Apocalypse Rebreather

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

... you can't argue with the simple philosophy in CCR, laypeople will injure themselves more when they rely on automation...

Yup, driving on the highways has never been the same since all those idiots with automatic transmissions in their cars started killing themselves left and right.

... You know why we'll never have flying cars? Because most people can barely drive in 2 dimensions. Adding a 3rd would be mass chaos...

Wait, didn't you just argue that it's the simplified view of what your doing due to automation that's causing problems and the task loading of more options/control that's keeping people alive? :idk:
 
i think there are pros and cons to both mCCR and eCCR but this statement above is a classic straw man fallacy.

I don't see how you can argue with the statement that if people rely on automation too much that they increase their chances of fatal mistake. Maybe if people stopped trying to sell eCCR's as "safer" fewer folks would meet their end on them. There is no evidence that the "safety net" concept holds any water and yet it's the thrust of many a salesman's rap. eCCR's are somewhat more convenient, but I don't think you can say they are safer. My guess is that the same would apply to an automated BOV.

I assume that whatever rebreather I'm diving is the most dangerous out there and that seems to be to be the "safest" approach, IMHO. Don't trust yourself or your rig not matter what style you go with, cross check, cross check, cross check...

g
 
Last edited:
I don't see how you can argue with the statement that if people rely on automation too much that they increase their chances of fatal mistake.

nobody has shown that automation increases the chances of a fatal mistake, so i dont accept the premise of your statement. a large percentage of CCR deaths are thought to be due to diver error. if automation removes the opportunity for error than it certainly could reduce the incidence of error. so again, i think you are making an unproven assertion of an opinion as fact. now whether you feel that a certain approach to automation is good or bad in any given unit is an entirely different matter altogether.
 
nobody has shown that automation increases the chances of a fatal mistake, so i dont accept the premise of your statement. a large percentage of CCR deaths are thought to be due to diver error. if automation removes the opportunity for error than it certainly could reduce the incidence of error. so again, i think you are making an unproven assertion of an opinion as fact. now whether you feel that a certain approach to automation is good or bad in any given unit is an entirely different matter altogether.

If you are suggesting that we should only go with what is proven then we should probably avoid making any conclusions at all and even steer clear of rebreathers entirely. There are very few, hardly any, proven statements about rebreather design and safety. Without proof either way, we are left to debate and speculate in the automation vs manual debate. I accept that speculation is required in making such choices and do the best I can with the information I have been able to put together to make educated choices about this somewhat experimental field.

It is my observation that automation does lead some folks to be more sloppy, myself included, increasing the likelyhood of diver error across the board. I'm not suggesting this is true for everyone, but when you are talking about a rebreather for the masses, I'd have to side with a simple system that requires the diver to be engaged. Requiring the diver to be engaged, I have observed, has an effect on a wide range of behaviors. What I think there is even less evidence to support is the marketing hype and claims about safety and automation... for quite a while and still even some today, people, particularly distributors, argue that automation makes rebreathers safer even though the body count is disproportionately higher on eCCR's.

The recreational version of the apocolypse is based on the premise that automation in injection of o2 is inappropriate for all but the most disciplined divers. It will be interesting to see if automation in the BOV doesn't play out in the same manner or simply show to not be much of a value over a more simple "manual" BOV. None of us have a crystal ball, we'll just have to see. After starting out on a system that did practically everything for me, I now prefer the control that manual addition of both o2 and dill gives me, mainly because simple systems are easier to service in the field.

I am reluctant to see the apocolypse as anything more than just another mCCR. It appears to me that it's trying to improve on what is already a relatively slim margin of fatalities... that is of course assuming it ever comes to market. Honestly, the most revolutionary thing about it is the intent to mass market it at a relatively low price. If it ever gets off the ground it could still rock the world of this boutique industry.

Yup, driving on the highways has never been the same since all those idiots with automatic transmissions in their cars started killing themselves left and right.
ne_nau.gif

I know it's tempting to compare the effect that automation may have on a diver diving a CCR to that of an automatic transmission on a driver of a car, but there really is no comparison. The closest thing I can think of would be cruise control, but even that defaults back to the operator at the slightest tap on the break or accelerator.

the question in my mind is whether an "auto" BOV would kick in at inappropriate times or if the added complexity of it might make it more prone to not working when you need it to.

g
 
Brad, you can't argue with the simple philosophy in CCR, laypeople will injure themselves more when they rely on automation. Thats what this is target at right? The layperson? I don't think as many apoc divers will know the status of their rig.

That is true, but the operation of the Apoc in closed circuit isn't automated in the least, it very much needs driving by the diver.
The only bit thats automated is the parachute to open circuit and if you take off the PPo2 POD in air the oxygen cell calibration when exposed to light.

If the diver doesn't know the status of their rig, I would be looking at the quality of training they have received as that issue will be unit generic.

But you are also taught to conserve bailout and stay on the loop when possible, you know that.
You were taught to stay on the loop when its not safe to breathe due to PPo2 either too high or too low, CO2 greater then the recommended safe %SEV or lack of Helium in the loop when deeper?

You should be commended for your loyalty to the project. I really hope I am wrong, and the unit is a success, and that it promotes and increases rebreather safety. That would be great for the industry. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to man up and apologize. But I don't think I am. Only time will tell.
If another rebreather manufacturer spent the same amount of dosh and did the same depth of research across the commercial, military and recreational range I would look elsewhere but from what I know currently there isn't much else. Looking at the design thoughts behind the unit and its engineering backed up by independent formal testing with published certification as opposed to just a good ole boy has dived it and says it works fine.

That said if ISC manage to get their Mk28 accepted into USN service for saturation use and offer a unit with the same design and certification to the public that could be interesting.

My personal opinion is DL is putting too much faith in the technology and forgetting about the human elements, and thats what will cause problems. And not for the few reasons I can come up with, but for the hundreds of reasons we haven't thought of yet.
Now this is something that could make for an interesting point of discussion. If DL were not publishing openly their testing involving the human elements FMECAs etc I would fully agree with you. I have also been involved in the manned testing so I do have a skewed view. That said should anyone cease R&D due to unknown unknowns or isn't that the reason for doing R&D in the first place! I know for a fact that some of the R&D DL have done has led to some very interesting findings about RB design which are incorporated in the Apoc despite its low price.

Look at a micro point in that all CCRs use oxygen cells. DL put 8 years into studying oxygen cells and found a heap of design faults that the current ones exhibited when used in CCRs. Deep Life Ltd: Selected Design Validation Reports for Open Revolution Rebreathers
Simply by specifying oxygen cells that avoid the issues they identified their use of technology should benefit the diver and for that matter other rebreather manufacturers.
  • look at the head of the Titan eCCR and compare the oxygen cells and infrastructure with an Apoc there are a lot of similarities though IIRC the Titan oxygen cells still have onboard temp compensation rather then this being done by better quality elecs in the rebreather pod.
  • look at the new DR Optima DSV and compare the bore of that with the ALVBOV!

And the main problem which makes many people become 'detractors,' is because of the captain of your ship and his credibility. Alex Deas - Why we have a hard time believing his claims
Not my fight, but fascinating what some rebreather manufacturers publish instead of disclosing the performance details of their rebreathers in verifiable detail isn't it!

What I think there is even less evidence to support is the marketing hype and claims about safety and automation... for quite a while and still even some today, people, particularly distributors, argue that automation makes rebreathers safer even though the body count is disproportionately higher on eCCR's.

The recreational version of the apocolypse is based on the premise that automation in injection of o2 is inappropriate for all but the most disciplined divers.
Further on the automation with injection of O2 as I understand it, DL didn't go down the path of using solenoids for oxygen supply in any of their designs as they couldn't get them certified as functionally safe if they did so, with EN61508 certification which they have being a core requirement of EN14143 currently.

It will be interesting to see if automation in the BOV doesn't play out in the same manner or simply show to not be much of a value over a more simple "manual" BOV. None of us have a crystal ball, we'll just have to see. After starting out on a system that did practically everything for me, I now prefer the control that manual addition of both o2 and dill gives me, mainly because simple systems are easier to service in the field. I am reluctant to see the apocolypse as anything more than just another mCCR.
I agree with you on this in that the Apoc really is just a mCCR in essence though one with the extra safety features required for CE certification and Co2 monitoring etc.
It really won't suit a diver who just wants to throw it on, race through the pre-dive setup and go diving with the unit doing everything for him.

The value in the BOV isn't really the auto-bailout, though thats a nice to have. Its the design features of the ALVBOV compared to other BOVs:
  • Lower WOB then any other BOV currently available.
  • OC reg is high enough performance to dive on par with a standard Apeks 2nd stage and isn't just there as an intermediate bailout step.
  • Self shutting when removed from mouth > anyone forgotten to shut a DSV when talking on the surface!
  • Integrated crown strap so no need for FFM.
  • Super short and stretchy loop hoses.
  • Neutral in water and out of divers view.
  • Manual dil addition is retained muscle memory as its the reg purge button.
That it can be bought CE certified off the shelf by itself to fit to other units for about the same price as other BOVs does make me wonder if anyone will bother copying it.
I figure some clever rebreather diving entrepreneur will just crop up supplying adapters to retrofit it to other units such as someone has done I note on their Boris. Without the electronics that the iCCR unit has and the right adapters it would just seem to be a plug and play mod making it a very easy way of improving any rebreathers performance and possibly diver safety.

It appears to me that it's trying to improve on what is already a relatively slim margin of fatalities... that is of course assuming it ever comes to market. Honestly, the most revolutionary thing about it is the intent to mass market it at a relatively low price. If it ever gets off the ground it could still rock the world of this boutique industry.
Not sure if 18-20 rebreather fatalities odd a year could be called exactly slim. That said being able to tell my wife that I am diving a unit that seems to mitigate most of the risks and or doesn't at least have certain well known design flaws is useful.

The price comparison is interesting even though they have gradually raised it over time. One can see how the industry has responded even before its been shipped, so it will be very interesting to see the reaction with it readily available to compare against current gen CCRs.
It seems to also not just be the actual Apoc where there is a difference in prices but consumables as well, as I note that Add Helium are currently having a sale on EACs that appears to still be more expensive then OSEL have them listed for in USD.

Regards
Brad
 
If you are suggesting that we should only go with what is proven then we should probably avoid making any conclusions at all and even steer clear of rebreathers entirely. There are very few, hardly any, proven statements about rebreather design and safety. Without proof either way, we are left to debate and speculate in the automation vs manual debate. I accept that speculation is required in making such choices and do the best I can with the information I have been able to put together to make educated choices about this somewhat experimental field.

I agree, which is why I didn't agree with your earlier statement about automation increasing fatal errors. There is a lot of evidence from other fields involving mission-critical and life support systems that automation can and does improve safety - life support systems, airplanes, trains, medical devices, etc. One problem with this recurring debate is that we speak of "automation" as if it were a single discrete entity when it takes varied and evolving forms. Personally, I believe increased automation and improved safety systems, along with improved diver training is the best hope for decreasing rebreather deaths in the future.

I also find it amusing when people speak of increased availability of rebreathers to the general diving public as if it were going to be the end of the world. It's not as if the rebreather community is a bunch of highly skilled fighter pilots. Personally, i've noticed plenty of old, out of shape, odd, weird, and just plain dumb people among the rebreather community - and thats not to say that I am anything special, but rather to point out that the rebreather community isn't the precious elite community of divers that its members would like to view themselves as.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what advances are made technology wise in the years ahead.
 
...

Not sure if 18-20 rebreather fatalities odd a year could be called exactly slim.
...
Regards
Brad

I believe for the apoc to be an improvement over other mCCR's, it would have to show at least better outcomes than the small margine of the handful of total mCCR deaths to date (5?). That said, if the apoc were just as good as the average mCCR, but had mass appeal, that would probably still be an improvement over giving a fully automated set point controller CCR to the masses.

I agree, which is why I didn't agree with your earlier statement about automation increasing fatal errors. There is a lot of evidence from other fields involving mission-critical and life support systems that automation can and does improve safety - life support systems, airplanes, trains, medical devices, etc. ...

Automation is not a bad thing per say, it really comes down to a specific application and whether it's net effect on behavior is a step forward or backward. If you want to talk about applications that are truly an apples to apples comparison look at the modern medical world, where the vast majority of hours on rebreathers are clocked on manual injection anesthesia machines in surgery. My father in law who uses one every day at work, can wax poetic about why the medical world has stayed with a manual system in this particular application, it forces the operator to be in the drivers seat and when something goes wrong, he's very practiced at taking control of the situation.

An automated BOV may fall into the same group as a HUD, deco computer and the other amenities we have grown accustom to adding to mCCR's already (things that some mCCR purists denounced early on), without the effect of leading some to relax their overall vigilance too much, time will tell.

the realm of cognitive ergonomics, if applied to rebreathers, might help us ascertain how an added safety mechanism would mesh with and effect trends in human behavior before an application goes to market and is essentially tested on the end user, helping us guage when and where automation is a good thing. Perhaps that level of sophistication has been applied in APOC design. IMHO, the relationships are unintuitive and illusive in the field of rebreathers, where the intended and logical effects are often not the actual effects in practice.

g

I am only attempting to speculate about safety and rebreather design, everyone has to come to their own conclusions.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom