[monty]

http://www.opensafety.eu/datasheets/Apocalypse_News13_110704.pdf

rgds
monty

 

[steveharriss]

It's a real shame that the concentration has again slipped from actually producing what they promised and into sniping competitors and bigging up a bodge solution to getting you diving this season.

The finished product (O2 unit) seems well made and the performance seems to be pretty much as claimed. There must be significant issues with the iCCR and a healthy dose of realism would probably be better appreciated by their captive audience.

 

[GSK]

On the pricing: if I wanted a trimix version, am I right in thinking it would be £4040?

 

[Rudolf Hucker]

No real news here!

Why no delivery time for the ICCR? The units delivered are good but not complete (for iccr EAs). The component delivery issues should have been solved by now or at least some idea given as to the continued delay! If you buy a unit you will have to add expensive 3rd party monitoring to make it dive-able at present if you accept a split shipment. This cost is then a liability when/ If the ICCr loop turns up. If they are not going to be able to deliver the ICCR i wish they would say so and everyone could use the 3rd party monitoring package and be done with it.


The pricing is getting silly, i am sure the other manufacturers are all pleased about that and smiling to themselves with some relief. It is no good crowing about delivering half the product. The news letter should have been about what they are doing to deliver the product they set out to produce.

 

[paulraymaekers]

No real news here!

Why no delivery time for the ICCR? The units delivered are good but not complete (for iccr EAs). The component delivery issues should have been solved by now or at least some idea given as to the continued delay! If you buy a unit you will have to add expensive 3rd party monitoring to make it dive-able at present if you accept a split shipment. This cost is then a liability when/ If the ICCr loop turns up. If they are not going to be able to deliver the ICCR i wish they would say so and everyone could use the 3rd party monitoring package and be done with it.


The pricing is getting silly, i am sure the other manufacturers are all pleased about that and smiling to themselves with some relief. It is no good crowing about delivering half the product. The news letter should have been about what they are doing to deliver the product they set out to produce.

as before again, trying to overwhelm people with a train-load of pseudo scientific explanations..

all the BS about the VWAI, when everybody knows that this does not form the real limit for endurance, but the 5mbar PPCO2

and leaving out the spindles.. well I suggest you all try to do this on an 80m dive, as it is AD-approved

and it goes on and on....

good luck with it

 

[Rudolf Hucker]

as before again, trying to overwhelm people with a train-load of pseudo scientific explanations..

all the BS about the VWAI, when everybody knows that this does not form the real limit for endurance, but the 5mbar PPCO2

and leaving out the spindles.. well I suggest you all try to do this on an 80m dive, as it is AD-approved

and it goes on and on....

good luck with it

Paul, I think that last news letter has helped clarify things for those that might have thought of this unit as a viable option at one time.

 

[Brad_Horn]

It's a real shame that the concentration has again slipped from actually producing what they promised and into sniping competitors and bigging up a bodge solution to getting you diving this season.

Whats bodge about OSEL supporting the adaption through a quality dive equipment supplier of what looks like a Shearwater solution on a CCR, don't JJ, Titan, ISC, KISS and rEvo all offer the same elecs?

Seems like they are producing what they offered just some are only now cottoning onto the spin-offs that are acheivable with it. The final NA90 solution on the Apoc seems pretty close to the original one shown at Eurotek just using a pod instead of the head which has to be cheaper if you want to go that way. Alex Deas Interview, OR Apocalypse mCCR, eurotek '08 on Vimeo
That looks like pretty decent image of a freshly made and wet iCCR pictured in the newsletter so OSEL seem to be concentrating on the target still.

as before again, trying to overwhelm people with a train-load of pseudo scientific explanations..

What quoting the standard that their product meets and yours is supposed to?
Or what looks like pointing out that the testing you have done is less then useful for actual CE certification?

all the BS about the VWAI, when everybody knows that this does not form the real limit for endurance, but the 5mbar PPCO2

Paul, so why not publish that as the CE test requires measured at the mouth against your rebreather?
Whats BS about it other then you don't appear to be doing it and its frustrating that your customers now know it?

and leaving out the spindles.. well I suggest you all try to do this on an 80m dive, as it is AD-approved

Interesting advise your giving to divers there. Wheres it approved?
There being bugger all gas flow if the EACs plugs are left out due to the quality of the design and recommending diving without the plugs would seem to be very different things.

I think that last news letter has helped clarify things for those that might have thought of this unit as a viable option at one time.

Seems to have solidified it. If you want a currently industry standard PPo2 monitoring package on something with the performance and standard inclusions of the Apoc, NA90 looks like the man.
As its just a case of unscrewing one pod and screwing on the other, fitting the CO2 pod and swapping over the ALVBOV to change to the iCCR isn't going to be hard.

Regards
Brad

 

[Brad_Horn]

double tap

 

[paulraymaekers]

What quoting the standard that their product meets and yours is supposed to?
Or what looks like pointing out that the testing you have done is less then useful for actual CE certification?


Paul, so why not publish that as the CE test requires measured at the mouth against your rebreather?
Whats BS about it other then you don't appear to be doing it and its frustrating that your customers now know it?


Interesting advise your giving to divers there. Wheres it approved?
There being bugger all gas flow if the EACs plugs are left out due to the quality of the design and recommending diving without the plugs would seem to be very different things.

Regards
Brad

Brad, first try to understand what we are discussing here, then come back and try to participate in the discussion

don't just post questions in an attempt to understand what we do, get someone to explain it to you!

Paul

 

[11431]

Whats bodge about OSEL supporting the adaption through a quality dive equipment supplier of what looks like a Shearwater solution on a CCR, don't JJ, Titan, ISC, KISS and rEvo all offer the same elecs?

Seems like they are producing what they offered just some are only now cottoning onto the spin-offs that are acheivable with it. The final NA90 solution on the Apoc seems pretty close to the original one shown at Eurotek just using a pod instead of the head which has to be cheaper if you want to go that way. Alex Deas Interview, OR Apocalypse mCCR, eurotek '08 on Vimeo
That looks like pretty decent image of a freshly made and wet iCCR pictured in the newsletter so OSEL seem to be concentrating on the target still.


What quoting the standard that their product meets and yours is supposed to?
Or what looks like pointing out that the testing you have done is less then useful for actual CE certification?


Paul, so why not publish that as the CE test requires measured at the mouth against your rebreather?
Whats BS about it other then you don't appear to be doing it and its frustrating that your customers now know it?


Interesting advise your giving to divers there. Wheres it approved?
There being bugger all gas flow if the EACs plugs are left out due to the quality of the design and recommending diving without the plugs would seem to be very different things.


Seems to have solidified it. If you want a currently industry standard PPo2 monitoring package on something with the performance and standard inclusions of the Apoc, NA90 looks like the man.
As its just a case of unscrewing one pod and screwing on the other, fitting the CO2 pod and swapping over the ALVBOV to change to the iCCR isn't going to be hard.

Regards
Brad

I'm not really sure what you are trying to defend here Brad?

A few months ago (April?), a public message was given that shiiping of the iCCRS was imminent, all that was left to do was a stock take. Obviously shipping has yet to happen, the news letter gives no explanation, or commitment on dates. IMHO this is the only thing OSEL/Deeplife should be concerned with i.e. satisfying their existing customer base. The ensuing attempted pissing contest against competitors is completely worthless, and shows the EAs a huge amount of disrespect.

 

[Rudolf Hucker]

Seems to have solidified it. If you want a currently industry standard PPo2 monitoring package on something with the performance and standard inclusions of the Apoc, NA90 looks like the man.
As its just a case of unscrewing one pod and screwing on the other, fitting the CO2 pod and swapping over the ALVBOV to change to the iCCR isn't going to be hard.

Regards
Brad

Brad,

I think you are missing the point mate, prospective customers want to see news about the Apoc not a dig at other manufacturers. The news content was about 4 lines. The [email protected] 90 unit is a quality piece of kit, unfortunately like the ICCR, not deliverable at present. This makes the unit depth limited to 6m or an ornament if you want to keep the CE. What people want to hear about is the truth behind the delays in the ICCR. This would help the customers understand the pains and probably make them more sympathetic towards OSEL etc.

 

[GSK]

I presume Brad is a salesman for these things?

If so, perhaps he could answer my question on pricing?

 

[[email protected]]

Good to see the O2-CCR EA's who cancelled got their deposits returned as promised, it would seem AD is delivering, albeit at a glacial speed

The [email protected] solution looks neat, I expect (like everything [email protected] make) it'll work and work well, John & Brent don't put their name to something they feel uncomfortable standing by.

Given the progress and shipping going on its abit of a shame to see another swipe at competitors, when are OSEL/DL/AD going to get past that type of "marketing" :-(

 

[Hanssing]

Hypocrites!

Whats bodge about OSEL supporting the adaption through a quality dive equipment supplier of what looks like a Shearwater solution on a CCR, don't JJ, Titan, ISC, KISS and rEvo all offer the same elecs?

You dont think its a bodge that they are launching their hyped product, only to fail to deliver on the ever so important SIL3 electronics.
They have relentlessly attacked everything besides their own electronics.

Its a bodge, and AD_Ward looks like a gigantic hypocrite since he now releases with "inferior" electronics.

What quoting the standard that their product meets and yours is supposed to?
Or what looks like pointing out that the testing you have done is less then useful for actual CE certification?

Funnily what is quoted in the newsletter, is only the definition of what VWAI-wave is.
Guess what? We know what is is....

However what is not quoted in the newsletter, is wether or not this is the sole critical meassurement which is used to determin scrubber-endurance.....

For this we have two opposite positions, ADWard9 says VWAI has to be used eventhough they themselves started by not using it. Paul Raymakers says VWAI is only used to ensure a low dead-space.
AD_Ward now used the newsletter but only cited the definition in 6.3.3, whereas PAul Raymaekers explains as seen below.

If it truely is end of inhale PCO2, then clearly meassuring endurance at the inhale hose is correct.
This is then coupled with a VWAI to ensure low swept deadspace of the DSV/BOV.

Theese two measurements makes sense, they *together* ensure a performing system, and they provide spearation between dead-space issue of the mouthpiece, and CO2-bypass of the scrubber.

if anyone is confused, because of all the fog that has been created here, between the 5 mbar end of inhale and the max 20 mbar VWA, take a look at the standard:

chapter 5.6.6: scrubber endurance is given when the end of inhale inspired partial pressure reaches 5mbar: the end of inhale gas is the same gas as in the inhale lungs, as after the complete inhale breath, the mouthpiece is completely rinced with the inhaled gas coming from the inhale lung: you also see this in the breath by breath graphs

why sample the gas from the inhale lung: simple: to get far more accuracy: the max % you reach in the inhale lung at break trough is 0.1% at 40 meter, and 0.4% at 20 mbar: so we use a CO2 sensor with a max span of 0.5%, calibrated with a 5000PPM gas

in the mouthpiece, the % peaks to 10/20 times higher easely, so to measure there, we take a 5% or 10% span CO2 sensor
everybody knows that exactly measuring 0.1% with a 10% span CO2 meter is... bad laboratory practice


there is a second requirement:

chapter 5.6.1.5: max volume weighted inspired partial pressure of CO2 may never reach 20mbar, during any stated endurance: this is to avoid big mouthpieces
for normal sized mouthpieces, this is never a problem as when reaching the endurance limit of 5mbar, the VWA in the moutpiece is maybe between 6.5 and 7.5 mbar, depending on the dead volume and shape: so this one never limits the endurance

so all the fuzz about people that state false endurance because of sampling gas in the inhale lung, and not taking the VWA from the mouthpiece.... once again, all fuzz, nothing more....

Paul, so why not publish that as the CE test requires measured at the mouth against your rebreather?
Whats BS about it other then you don't appear to be doing it and its frustrating that your customers now know it?

See above. From all the info ADWard has provided I do not see it stated that he is actaully right in stating VWAI is needed, since meassurement is performed at end of inhale!

Paul could be wrong, but what was cited above does make sense, IMHO.



I think OpenSAfety and especially Alex Deas are the biggest hipocrite on the planet. He has been droning on about functional safety, SIL-leves EN61508 etc. Yet he endorses a clearly "inferior" add-on, does not deliver his own solution, uses higher CO2-breakthrough, and on the same page as citing 2:45minsfor O2-units he refers to 5-6 hours of EAC endurance.
Instead of giving a clear statement for endurance of an O2-units or CCR-units with no CO2-monitoring which would support their "safety"-stance, they instead give the endurance for the iCCR.....

OSEL Voiceover: Offcourse 2hrs:45mins is only for the iCCR with CO2 monitor, and we think ist *VERY* bad if you push your scrubber! Without CO2-monitor you should downrate your endurance (Pssst: People often get 5-6 hours from an EAC).
And we also put 5hrs of O2 in the tank.
We list many different combinations in the manual.
You as user therefor has to decide what we mean be safe endurance, but we consistently hint at 5-6 hours......

No hypocrites here, nothing to see, pass along........

 

[paulraymaekers]

Paul could be wrong, but what was cited above does make sense, IMHO.

we can always be wrong, but in this case I'm fairly confident we do it correctly

Ofcourse VWA is measured during the test, but it does not form the limit, so it is not important for the end result (the guys that were here when we do the testing have seen how we do it)
we measure simultaniously with a fast response (< 30ms) (10% span) CO2 analyser, in the mouthpiece, and with a high accuracy (0.5% span), slow response (1.6 sec), in the inhale hose

the high accuracy is running constantly troughout the test, the fast response only on specific times when we ask, as it creates a massive data load (100/200 samples/sec) that you don't need anyway

so when we reach a 5mbar end of inhale breaktrough, we check the VWAI, wich in general gives something like 7mbar, so the 5mbar breaktrough is then the limit
we do the same at 10mbar end of inhale breaktrough, and then the VWAI is between 12 and 14 mbar, so again the 10mbar is the endurance limit

nowhere in the testing of normal rebreaters, with DSV or small BOV, is the limit given by the VWAI, it is always the end of inhale
(the VWAI is only important for FFM, or halfmasks without bite-piece)

paul

 

[Rudolf Hucker]

OSEL Voiceover: Offcourse 2hrs:45mins is only for the iCCR with CO2 monitor, and we think ist *VERY* bad if you push your scrubber! Without CO2-monitor you should downrate your endurance (Pssst: People often get 5-6 hours from an EAC).
And we also put 5hrs of O2 in the tank.
We list many different combinations in the manual.
You as user therefor has to decide what we mean be safe endurance, but we consistently hint at 5-6 hours......

No hypocrites here, nothing to see, pass along........

Is this saying that you should not use the Apoc for 2 hours 45mins unless connected to the C02 monitor? What is the recommended duration with out this monitor?

 

[42]

I've just read the 'news' letter and its got some comedy genius in it for sure, the second testimonial is just pure gold..... "The ALVBOV design in particular is a work of genius"....I wonder if it was foggy when that one was written.

as for the rest of it, its nothing news worthy or really that interesting for the Ea's etc, why even bother putting out a newsletter anymore if your not going to give a date for iCCR shipping.

 

[AndrewRawlingson]

Must confess the O2 EA's seem to have got a great deal. Other than that, you'd have to be completely off your nut to order an iCCR now. Those ordered 3 years ago have not got theirs, when on earth would you get yours if you ordered it tomorrow. The business plan just seems suicidal.

 

[GSK]

It was nice to see the apologies in the "newsletter" for the delays ..................

 

[matthewaddison]

Is this saying that you should not use the Apoc for 2 hours 45mins unless connected to the C02 monitor? What is the recommended duration with out this monitor?

55 minutes to the industry and military accepted 0.5 mBar loop CO2 breakthrough, if I remember correctly. If and when they ever get their CO2 monitor working reliably, we can revisit the issue. Until such time though, continuing to quote a 2.0 Mbar time is, in my opinion, bad safety practice (at best).