YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

1 - 20 of 219 Posts

·
Conscientious Objector
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Woopee!

Friday is here again!
 

·
Diving is expensive, live with it!
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Thanks - an interesting read as ever.

If the iCCR was actually shipping, this newsletter would read as if it had come from a very professional organisation delivering a high level of service.

That's until you get to section 7., where the usual slagging and fog throwing starts. Why do they do this - there are ways to get these points made, in the newsletter, without making it so personal and so tit for tat. Disappointing - it was reading so well.
 

·
A VS Cash Cow
Joined
·
17,832 Posts
That's until you get to section 7., where the usual slagging and fog throwing starts. Why do they do this - there are ways to get these points made, in the newsletter, without making it so personal and so tit for tat. Disappointing - it was reading so well.
it reads as a fantasists work to me. I gave up reading after section 7. Its pretty pathetic from that point on.
 

·
You think I know nothing....and I do!!
Joined
·
562 Posts
Up to 'chapter 7'....fair enough...although quiet why they insist on the 'email' comms system defeats me when every other buisiness in the world has phone access....having sent my unit back twice for problems various , and having waited an excessive length of time for rectification it makes it doubly frustrating. Their angle on their 'customer service' isnt quiet the same as mine!!

As to the 'sniper attacks' well, I think Soggy summed it up well....again, this seems a unique tactic to them. Very destructive.

I have to say though, the continous reference to the validity of thier competitors CE certification is intrigueing, it would be interesting to hear a response, even if it was only to put it to bed.

I noticed a slight 'primeing' of potential further delays on the component they still do not have in stock for the iCCR but are 'expecting' in February...mmmm, worrying perhaps?.......we'll see.
 

·
Diving is expensive, live with it!
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
it reads as a fantasists work to me. I gave up reading after section 7. Its pretty pathetic from that point on.
Yes, that's why I said 'if the iCCR was shipping....' - in the absence of that, it does smack of Potemkin Villages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 42

·
Diving is expensive, live with it!
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Up to 'chapter 7'....fair enough...although quiet why they insist on the 'email' comms system defeats me when every other buisiness in the world has phone access....having sent my unit back twice for problems various , and having waited an excessive length of time for rectification it makes it doubly frustrating. Their angle on their 'customer service' isnt quiet the same as mine!!
Interesting - that might be the sign of a very small company that is focussing on getting the iCCRs out of the door. That might also explain the 16 week leadtime for O2-CCR shipping - low order quanitities, minimising stock on shelves and only a few people to make it all happen. Not surprising in the circumstances.

I have to say though, the continous reference to the validity of thier competitors CE certification is intrigueing, it would be interesting to hear a response, even if it was only to put it to bed.
I think this has been done to death in the past. I'd attribute 99% of my understanding of the CE process to the debates that have been going on about EN14143:2003 vs pr2009 vs pr2010 and RINA vs SGS vs XYZ that have been going on over the last 3 or 4 years.

If I was any of the competitors, I'd be staying away from that debate too. The points have been well rehearsed in the past, they have certs from recognised certifying bodies and the iCCR isn't shipping....

I noticed a slight 'primeing' of potential further delays on the component they still do not have in stock for the iCCR but are 'expecting' in February...mmmm, worrying perhaps?.......we'll see.
Yes, I read it that way too. I smiled at their comment that quarterly was the right frequency for newsletters, yet this one is only a month after the last one. A good time to start digging the hole for the bad news to be buried in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Up to 'chapter 7'....fair enough...although quiet why they insist on the 'email' comms system defeats me when every other buisiness in the world has phone access....having sent my unit back twice for problems various , and having waited an excessive length of time for rectification it makes it doubly frustrating. Their angle on their 'customer service' isnt quiet the same as mine!!

As to the 'sniper attacks' well, I think Soggy summed it up well....again, this seems a unique tactic to them. Very destructive.

I have to say though, the continous reference to the validity of thier competitors CE certification is intrigueing, it would be interesting to hear a response, even if it was only to put it to bed.

I noticed a slight 'primeing' of potential further delays on the component they still do not have in stock for the iCCR but are 'expecting' in February...mmmm, worrying perhaps?.......we'll see.
answering to a pile of lies with real facts will generate a bigger pile of lies: that's the base of these tactics: generate so much nonsense until the truth is burried so deep that nobody sees the trees in the forest anymore

as for the truth on CE, just mail me: it's all in the PPE directive
 

·
You think I know nothing....and I do!!
Joined
·
562 Posts
as for the truth on CE, just mail me: it's all in the PPE directive
Perhaps it isnt just me that would like this 'issue' clearing up?......why not explain your standpoint? Is your unit fully compliant or not?........our russian friends seem to think not....granted, it could be lies...but then again it might not?

Do they have a point or dont they?
 

·
Diving is expensive, live with it!
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Perhaps it isnt just me that would like this 'issue' clearing up?......why not explain your standpoint? Is your unit fully compliant or not?........our russian friends seem to think not....granted, it could be lies...but then again it might not?

Do they have a point or dont they?
Hi Moley,

There are hundreds of posts on this - what's the beef?

Phil
 

·
You think I know nothing....and I do!!
Joined
·
562 Posts
Hi Moley,

There are hundreds of posts on this - what's the beef?

Phil
Absolutely no beef at all.

I guess Paul can dismisss their points entirely by suggesting it is all a pack of lies (easy route).....but I reckon personally if I were him (and I am not) and the validity of my certification were called into question by these people publically I would feel the need to clarify the issue in simple terms, and disprove their allegations.

Or not.

As I see it one set of CE was attained through the easiest and least painfull route to assist european sales with the safety case secondary and the other was attained to ensure as far as possible a compliant rebreather.

Different approaches for different ends I suppose.

But one or the other of these parties is spouting bollox...and for my part I would like to know who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

Surely there must be a difinitive answer to this through all the fog, or is it as simple as one is CE'd as a piece of PPE and the other as a functional rebreather?

Personally, I dont have a corner here.....I am just intrigued.
 

·
Bashing head against brick wall
Joined
·
2,105 Posts
Moley. I'd point you in the direction of a third party (if you don't believe in conspiracy theory here) post from Mark Powell. Either you accept that a certain standard is unachievable, as written, and go with the accepted alternative that everyone else believes is reasonable for real World use or, having read every line and taken it as Gospel, decide that you will certify a process rather than an actual real World device and go for a bunch of PDF's that tell you how a device will work but never actually produce it whilst slagging off others who have put their reputation and money on the line (rather then Scottish development funds provided by gullible Scots MEP's on the basis of manufacturing brought to the Highlands) or you believe someone whose credibility is lower than a Dachshunds testicles. Hardly amazing that credible suppliers fail to respond isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Absolutely no beef at all.

I guess Paul can dismisss their points entirely by suggesting it is all a pack of lies (easy route).....but I reckon personally if I were him (and I am not) and the validity of my certification were called into question by these people publically I would feel the need to clarify the issue in simple terms, and disprove their allegations.

Or not.

As I see it one set of CE was attained through the easiest and least painfull route to assist european sales with the safety case secondary and the other was attained to ensure as far as possible a compliant rebreather.

Different approaches for different ends I suppose.

But one or the other of these parties is spouting bollox...and for my part I would like to know who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

Surely there must be a difinitive answer to this through all the fog, or is it as simple as one is CE'd as a piece of PPE and the other as a functional rebreather?

Personally, I dont have a corner here.....I am just intrigued.
that's the tactics again: at the end we get so tired of answering the same things again and again and again,(for how many years already?) so that at a certain moment we stop answering and explaining ourself.. and at that very moment someone comes up telling that there must be some truth in this garbage, because we don't answer on it, or defend ourself...

I'm not in the company till next week, do a search on RBW, and if you don't find it, send me a mail and I'll send you the full text: the PPE directive, the paths to follow, the free choice to go for either the harmonised standard, either the technical file, and why there is that free choise etc etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Absolutely no beef at all.

I guess Paul can dismisss their points entirely by suggesting it is all a pack of lies (easy route).....but I reckon personally if I were him (and I am not) and the validity of my certification were called into question by these people publically I would feel the need to clarify the issue in simple terms, and disprove their allegations.

Or not.

As I see it one set of CE was attained through the easiest and least painfull route to assist european sales with the safety case secondary and the other was attained to ensure as far as possible a compliant rebreather.

Different approaches for different ends I suppose.

But one or the other of these parties is spouting bollox...and for my part I would like to know who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

Surely there must be a difinitive answer to this through all the fog, or is it as simple as one is CE'd as a piece of PPE and the other as a functional rebreather?

Personally, I dont have a corner here.....I am just intrigued.
Ian,

Your question is being directed to the wrong party.

If DL/OSEL really believed there was any substance to their criticism of rEVO compliance because of dodgy practises by RINA (my interpretation of Newsletter 17) than their concerns should be raised with the party which audits RINA compliance with its certifying obligations.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rEVO, or gives rise to any need for Paul to defend himself or his products. Wordsmithing around 2003 versus pr2010 compliance is an equally irrelevant practical issue for most divers.

DL/OSEL I believe tried a similar attack against APD certification compliance which proved baseless (there are opposing press releases from APD and OSEL about the outcome for those that are interested).

At its most simple. this issue is analogous to the "does the CO2 monitoring work" debate. Should the solution not work, it will be DL/OSEL certification auditors who will be in the gun as much as the manufacturer. I am much less forgiving on this point than Simon Mitchell, ignorance or lack of experience with novel technologies would be no excuse for a failure to have performed their duties competently.

I am still struggling to understand why an organisation which has invested so much time and effort in bringing (some) product to market would continue to pursue public attacks (like the rEVO one) which are so patently flawed and counter-productive. Private avenues of complaint must exist, and should the criticism be substantiated, would give some credibility and substance to their attacks.

Regards.
Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Another post I did not want to make

I want to start by saying to Alex that this is another post that I would not have made if he had left me out of his newsletter.

I have previously addressed the “sponsorship” allegations and have no interest in going back over that except to say that I have never been “given free equipment”. I have been loaned 2 rebreathers which I don't own and can't sell and one of them is currently not in my possession. It (the evo) was needed to train Rolex Underwater Scholars (a fantastic cause supported by APD) and that is where it is because it does not belong to me.

As Paul R says, there is a lot of absolute rubbish in this newsletter and it is hopeless trying to debate these people point by point. It is, however, an appropriate time for a "broader brush" reply. Alex spends a lot of time critiquing my motivation for debating him on various matters relating to the Apoc. Diver safety is the only reason for my continued interest. Years ago I found errors in the approach he was taking to CO2 monitoring and his intended interpretation of the numbers, and given my relevant expertise in the field I pointed it out. The result has been a wall of denial and attempts to discredit me. Thankfully we are at a point (largely because of the RBW archives being opened) where the effect of the debates on the evolution on Alex’s rebreather cannot be hidden and are a matter of clear public record. Consider:

1. The method of CO2 measurement

Please read this explanation of how Alex was planning to monitor CO2 in his rebreather in August 2009.

Alex Deas said:
http://www.rebreatherworld.com/dive-medicine/27800-discussion-co2-monitoring-split-another-apoc-12.html

The end of exhale is the peak CO2 reading. The OR rebreathers measure end of exhale gas by measuring the peak exhaled gas, using dual channel IR, at the end of a (very short) exhale hose.

The way this works in the OR rebreathers is as follows:
The respiratory rate is measured in the ALVBOV mouthpiece by a fast response thermal sensor connected to the PFD. That data is sent by telemetry to the CO2 monitor, so the period over which it is searching for the peak matches the breathing interval, with the correction for the amount of clean gas introduced into the hose by the rising edge of the exhale waveform: this is the same amount as the volume weighted average inspired CO2 because the mechanism is the same. The monitor then finds the peak within that interval.
There followed a long and protracted argument in which I (and others) pointed out that there was a danger that exhaled anatomical and mouthpiece dead space gas could dilute the true “end of exhale” CO2 obtained at the end of the exhale hose even if the peak was correctly identified as described. In response, we were told we did not understand physiology. It all went quiet for a while, and then almost a year and a half after the original debate the following appeared. Don’t worry if you don’t exactly understand it, but do compare it to the description above:
Deep Life Fault Study Report 14 March 2011 said:
http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/Fault_Study_CO2_Bypass_110314.pdf

The Deep Life CO2 monitor computes a peak end of exhale CO2 from:
1. Direct measurement of the volume weighted mean expired CO2 at the scrubber inlet, minute average O2 flow and respiratory rate
2. Determination of RMV from N x surface minute volume of oxygen metabolised +2, where at the surface, N is 26.6 on the surface (sic)
3. Calculation of the tidal volume, as tidal volume = RMV/RR
4. Conversion of the mean CO2 to peak exhaled CO2 by a linear transform correcting for dead space using tidal volume
Thus, if tidal volume > 300ml then:
End of exhale CO2 = mean CO2 x tidal volume / ((tidal volume – 0.230) x 2)
This is a completely different method to the one originally described, debated, and vigorously defended (initially anyway) by Alex in 2009. Alex argued bitterly that his method was correct, but then changed it to try to circumvent the problem we had pointed out. We still await data to tell us whether he has succeeded.

2. The CO2 bailout limits chosen for use in the Apoc

In response to a question about how he was going to incorporate the CO2 readings into his auto bailout algorithm, Alex said:
Alex Deas said:
http://www.rebreatherworld.com/dive-medicine/27800-discussion-co2-monitoring-split-another-apoc-17.html

I have stated these many times before. A PPCO2 of 6kPa triggers a warning, and 6.5kPa triggers bail out.
To which I replied:

Simon Mitchell said:
http://www.rebreatherworld.com/dive-medicine/27800-discussion-co2-monitoring-split-another-apoc-18.html

I will comment more on this later, but these numbers are too low. You will be warning divers virtually all the time and bailing them out frequently.
As with the configuration of the CO2 monitoring system there was considerable debate around this in which I developed the theme that the limits were too low. For example, an entire thread was dedicated to the subject on RBW:

http://www.rebreatherworld.com/open-revolution-rebreather/29974-end-tidal-co2-limits-apoc-co2.html

A short while later an interim version of the Apoc manual appeared in which the story had changed dramatically. The relevant section read:

Apoc Manual interim edition said:
“If you exceed an end of breath PPCO2 of 7%SEV the ALBOV Diver Display will warn you, and if you exceed 8% SEV the Apocalypse ALBOV gives you a CO2 warning then bails you out. “
The limits had been revised upward, but too far in my opinion (for reasons I outline below). So on 18 April 2011 I sent a personal email to Alex which said:

Simon Mitchell personal message to Alex Deas 18 April 2011 said:
“Whilst I advocated that you raise the warning and bailout thresholds for CO2 from where they were, if you are going to use 8kPa as the bailout threshold you must be absolutely confident that your monitor is very accurate across the range of relevant tidal volumes. You must remember that Dan Warkander’s correlations between end tidal CO2 and diver performance (which led to his recommended upper limit of 8kPa) were made by measuring true end tidal CO2 at the mouth. Your device must be as accurate as his measurements if you are going to use this limit. Personally I think 7.5 might be safer. It is still a high and significant figure (so not really a false positive if the diver is bailed out at that level) and it gives you a little room for inaccuracy before incapacitation is likely to occur.

A matter of weeks later, the current version of the manual was released and the relevant section (page 64) now reads:

Apoc manual current edition released May 2011 said:
If you exceed an end of breath exhaled PPCO2 of 6.5% SEV the ALBOV Diver Display will warn you, and if you exceed 7.5% SEV the Apocalypse ALBOV gives you a CO2 warning then bails you out.
Thus, after starting with CO2 bailout limits that were too low (but vigorously defended nevertheless), Alex revised them up (too far) and eventually the CO2 bailout limit was revised to exactly what I recommended.

To summarise this: Alex has argued with me (and others) in a manner that has descended into outright bitterness on two major issues in relation to his rebreather, and despite all the arguing, he has subsequently taken actions (clearly and indisputably documented here) that show that I (and others) were exactly right. As I noted at the start of this post, he questions my motivation for participating in these debates. Maybe he should reflect on the fact that these debates appear to have prevented him making at least two major mistakes in the configuration of his rebreather. In that regard, and in his haste to try to link me with APD and VR, he could also reflect on the fact that the only rebreather manufacturer ever to receive and implement any design advice from me is him.

Simon M
 

·
You think I know nothing....and I do!!
Joined
·
562 Posts
Ian,

Your question is being directed to the wrong party.

If DL/OSEL really believed there was any substance to their criticism of rEVO compliance because of dodgy practises by RINA (my interpretation of Newsletter 17) than their concerns should be raised with the party which audits RINA compliance with its certifying obligations.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rEVO, or gives rise to any need for Paul to defend himself or his products. Wordsmithing around 2003 versus pr2010 compliance is an equally irrelevant practical issue for most divers.

DL/OSEL I believe tried a similar attack against APD certification compliance which proved baseless (there are opposing press releases from APD and OSEL about the outcome for those that are interested).

At its most simple. this issue is analogous to the "does the CO2 monitoring work" debate. Should the solution not work, it will be DL/OSEL certification auditors who will be in the gun as much as the manufacturer. I am much less forgiving on this point than Simon Mitchell, ignorance or lack of experience with novel technologies would be no excuse for a failure to have performed their duties competently.

I am still struggling to understand why an organisation which has invested so much time and effort in bringing (some) product to market would continue to pursue public attacks (like the rEVO one) which are so patently flawed and counter-productive. Private avenues of complaint must exist, and should the criticism be substantiated, would give some credibility and substance to their attacks.

Regards.
Tony
Steve, Tony...

Fair enough guys, I fully concur with your points.

Why produce a newsletter larger than 'War and Peace', specifically aimed at discrediting competitors CE pointlessly?

Why continually go against the likes of Simon Mitchell (see post below) in such a vehemant way?

As Simon appears to be taking the effort to discredit the contents of the newsletter (and he seems to have a pretty bulletproof response below), what I would like is to see the other manufacturers do the same on the subject of CE.

That would be proof positive and expose the claims for what they are. If the newsletter author is taking these newletters down to this level it does send out a certain message that I dont like. No one other than the newsletter author is shooting from the hip. I own a unit that I was told had a gazzillion hours of manned testing and would be a top quality product, but despite the words in the last newsletter to the contrary, my experience with faults on the rig and returns to the supplier tend to say otherwise.

As an aside, the other thing that concern's me is some 'odd' statements concerning the faults by OSEL, I have been party to four of these faults...and their tendancy to indirectly cast 'blame' on the user is unnerving, and untrue.

From an entirely selfish perspective I have money on the line here, and I am not entirely sure now that I want to part with further monies to OSEL for the iCCR electronics package on the basis of what I read on these newsletters, and thier tendancy to distort things to their own ends.

For me, OSEL's 'credibility' is crumbling....and for my part I want to see proof positive that they are talking bollox on Pauls CE certification......for me, that would be the final nail in the coffin.
 

·
Portland dive charter
Joined
·
595 Posts
Moley. I'd point you in the direction of a third party (if you don't believe in conspiracy theory here) post from Mark Powell. Either you accept that a certain standard is unachievable, as written, and go with the accepted alternative that everyone else believes is reasonable for real World use or, having read every line and taken it as Gospel, decide that you will certify a process rather than an actual real World device and go for a bunch of PDF's that tell you how a device will work but never actually produce it whilst slagging off others who have put their reputation and money on the line (rather then Scottish development funds provided by gullible Scots MEP's on the basis of manufacturing brought to the Highlands) or you believe someone whose credibility is lower than a Dachshunds testicles. Hardly amazing that credible suppliers fail to respond isn't it?

You really couldn't make this up. I have been on the outside watching this in amazement. The only thing left is for the factory to burn down now for yet another excuse as to why they have not yet delivered.
 

·
bored
Joined
·
2,308 Posts
The major problem with any certification issue, is that the product frequently gets overlooked in a desperate push to get the paperwork correct.

Sometimes the paperwork is made to suit the product.

Sometimes the product gets a certification mark with the assumption that it will just be accepted and never checked (China used to be good at this).

A couple of rebreathers are on the market that are alleged to have validity issues over their certification( I`ve been diving one of them for nearly six years), another has certification coming out of its ears; but nobody has actually seen one.

Certificates mean a lot, at the end of the day you can always wipe your arse with it; can somebody advise me the best way to clean excreta off a pdf?
 
1 - 20 of 219 Posts
Top