, if you take shallow breaths or breathe slowly you decrease elimination of CO2 and it will accumulate in the blood. This accumulation of CO2 is called CO2 retention.

    Under normal circumstances the CO2 dissolved in tissues and blood is carefully and automatically regulated by the body. The brain has what is effectively a CO2 sensor that indirectly monitors blood levels, and adjusts breathing accordingly. Thus, if the blood CO2 starts to rise, then your brain will drive you breathe more (either by increasing your breathing rate or breath size or both), and if your blood CO2 starts to fall, then your brain will cause you to breathe less so that the levels rise again. All of this is happening at a completely subconscious level as you sit there reading this. In most people the brain is “set” to maintain a dissolved PCO2 of about 5.2 kilopascals (kPa) (or 0.052 ATA or 39mmHg depending on what units you prefer to use). However, this control system is imperfect and under some circumstances it can become less precise.

    For example, if the work of breathing increases unnaturally (which occurs in diving for a variety of reasons) the controller in the brain appears predisposed to allowing the blood CO2 to rise rather than drive the extra work involved in maintaining sufficient gas flow in and out of the lungs to keep CO2 at normal levels. Think of it as though the brain is still driving “X” amount of work by the respiratory muscles in response to a given level of CO2, but because the work required to breathe has increased, “X” amount of work now achieves less gas flow in and out of the lungs, therefore less CO2 is eliminated, and CO2 is retained. The more the work of breathing increases (eg deeper, denser gas, hard work, poor equipment), and the more CO2 that is being produced (eg because of exercise) then the more likely CO2 retention is to occur. The increase in PO2 and PN2 that are also encountered in diving can also “depress” the respiratory controller and make CO2 retention more likely.

    Interestingly, there is also significant variability between individuals in the degree to which they retain CO2. Some peoples’ respiratory controller will adjust breathing to maintain their normal level of CO2 irrespective of how much the work of breathing increases, whilst others are very vulnerable to increasing CO2 because of this disturbance of normal control. The latter group are often referred to as “CO2 retainers”. It almost seems paradoxical, but the non-retainers are the ones who suffer the unpleasant symptoms of increasing CO2 most readily. Thus, they get the horrible feeling of shortness of breath early when CO2 is rising, but if you think about it, that explains why they don’t retain CO2; they feel short of breath, start to breathe more, and get rid of the rising CO2. In contrast CO2 retainers do not experience those unpleasant early symptoms. They don’t feel short of breath, they don’t increase their respiratory rate or the size of their breaths, and therefore they don’t eliminate the rising CO2.

    Hopefully it is clear to you that CO2 “retention” because of inadequate lung ventilation is one potential cause of CO2 toxicity in diving. You will note that this has nothing to do with CO2 breaking through a scrubber and consequent CO2 rebreathing. It is simply a failure to breathe sufficiently to eliminate all the CO2 that is being produced in the body. This can occur on open circuit and closed circuit, and I reiterate it has nothing to do with the scrubber. CO2 rebreathing can occur of course, if the scrubber fails during use of a rebreather, and this is a second cause for CO2 toxicity in diving. A normal blood CO2 can be maintained, despite a low level of CO2 breakthrough, by increasing the rate and depth of breathing. There are some complex considerations, but suffice to say that as the amount of inspired CO2 increases, the harder it is for the diver to maintain a normal blood CO2. Moreover, those who have a tendency to retain CO2 (as described above) are more prone to mount an inadequate respiratory response in the presence of inspired CO2.

    Rising blood CO2 is a problem in diving for several reasons. First it can cause unpleasant symptoms such as headache and shortness of breath. These can precipitate panic. Second, if the levels get high enough CO2 can cause incapacitation and unconsciousness. As mentioned above, those who tend to retain CO2 generally suffer fewer early unpleasant symptoms, and indeed, may not develop symptoms until they are close to the second tier of problems (incapacitation and unconsciousness). To give you some sense of the small changes in blood levels required for these phenomena, 5.2kPa is the average normal level, 6.2kPa is the upper limit of the normal range, and over 8.5kPa sudden incapacitation is likely. Experiments show that levels between 6.5 and 7.5 are not uncommon in divers working underwater (at least some of whom would have related symptoms). The point is that small changes in PCO2 (even ~ 1kPa) can have very important implications for the safety of the diver. As a prelude to the monitoring discussion, this is why any monitoring system purporting to measure blood CO2 levels, and base safety management decisions around that measurement, must be very accurate. Finally, high CO2 worsens narcosis, and predisposes to cerebral oxygen toxicity. We can discuss the reasons for the latter at another time if you wish.


    There is a lot of confusion around this. Please don’t jump straight to this discussion. To appreciate it you need to have read the preceding “physiology” section.

    CO2 can be detected and measured using its unique absorbance of infra-red light. I am not expert in the engineering aspects of this technology and especially the difficulties presented by the temperature fluctuations, gas mixes, and humidity in the rebreather environment (that is Iain and Alex’s area). Let’s just accept that we have sensors that can accurately measure the PCO2 in a mix of gases to which the sensor is exposed.

    I use these same sensors every day when anaesthetising patients. Remember in the physiology section I told you that your blood CO2 level is being controlled right now by an automatic system in which your brain controls your breathing rate and breath size. During an anaesthetic I need to take over this role for the patient because they are not breathing for themselves. It follows, that I need to know their blood CO2 level in order to correctly adjust the mechanical ventilator. If the blood CO2 creeps up, I will increase the rate or breath size (or both) to eliminate more CO2, and vice versa. Let me describe how we do this, and then contrast it with the diving situation.

    To set the scene, here is the scenario. I have a patient who is anaesthetised (asleep) and paralysed by a drug (and therefore not breathing). I have them connected to a circle circuit which is very similar to the rebreathers we all use, except that the “mouthpiece” is a tube sealed in the patient’s trachea (wind pipe), the breathing gas contains oxygen, nitrogen and an anaesthetic gas (to keep the patient asleep), and in order for the patient to breathe, a machine (the “ventilator”) is effectively squeezing and releasing the counterlung at a rate (breaths per minute) and breath size set by me. The term we use for breath size in medicine is “tidal volume”.

    So here is another key point. Deep in the lungs, in the alveoli where gas exchange occurs, the gas pressures in the alveoli and the blood they exchange gas with are in equilibrium. Thus, the PCO2 in the alveolar gas is the same as the PCO2 in the arterial blood leaving the lungs. It follows that if I can measure the PCO2 in the gas coming from the alveoli as it is breathed out, then I will have a reasonably accurate measure of the PCO2 in the arterial blood. We assume that the very last part of each exhalation must have come from the deepest part of the lung, that is, from the alveoli, and so measuring the PCO2 in this gas will give us the PCO2 in the arterial blood. This is called measuring the “end tidal CO2”, or as Alex calls it, the “end of breath CO2”. I reiterate that the significance of measuring the end tidal CO2 is that it tells you what is going on with CO2 levels in the arterial blood / body.

    The CO2 sensor and its power supply etc are quite bulky so what we do in anaesthesia is plug in a very small diameter plastic sampling tube into the breathing circuit, effectively at the patient’s mouth. A pump constantly draws gas from the circuit to the analyser at a fairly high flow rate to give fast response times. In this way, during inhalation we are measuring CO2 in the inspired gas (which should be zero if the CO2 scrubber is working), and during exhalation we wait until the very last moment before taking a reading for the end tidal CO2. Plugging the sampling line into the circuit at the mouth is therefore ideal for two reasons. First, we can sample both the inhaled gas and exhaled gas as described. Second, by sampling at the mouth, we virtually guarantee that so-called dead space gas is exhaled and has disappeared off into the exhale hose before we make our end tidal CO2 measurement. This is important. Dead space gas is the gas inside the breathing tube and the non-exchanging parts of the respiratory tree (trachea, bronchi, bronchioles etc) at the end of the inspiration. It does not participate in gas exchange and is thus essentially the same composition as inspired gas and contains no CO2. During exhalation we do not want this gas to contaminate our end tidal CO2 measurement because it would artificially lower the measured CO2. However, by sampling at the mouth, and waiting until the end of the exhalation to make the end tidal measurement, we can be virtually guaranteed that this dead space gas has disappeared off down the exhale hose by the time the measurement is made.


    Engineers have miniaturized the CO2 sensors, but at this time they are still too bulky to fit into the mouthpiece of a rebreather. Moreover, a pump system for sampling gas from the mouthpiece via a fine tube to a sensor located elsewhere seems impractical; perhaps because it would be too power hungry for diving applications. I’m not an engineer so I don’t know. What it adds up to is that we have some difficult choices in deciding where to place our CO2 sensors.

    One option is to put the sensor on the inhale limb of the rebreather circuit as per the sentinel and others in the near future. This will tell the diver if CO2 is breaking through the scrubber. It is obviously useful information, and the quantitative aspect is less important. In other words, it is less critical in this application that the sensor is super accurate. The crucial piece of information is the presence of absence of CO2; the exact inspired PCO2 is less important (though still nice to know).

    I hope that from the previous discussion you will appreciate that a CO2 sensor on the inhale limb tells you nothing about what is going on “inside the diver”. As discussed, CO2 toxicity can occur because of retained CO2. The only way to detect increasing CO2 (from any cause be it retention or rebreathing) in the diver him or herself is to measure CO2 in the end tidal gas. The potential usefulness of this was correctly identified by Alex Deas in his design for the Apoc.

    This post is mainly for educational purposes, and I don’t want it to turn into more Apoc argument. However, a brief summary of the related controversy is appropriate. As most of you are aware, I raised concerns about the implementation of end tidal CO2 monitoring in the Apoc over 2 years ago. Specifically, the placement of the sensor at the end of the exhale hose raised the possibility that some degree of mixing between the exhaled dead space gas (see earlier) and the alveolar gas might occur in the exhale hose (which has a large bore and a relatively large [but unknown] volume). As implied earlier, this would dilute the CO2 in the alveolar gas and give a falsely low reading. For fairly obvious reasons this would be more likely at low tidal volumes (small breath sizes). For example, assume a dead space of 230ml (150ml in the airways and ~80ml in the mouthpiece). A 2000ml exhalation will start with the 230 dead space gas coming out first followed by ~ 1770ml of alveolar gas. One might expect that under these circumstances the dead space gas would be well flushed through / out of the exhale hose before the end tidal measurement is made at the far end. However, a 600ml exhalation will start with the 230 ml dead space gas followed by 370ml of alveolar gas. In this case, there might well be significant mixing in that large diameter exhale hose, and not all the dead space gas would be flushed out before the end tidal CO2 measurement is made.

    Alex’s initial response to this proposition was to deny that there was a problem at all, but more latterly he has acknowledged it and claims to have devised a compensating algorithm for low tidal volume exhalations which adjusts the end tidal CO2 to account for any dead space effect. I am perfectly prepared to accept he could have done this, and will be perfectly happy if he has. To date, however, there has been no demonstration that this is so. We need to see a comparison of true end tidal CO2 measurements made simultaneously from gas sampled inside the mouthpiece and the end tidal CO2 measurements made by the sensor at the end of the hose over a range of tidal volumes from 500 – 2000ml. The crucial point is that he intends basing part of the auto-bailout algorithm on the end-of-hose end tidal CO2 measurement, and I have earlier discussed how narrow the margins for error are likely to be. Remember, differences of only 1kPa of arterial CO2 can be the difference between incapacitation or not. We ran a simulation, published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, using non-Apoc rebreather components which suggested errors of this magnitude were likely at low tidal volumes (In fairness, it must be said that even at the end of the hose accuracy was pretty good at larger tidal volumes > 1000ml). The bottom line is that if used for making safety critical decisions, end tidal CO2 measurements have to be very accurate. I really do hope that the Apoc can do this. Although I will not deny being annoyed by the revisionist history we see over this matter, the good of the rebreather community in general is far more important than those sorts of petty concerns.

    If you got to the end of this... well done

    Simon M
    Last edited by simon mitchell; 28-10-11 at 09:00 AM.

  8. The Following 33 Users Say Thank You to simon mitchell For This Useful Post:

    11431 (29-10-11), 11800 (28-10-11), 1693 (28-10-11), 2stoned (28-10-11), abohmann (30-10-11), [email protected] (28-10-11), bherman (29-10-11), Bottle Maker (28-10-11), Dyson Diver (19-04-12), FourEM (28-10-11), gobfish1 (28-10-11), jackdiver (28-10-11), jasondrake (28-10-11), jimbob (28-10-11), KenLorp (28-10-11), leytondiver (28-10-11), Mal Bridgeman (28-10-11), Mark Chase (28-10-11), matthewaddison (28-10-11), matthewoutram (28-10-11), NSdiver (28-10-11), Paul Evans (28-10-11), PeterVICEG (29-10-11), philsiswick (28-10-11), Sag (28-10-11), sam_w (29-10-11), The Duck (28-10-11), thehappychappy (28-10-11), Tim Digger (29-10-11), Timw (28-10-11), TSA (29-10-11), Tunicates (28-10-11), Two Hats (28-10-11)

  9. #6065
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Thanked 406 Times in 240 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by simon mitchell View Post
    This is long

    Thank you for taking the time to post this, it's one of the best posts I've read on this forum in a long time, can a MOD please promote this to an article!


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to thehappychappy For This Useful Post:

    leytondiver (28-10-11)

  11. #6066
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Thanked 846 Times in 542 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thehappychappy View Post

    ... can a MOD please promote this to an article!
    Agreed - great write up

  12. #6067
    "Three sheds" Janos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Thanked 1,101 Times in 660 Posts
    Top article Simon.

    I know you say that you've modelled how end-tidal CO2 might be related to mouth CO2, but I would have thought that it would be fairly straightforward (?) to get some empirical measurements and derive an algorithm from that. I'm sure there's a paper in there somewhere!

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't climb a ladder with a large bell in both hands - Vic Reeves
    Hellfins - a friendly London dive club

  13. #6068
    A Moderate from 04/01/07-24/12/12 Mal Bridgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Thanked 1,610 Times in 788 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thehappychappy View Post

    Thank you for taking the time to post this, it's one of the best posts I've read on this forum in a long time, can a MOD please promote this to an article!


    Tis Done.

    Simon - if there is anything in the standalone Article that you would like changed then please let me know


  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mal Bridgeman For This Useful Post:

    Dyson Diver (19-04-12), leytondiver (28-10-11), thehappychappy (28-10-11), Tunicates (28-10-11)

  15. #6069
    Is somewhere else!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Thanked 1,006 Times in 651 Posts
    I think that just about covers it.

    Simon, many thanks for taking the time to write that piece. So - its a complex issue, with compound problems of size, accuracy, and no doubt interpretation as well, I certainly have a far clearer understanding of PCO2 in divers in general and CCR than I did.

    The physiology section is particularly interesting to me and I am left with a question about the location (and mechanism) of the human PCO2 monitor. I know that PCO2 in the blood controls hiccuping - to stop hiccups, just hold your breath till the PCO2 rises to whatever the switch point is - and I've occasionally wondered where and how the human sensor works and I wonder it now.

  16. #6070
    Team HPDW - 10/90 for the Boys HeBails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Thanked 1,790 Times in 703 Posts
    I'm not sure what it looks like from your seat Iain but I'd say there isn't much "reputed" about Simon's "so called" expertise now. What do you think?

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HeBails For This Useful Post:

    11800 (28-10-11), Paul Evans (28-10-11), philsiswick (28-10-11)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts