Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

> 
> Seriously, though, my only point was this:  You can have new technology,
> or 3.5 million hours of testing, but not both.  The value of the testing
> is in finding failure points.  There is a diminishing returns at some
> point where you no longer find new failure points, and only get a more and
> more accurate idea of failure *rates*.  Now, when you have this
> information (failure points and rates of failure), then the smart thing to
> do is correct the failure points which have the highest frequency
> (balanced against some measure of cost of failure) by re-designing the
> relavent components. Once you've re-designed them, though, the "testing
> hours" clock gets reset to zero for those components in the system.  So,
> either the CCR500 is exactly the same as the CCR1000 (3.5 million hours of
> testing, but old technology), or the most frequent failure points have
> been re-designed (new technology, but considerably less than 3.5 million
> hours of testing). Again, you can't have it both ways. 
> 
> I guess my only suggestion is, instead of saying things like "every 
> component has had more than 3.5 million hours of testing" (as I think was 
> an assertion made at the start of this thread), you should say something 
> like "is the latest in the BioMarine line of rebreathers, which 
> collectively have on the order of 3.5 million hours of testing".  That 
> way you can make the point that a lot of people have spent a lot of time 
> on the *predecessors* of the CCR500, and to a greater or lesser extent 
> the discoveries made during all that testing have gone into improving the 
> CCR500 design.  Presumably, then, the *wisdom* obtained from all that 
> testing has been transferred to the new design, with the incorporation of 
> the latest technology.

i thought that's what i/we were saying, i do clearly see how easily it
could appear to be looked at the other way tho.. i think you put it in
brilliantly..  really.



> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing these things up close & personal.  There 
> should be two Cis-Lunar Mk5's in Hawaii in August - maybe we can schedule 
> a session in the UH pool for some side-by-side comparisons?
> 

yeah, it will be great.. alot of fun, i love the looks on the divers faces
when they get out of the water.. it's even better when they realize at
that moment that the "ride is over".  the part i won't look forward to is
 when you swim up to all of the divers under water and tell them all to
turn upside down, or float head down... :-)



> > I can't believe you even brought this up... either one
> > of you...  and one more point, for everyone out there.. this ccr stuff is
> > not magic, it't not even that complicated, so let's stop trying to make
> > everyone that doesn't have a unit think that we are smarter or better than
> > they are.. anyone out there could (and will) dive one easily.
> 
> What's your point, and who are you addressing it to?


don't want to point fingers rich, but i'd put me on the list to start
with, i
think in the begining i may have given the impression that all of this was
more complicated than it really is.. yes it's not scuba, it's more
complicated in many ways, but as you said it's not rocket science".  Rod
has been the best here, always explaining that it was fairly simple stuff,
and marty snyderman as well. 


> 
> > i don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but i do not, and will not ever,
> > understand why anyone would build a semiclosed unit..  if anyone buys
> > one of these units they will be trying to trade it or sell it so they can
> > get a fully closed unit..  it's happening already...
> 
> I imagine that people would opt for a SCR (at least a passive-addition
> system like the Odessey) because they don't want to put in the amount of
> training required to become disciplined enough to consistently stay alive
> on a fully-closed unit.  I agree in basic principle with you on the SCR -
> except for being quieter, I 'm not sure I see the advantages over a set
of
> double nitrox cylinders.  However, don't underestimate the amount of
> dedication it takes to consistently stay alive on a fully closed unit. 
> The fundamental reason why they require more discipline is that you can
> more easily die before you realize anything is wrong. Furthermore, you're
> more likely to go hypoxic on a SCR in shallow water, whereas you are more
> likely to go hypoxic on a CCR in *deep* water. Also, you only go hyperoxic
> on an SCR if you exceed the depth limits.  You can go hyperoxic on a CCR
> at any depth greater than about 20 feet.  No, it's not a magic carpet, and
> it's not rocket science.  But it sure as hell isn't scuba diving either. 
> 

could this amount of "dedication it takes to consistently stay alive on a
fully closed unit" be somewhat limited to the complexity of your cis
lunar?


dp



> Rich
> 

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]