Scuba Forum / General / April 2006
Equipment recommendations
|
|
Thread rating:  |
sytech@yahoo.com - 04 Apr 2006 13:36 GMT Was wondering if I could get some recommendations for a regulator and a gauge to purchase.
Something that is considered to be good quality and in the mid-price range.
Any recommendations will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Sy
Lee Bell - 04 Apr 2006 15:04 GMT > Was wondering if I could get some recommendations for a regulator and a > gauge to purchase. Something that is considered to be good quality and in > the mid-price > range. Any recommendations will be appreciated. Personally, I suggest you think about quality first and price second. Not saying you're not, just trying to keep things focused on what is important.
You should chose a high performance regulator with a brand name you know, that is common in the area where you live and where you will be diving. Most people have their regulators serviced annually. It's a lot easier to handle that if it can be done locally than if your regulator has to be sent out once a year. Most warrantees require it. When traveling to dive, sometimes things don't work just right. A regulator that can be serviced where you might be diving will save you from some problems like you have already experienced with rental equipment.
Some warrantees cover parts required for annual service. Be sure to factor service and parts into your overall purchase decision.
I probably have a half dozen or so regulators. Most of them are older US Divers regulators, all of which have given me very good service over a lot of years. They don't seem to be favored by today's more advanced divers, but their history suggests you would not go wrong with any of their high performance models.
My current regulator is a Scuba Pro. Scuba Pro regulators have been among the top rated regulators for quite a few years. I'm not sure they qualify as mid priced, but I am sure they qualify as quality. At least consider them in your regulator decision.
You're going to get recommendations for Apex/Apeks (I can never figure which is which). They have an excellent reputation here and in Europe, particularly among those that dive in water cold enough to worry about freeze ups. last I remember, they were reasonably priced and highly regarded. If I had to guess, I would guess you'll wind up with one of them, but that's only a guess. I don't use them. My opinion is based entirely on what I've heard from others.
Aside from the brand, there are a few things worth keeping in mind: 1. Consider where you will dive. If it's cold water, your choice is likely to be different. 2. Consider the configuration you'll prefer. Some of us here, including me, experimented with elements of a configuration known as DIR (Doing It Right). It's a tech oriented configuration that includes things like a primary on a 5-7 foot hose (routed differently) and an alternate second stage attached under the chin by a bungee or similar necklace arrangement. I'm not currently using the long hose, but I did retain the necklaced alternate. In an emergency, I will use the alternate and donate the primary (same if I were using the longer primary hose). Do some research on the DIR system before you buy. You may want to chose equipment that works well with it, a smaller sized alternate, for example. 3. No matter what second stages you chose, go for a high performance first stage. If you have to share gas with someone, chances are that both you and the other diver will be breathing heavily. Make sure your first stage can handle to heavy breathing divers at depth. 4. Do not let anyone talk you into buying a high quality first stage and a low quality alternate. Remember, the alternate will be used in emergencies. When can it possibly be more important to have a good regulator than in an emergency. If you adopt at least part of the DIR equipment configuration, you'll be using that alternate while someone else uses your primary. Think about that.
As for gauges, I recommend a computer. More specifically, I recommend a nitrox capable computer. Chances are good that, eventually, you'll use nitrox for most of your dives. You can save money later, by getting the computer you'll want then, now. I like Aeries, Oceanic and Genesis. I prefer the round ones that look a bit like a hockey puck, in a standard size. The standard round ones are not only less expensive, they are more versatile. They'll fit in pretty much any console or wrist mount. If you do with one of these computers, consider spending the money for one with two buttons rather than a one button model (which both of mine are). They don't work any better during the dive, but the second button makes selecting options, changing nitrox blends, etc. a lot easier.
Like many experienced divers, I don't care for air integrated computers. I prefer to use a contents gauge to monitor gas and a computer to monitor other aspects of my dive. You may feel differently. If you do go for an air integrated model, pay particular attention to the conditions under which the computer shows you various information. Some will display remaining time based on what the computer considers most critical, some will alternate displays during the dive and some will let you chose what you want to see, when. Make sure you understand what will be displayed and what it means before you buy. It's too late once you've made your purchase.
I do not like Suunto computers. Their algorithm is too conservative for my taste and they way most of them handle nitrox is, in my opinion, a good reason to buy something else. If you consider one, please spend some time to understand how their PPO2 and MOD calculations vary from what other computers show under the same conditions and how they calculate O2 and N2 limits when you reach PPO2s above 1.4 ata. I've been told the Vytec (sp?) uses a different, better algorithm than other Suunto models.
One last note on computers. Give some thought to how you'll mount a computer when deciding what to purchase. I already mentioned that the ones I have are very flexible. They'll fit in the standard gauge hole in pretty much any console and in a commonly available, and inexpensive, wrist mount. A few years ago, when I had a high pressure leak in my own equipment, it was a simple matter to pop my computer out of the console, put it into a wrist mount and use the contents gauge from the backup regulator I take on trips. You can't generally do that with an air integrated computer or, for that matter, with one that isn't a standard shape and size. Generally speaking, if you start a series of dives, in a day, or over several days, with a computer, you need to continue to dive with that same computer. If you can't, the general rule is to sit out for 24 hours before diving with gauges or a different computer. If I had not been able to move my computer when I swapped my contents gauge, I would have spend a day of very expensive dive travel, watching others do what I paid to do.
Good luck in your search for equipment. When it's all said and done, please let us know what you chose and why.
Lee
Michael Wolf - 04 Apr 2006 17:44 GMT <snip some very good recommendation>
> You're going to get recommendations for Apex/Apeks (I can never figure which > is which). They have an excellent reputation here and in Europe, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but that's only a guess. I don't use them. My opinion is based entirely on > what I've heard from others. Well, I own a couple of Apeks ATX100s and I'm extremely satisfied with them. I use them in more 'challenging' circumstances (you know: cold, deep, dark, currents...) and their performance has always been very good.
They're sturdy, high-quality regulators which are mid (and sometimes even low) priced, so a very good choice.
 Signature Michael Wolf
-----
Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil?
remove stopspam to reply
Lee Bell - 04 Apr 2006 18:56 GMT >> You're going to get recommendations for Apex/Apeks (I can never figure >> which is which). They have an excellent reputation here and in Europe, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They're sturdy, high-quality regulators which are mid (and sometimes even > low) priced, so a very good choice. I knew someone would recommend them. I suspect you're only the first. If I were in the market for another regulator, I suspect I'd look closely at what Apeks has to offer.
Lee
-hh - 04 Apr 2006 21:10 GMT > > Well, I own a couple of Apeks ATX100s and I'm extremely satisfied with > > them. I use them in more 'challenging' circumstances (you know: cold, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > were in the market for another regulator, I suspect I'd look closely at what > Apeks has to offer. I'd also look at Apeks.
Two years ago, I was out diving locally with a buddy who had them, and in his drybox he had a dial pressure gage that had an LP quick release fitting on it. Marv popped the gage onto my LP hose and asked me to watch the gage while taking a couple of hits from my regulator (a ScubaPro Mk15 balanced first stage) and predictably enough, the system's Intermediate Pressure (IP) dropped down & rebounded with each breath taken. He then hooked it up to his system (sorry...I'm not sure which Apeks model) & repeated: on his system, the IP didn't budge.
-hh
Lee Bell - 04 Apr 2006 23:55 GMT > I'd also look at Apeks.
> Two years ago, I was out diving locally with a buddy who had them, and > in his drybox he had a dial pressure gage that had an LP quick release [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > breath taken. He then hooked it up to his system (sorry...I'm not sure > which Apeks model) & repeated: on his system, the IP didn't budge. No, no, no. You don't know anything about physics. What you describe is impossible. Just ask Bob.
Lee
Charlie Hammond - 05 Apr 2006 15:11 GMT ..
>Two years ago, I was out diving locally with a buddy who had them, and >in his drybox he had a dial pressure gage that had an LP quick release [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >breath taken. He then hooked it up to his system (sorry...I'm not sure >which Apeks model) & repeated: on his system, the IP didn't budge. [I do not like ScubaPro's business practices, so it pains me a bit to "defend" them, but, in this case, there is a bogus implication.]
A drop in IP when inhaling from the 2nd stage is normal.
Without knowing how this particular ScubaPro Mk15 balanced first stage acts when it is properly set and working properly, it is not possible to tell anything from this information. You would have to know how much it drops right after servicing/adjusting, and how much it drops today. If the drop in IP has increased, this may indicate a need for service.
Another use of this IP gauge is to check the static IP (when not breathing). It should be in the required/specified range -- usually around 125-150 PSI -- and it should stay the same from a full cylinder (3000 PSI or whatever) right down to 2-300 PSI in the cylinder.
Use of an IP gauge for this sort of checking can be one way to tell when your SCUBA needs to be serviced.
 Signature Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
-hh - 05 Apr 2006 18:43 GMT Charlie writes:
> A drop in IP when inhaling from the 2nd stage is normal. Agreed. To go a small step further, a drop in IP is effectively required, since it is by pressure differential that the demand valve is opened for flow to occur.
> Without knowing how this particular ScubaPro Mk15 balanced first stage > acts when it is properly set and working properly, it is not possible > to tell anything from this information. You would have to know how > much it drops right after servicing/adjusting, and how much it drops > today. If the drop in IP has increased, this may indicate a need > for service. Agreed. But what does it mean when "no" pressure drop occurs, yet there is flow?
I think the implication is that the valve is very much on a "knife edge" balance in terms of being able to open/close with very little change in IP. Could have been below the effective resolution of the gage. It also probably implies that the demand valve's flow rate capability is very high, as it is able to remain 'rock solid' steady, despite varation in the 2nd stage's draw rate.
Overall, do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that when all other factors are equal when comparing 1st stages that whichever one undergoes a smaller IP drop for a given demand flow is, for this one measure, the "better" performing regulator?
Granted, there are other factors in play, such as maximum total flow capability, but just this one factor isolated by itself for purposes of a philisophical performance comparison.
> Another use of this IP gauge is to check the static IP (when not breathing). > It should be in the required/specified range -- usually around 125-150 PSI -- > and it should stay the same from a full cylinder (3000 PSI or whatever) > right down to 2-300 PSI in the cylinder. Which I believe is why Marv happens to carry one. FWIW, I know that the IP is *not* externally adjustable on my Mk15, but it is on at least one other ScubaPro model. I don't know if the IP capable of external adjustment on (some/all) of the Apeks.
-hh
Lee Bell - 05 Apr 2006 20:46 GMT > Agreed. But what does it mean when "no" pressure drop occurs, yet > there is flow? It either means that the port where the pressure gauge is connected is isolated from the source of the flow, that the pressure gauge is not functioning properly or that the pressure gauge is not sensitive enough to detect the change. Given that the gauge worked with the Scuba Pro regulator, I conclude that it's not likely to be the second or third option, suggesting it is the first. Perhaps when the flow is trigged to the primary second stage, it is shut off to the inflation system. If you think about it, that's not a bad idea.
I think the implication is that the valve is very much on a "knife
> edge" balance in terms of being able to open/close with very little > change in IP. I think that's possible, but not very likely.
> Overall, do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that when all > other factors are equal when comparing 1st stages that whichever one > undergoes a smaller IP drop for a given demand flow is, for this one > measure, the "better" performing regulator? No. First, we don't know why the IP didn't change. Second, we don't know how the regulator will react to high volume demands or to thicker gas at greater depths, both of which are primary measures of a high performance regulator.
> Which I believe is why Marv happens to carry one. FWIW, I know that > the IP is *not* externally adjustable on my Mk15, but it is on at least > one other ScubaPro model. I don't know if the IP capable of external > adjustment on (some/all) of the Apeks. Yours is not, my Mk 20 is not, the Mk 25 is. I don't know for sure about Apeks, but I would guess that it is. As I recall, Apex is owned by the same company that owns US Divers and most, if not all, of their regulators have an externally adjustable IP.
Lee
Alan Street - 06 Apr 2006 02:47 GMT > Yours is not, my Mk 20 is not, the Mk 25 is. I don't know for sure about > Apeks, but I would guess that it is. As I recall, Apex is owned by the same > company that owns US Divers They're distributed in the USA by Aqualung/Seaquest, but I don't think they own Apeks
and most, if not all, of their regulators have
> an externally adjustable IP. Sort of. You have to remove the environmental diaphragm and end cap to get to the adjustment, which requires a pin spanner.
> Lee Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2006 04:22 GMT I can't swear to it, but I believe both Aqua Lung/US Divers and Apeks are owned by the same European company.
Lee _________________
Lee's Rule In any heated discussion, he or she who first resorts to name calling has run out of meaningful dialog and may be presumed to have lost the point.
> ? Yours is not, my Mk 20 is not, the Mk 25 is. I don't know for sure > about [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ? > ? mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 14:13 GMT > I can't swear to it, but I believe both Aqua Lung/US Divers and Apeks are > owned by the same European company. Air Liquide, the industrial gas producer, owns Aqua Lung International which in turn owns La Spirotechnique, Technisub, US Divers, Seaquest, Deep See, and Apeks.
Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2006 15:48 GMT >> I can't swear to it, but I believe both Aqua Lung/US Divers and Apeks are >> owned by the same European company.
> Air Liquide, the industrial gas producer, owns Aqua Lung International > which in turn owns La Spirotechnique, Technisub, US Divers, Seaquest, Deep > See, and Apeks. Thanks Mike. I found the relationship between Aqual Lung and Air Liquide without trouble, but could not quickly confirm that Apeks was part of the company too. Where'd you find the information?
Lee
mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 18:03 GMT >>>I can't swear to it, but I believe both Aqua Lung/US Divers and Apeks are >>>owned by the same European company. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without trouble, but could not quickly confirm that Apeks was part of the > company too. Where'd you find the information? Air Liquide corporate info, other sources.
Air Liquide held the original patents, manufactured, and distributed the Scaphandre Autonome which was designed and developed by Emile Gagnan.
Cousteau, son-in-law of an Air Liquide director, was salesman for the unit and became a director of the US subsidiary, US Divers, which operated under La Spirotechnique, sub of Air Liquide.
Aqua Lung International was later formed as a holding company for all Air Liquide diving activities. The name "Aqua Lung" was selected specifically for the US market and the early units were Canadian-made by Air Liquide Canada, run by Gagnan after emigrating from France at the end of the war.
Diving always was, and still is, a very tiny part of Air Liquide.
Phil Nuytten is doing a lot of research on Gagnan and has published a little of it. Hopefully, Nuytten's work will put Gagnan in the historical perspective he deserves.
Steve - 08 Apr 2006 07:16 GMT > Perhaps when the flow is trigged to the primary > second stage, it is shut off to the inflation system. If you think about > it, that's not a bad idea. I'm thinking about it, and I'm having a really hard time seeing why it would be a good idea. Seeing why it would be a bad idea is a lot easier. Maybe there's another way to do it, but I'm figuring it would essentially require a reg within the reg, thereby increasing complexity and maintenance requirements and introducing the possibility of a nasty failure mode. Assuming that the workmanship is so good that failure isn't a possibility and your LDS wouldn't dream of charging more for the extra labor during the overhaul, I'd imagine it would cause a problem when you and your OOA buddy decided that it would be nice if you could both breathe from the same reg without having to take turns. Am I missing something?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Lee Bell - 08 Apr 2006 12:20 GMT > I'd imagine it would cause a problem when you and your OOA buddy decided > that it would be nice if you could both > breathe from the same reg without having to take turns. Am I missing > something? Not missing, adding something that was not there. I said nothing about excluding a second second stage. I only addressed isolating non the low pressure inflator, the hose the pressur gauge was connected to. Two people breathing on one regulator is exactly the situation that made me think it might not be a bad idea. Providing full flow to two regulators rather than diverting part of the flow to BC inflation, etc.
I'm not sure it's mechanically practical, but if, in fact, the intermediate pressure measured at the low pressure inflator really didn't change at all, I'd say that someone not only found it practical, they put the idea to use.
Lee
Steve - 09 Apr 2006 05:06 GMT > Not missing, adding something that was not there. I said nothing about > excluding a second second stage. I only addressed isolating non the low > pressure inflator, the hose the pressur gauge was connected to. Two people > breathing on one regulator is exactly the situation that made me think it > might not be a bad idea. Providing full flow to two regulators rather than > diverting part of the flow to BC inflation, etc.
> I'm not sure it's mechanically practical As far as the mechanics, I think that excluding any number of ports other than all of them (which would obviously be silly) would require a second valve, and that just seems more complicated than is warranted. If you isolate a single port you introduce other problems, except perhaps for the DIR users. If one port becomes suitable only for the inflator hose you're eliminating, or at least complicating, variations in hose configuration. Will it work wih my left hand octo? It certainly won't work with an integrated octo unless the inflator is attached to a diferent port. That or a dual bladder BC eliminates the supposed benefit.
I'm a big fan of Darwin, but I don't see a need to add complexity and if it was my company I definitely wouldn't want to increase my liability exposure. What happens when somebody screws their octo into the wrong hole and finds out at a bad time? You could solve that one with an odd threading for the inflator hose, but that's probably an excellent plan to steer potential customers to the competition's regs. If two people are sharing air and need to get to the surface in a hurry, is that really a good time to turn off the up button? Perhaps the OOA diver's problems include being too negative, and it's bad time to increase task loading by having an inflator that only works intermittently.
If a 1st stage can't supply enough air for anything you might reasonably want to do, I think there's a much better solution than rationing the air that's delivered by that design. I can see a theoretical benefit, but not a realistic one.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Grumman-581 - 09 Apr 2006 06:51 GMT > I'm a big fan of Darwin, but I don't see a need to add complexity Darwin doesn't need any added complexity... He's able to do quite well without it...
Charlie Hammond - 05 Apr 2006 21:17 GMT ..
>I think the implication is that the [APEX 1st stage] valve is very much >on a "knife [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >capability is very high, as it is able to remain 'rock solid' steady, >despite varation in the 2nd stage's draw rate. Quite possible.
>Overall, do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that when all >other factors are equal when comparing 1st stages that whichever one >undergoes a smaller IP drop for a given demand flow is, for this one >measure, the "better" performing regulator? No. The diver never experiences the IP -- only the final ambiant pressure delivered by the 2nd stage. If the 2nd can deliver the rquired flow, a fluctuation in the IP is meaningless for performace purposes. However, if you know your reg's typcial IP and its variation when breathing, this can be an early indicator of problems.
In other words, this IP issue says NOTHING about the good or bad quality of Apex and/or ScubaPro regulators -- or any other brand.
Now do not miss-understand me -- a large variation of IP _may_ be associated with poor performance in some cases. But under normal circumstances you will NOT see a large variation with any quallity regulator that is in good condition.
 Signature Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
Danlw - 06 Apr 2006 02:50 GMT > .. >>I think the implication is that the [APEX 1st stage] valve is very much >>on a "knife >>edge" balance in terms of being able to open/close with very little >>change in IP. Could have been below the effective resolution of the Anyone have an opinion on Atomic regs? They get good reviews, but don't put a lot of faith in them as they also advertise with the reviewers mag...
Thanks, Dan
Charlie Hammond - 06 Apr 2006 18:33 GMT >Anyone have an opinion on Atomic regs? ... WHAT? Sombody with an opinion? In THIS newsgroup!?
Of course we have opinions -- any opinion you want! ;-)
Mine is that Atomic regulators are over engineerd and over priced.
 Signature Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
Danlw - 07 Apr 2006 02:09 GMT >>Anyone have an opinion on Atomic regs? ... > > WHAT? Sombody with an opinion? In THIS newsgroup!? That was redundant wasn't it. ;)
> Of course we have opinions -- any opinion you want! ;-) > > Mine is that Atomic regulators are over engineerd and over priced. Kinda what I thought, but hey, I've been wrong at least a couple times.
Dan
-hh - 06 Apr 2006 11:40 GMT Charlie writes:
> >Overall, do you think that it is reasonable to conclude that when all > >other factors are equal when comparing 1st stages that whichever one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No. The diver never experiences the IP -- only the final ambiant > pressure delivered by the 2nd stage. Is this "No" from the rationale that the diver doesn't see the IP (only the inbound side of the 2nd stage does), or does it include other factors?
> If the 2nd can deliver the required flow, a fluctuation in the > IP is meaningless for performace purposes. True, but how would the dynamic IP value not be an indicator of its capacity for delivering the required flow?
In other words, the harder it had to work to deliver flow X, the greater the dip in IP would be expected, and similarly the inverse: the less it had to work to deliver flow X, the less the IP dip.
> However, if you know your reg's typcial IP and its variation > when breathing, this can be an early indicator of problems. Sure. I was assuming that all regs were functioning properly, IAW "all other factors being equal" so as to not have to consider it as a factor for discussion.
> In other words, this IP issue says NOTHING about the good or bad > quality of Apex and/or ScubaPro regulators -- or any other brand. Then why was there a measurable difference?
> Now do not miss-understand me -- a large variation of IP _may_ be > associated with poor performance in some cases. But under normal > circumstances you will NOT see a large variation with any quallity > regulator that is in good condition. Which seems to infer the same thing I was driving at: when all other factors are equal except for the "IP Dip" upon call for a demand (of magnitude X), what does this difference signify?
-hh
Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2006 12:53 GMT > Then why was there a measurable difference? Different mechanism.
Let's keep in mind that the limited variation in IP you reported, even if in two identical regulators only speaks to the sensitivity of the valve mechanism. It, in no way, ensures, or even implies, performance across the entire range of flows the regulator may be called upon to deliver. I'm not sure if you specified "first stage" in your question, but if you didn't, then we also have to recognize that the stable IP you noted also does not, in any meaningful way, imply anything about the second stage which, as we all know, is an essential element in assessing regulator performance.
Lee
mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 14:40 GMT > Charlie writes: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the inbound side of the 2nd stage does), or does it include other > factors? In theory, the pressure differential doesn't count - only the efficiency of the regulator in reducing the supply pressure to the desired pressure. As a practical matter, using two regulators in line allows design of the first stage to be optimized for the high to intermediate pressure drop, and design of the second stage to be optimized for the low to ambient pressure drop, resulting in generally smoother breathing.
Modern two stage single hose regs have settled on 130 psi, give or take, as an intermediate pressure that works pretty reliably under almost all conditions. It's a compromise that optimizes piston/diaphragm area, valve sizes, flow rates, and all that stuff.
Some of the early two stage single hose regs (eg the Porpoise, one of the first) had very low ip but very high performance even by modern standards.
-hh - 06 Apr 2006 15:14 GMT > > Is this "No" from the rationale that the diver doesn't see the IP (only > > the inbound side of the 2nd stage does), or does it include other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > efficiency of the regulator in reducing the supply pressure to > the desired pressure. This was the general direction that I was thinking, with the magnitude of the dynamic change in IP ("gage drop") during delivery...at that particular flow rate...as being a general indicator of this efficiency.
> Modern two stage single hose regs have settled on 130 psi, give > or take, as an intermediate pressure that works pretty reliably > under almost all conditions. It's a compromise that optimizes > piston/diaphragm area, valve sizes, flow rates, and all that stuff. Agreed. And from the mechanics perspective of the compromises, I see that it is probably very possible to design a mechanism that is very highly effiicent at flow rate "X", but could become very inefficient ("bad") at flow rate "2X". The very general implications of this from a design trade space perspective is that may be considered "better" to have a design that is less efficient than it could be at "X" if that results in a design that does better at "2X".
Here's a (very) notional table-based illustration of what I mean:
(Efficiency) Net Effective System Flow Rate Regulator 10cfm 20cfm 30cfm 40cfm 50cfm 60cfm Brand A .99 .99 .98 .75 .50 .40 Brand B .80 .80 .80 .75 .70 .60
Based on the above, which would we say is the "better regulator"?
FWIW, I've intentionally set this up so that A is arguably better than B at low flow rates, and B is better at high flow rates, so that there's the monkeywrench of having to consider dive emergency flow rate risks in the trade-space.
Note: I do not want to suggest that any specific brand exhibits this type of notional performance...in particular, I don't want to infer that this is or might be an attribute of the Apex.
> Some of the early two stage single hose regs (eg the Porpoise, > one of the first) had very low ip but very high performance even > by modern standards. I also seem to recall that there's been some discussion (or claims) that a large bore LP hose may have "performance benefits" which may have to do with the "total volume" of available LP supply for the 2nd stage to use. If such suggestions of a buffer supply are true, the likely effect of this would probably be to minimize LP drop.
-hh
Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2006 16:02 GMT > Agreed. And from the mechanics perspective of the compromises, I see > that it is probably very possible to design a mechanism that is very > highly effiicent at flow rate "X", but could become very inefficient > ("bad") at flow rate "2X". Or even not be able to reach 2X at all. That's my real point. High performance normally, read that "to me", means high flow of dense gas and how quickly the first stage reacts to a chance in intermediate pressure really doesn't address that factor.
> The very general implications of this from > a design trade space perspective is that may be considered "better" to > have a design that is less efficient than it could be at "X" if that > results in a design that does better at "2X". You've just related efficiency to rapid reaction to demand. That's not a relationship I accept except in a regulator where the IP is at or near ambient. Given an IP somewhere around 140 psi, roughly 10 ata above ambient, a regulator that reacts instantly to the slightest of drops in IP is no more efficient than one that waits until the change is much larger as long as both regulators, when they do open, allow the same flow.
> I also seem to recall that there's been some discussion (or claims) > that a large bore LP hose may have "performance benefits" which may > have to do with the "total volume" of available LP supply for the 2nd > stage to use. If such suggestions of a buffer supply are true, the > likely effect of this would probably be to minimize LP drop. Maybe with a 7 foot hose. I doubt the volume difference is enough to matter much in a standard length hose. Of course, a larger bore hose will flow more gas than a smaller one, but anything more than what you can use, probably has little or no effect on performance.
Lee
mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 18:09 GMT > You've just related efficiency to rapid reaction to demand. That's not a > relationship I accept except in a regulator where the IP is at or near > ambient. Given an IP somewhere around 140 psi, roughly 10 ata above > ambient, a regulator that reacts instantly to the slightest of drops in IP > is no more efficient than one that waits until the change is much larger as > long as both regulators, when they do open, allow the same flow. I think a reg with constant ip will breathe more "smoothly" (less surge) than one that allows significant pressure drop.
>>I also seem to recall that there's been some discussion (or claims) >>that a large bore LP hose may have "performance benefits" which may [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more gas than a smaller one, but anything more than what you can use, > probably has little or no effect on performance. The early low ip regs needed a larger diameter hose, but with 120 - 140 psi it should not matter.
Lee Bell - 06 Apr 2006 19:23 GMT > I think a reg with constant ip will breathe more "smoothly" (less surge) > than one that allows significant pressure drop. Probably. It question of whether the user will be able to tell the difference remains.
Lee
mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 17:41 GMT (snip)
Yup. And even tuning of a given regulator, in my experience, trades performance at one depth for performance at another.
That's why the levers and knobs to adjust cracking pressure are so popular lately, but totally unnecessary if yer diving in a narrow depth range, plus or minus 30', and unwilling or unable to do yer own tuning between dives of different profile.
Grumman-581 - 06 Apr 2006 18:01 GMT In rec.scuba, "-hh" wrote in message news:1144332876.653209.214450@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<crossposting-snipped>
> I also seem to recall that there's been some discussion (or claims) > that a large bore LP hose may have "performance benefits" which may > have to do with the "total volume" of available LP supply for the 2nd > stage to use. If such suggestions of a buffer supply are true, the > likely effect of this would probably be to minimize LP drop. Theoretically, that should be the case... Then again, that should also be the case with a long hose...
Charlie Hammond - 06 Apr 2006 18:38 GMT >Charlie writes: .
>> In other words, this IP issue says NOTHING about the good or bad >> quality of Apex and/or ScubaPro regulators -- or any other brand. > >Then why was there a measurable difference? How the hell should I know!
Now hear this!!! A diver doesn't give a damn about IP. A dive cares about ease of breathing.
If a manufacturer can make a reg breath easily, who cares about high IP, low IP, steady IP, varying IP or anything else about the IP.
 Signature Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.
mike gray - 06 Apr 2006 19:25 GMT >>Charlie writes: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If a manufacturer can make a reg breath easily, who cares about > high IP, low IP, steady IP, varying IP or anything else about the IP. That's the bottom line, sure. But there are multiple ways to get there and those ways are a helluva lot more interesting than politics or guns.
mike gray - 05 Apr 2006 02:59 GMT > I knew someone would recommend them. I suspect you're only the first. If I > were in the market for another regulator, I suspect I'd look closely at what > Apeks has to offer. > > Lee I've got one. It's ok, but nothing to write home about. Very "in" with the trendy divers, though.
Alan Street - 06 Apr 2006 02:49 GMT In article <owFYf.686227$qk4.150266@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, mike gray <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I knew someone would recommend them. I suspect you're only the first. If > > I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've got one. It's ok, but nothing to write home about. Very > "in" with the trendy divers, though. My Mk2/R190 breathes easier at most depths than my TX100.
Shrek - 10 Apr 2006 09:44 GMT > Well, I own a couple of Apeks ATX100s and I'm extremely satisfied with > them. I use them in more 'challenging' circumstances (you know: cold, > deep, dark, currents...) and their performance has always been very good. > > They're sturdy, high-quality regulators which are mid (and sometimes > even low) priced, so a very good choice. I generally agree on your opinion about Apeks regulatros, but:
1st stage: I prefer DS4 (sold usually with Tx or ATX 50s) not FST (sold usually with TX or ATX 100s). FST is may be a bit easier to manage the LP hoses, but I hate to have non standard 1/2" UNF LP port, which is always problem. I know that I always can use areduction, but it is simply one unnecessary element, which is can be avoided if you use DS4.
2nd stage: There is no difference between 50s and 100s, so any version would be good, except that I don't like ATX. Much prefered option is TX. Difference is may be not so big, but in my opinion TX is better. ATX are smaller, but their exhaust part is constructed in a way that often the bubbles are disturbing your vision. TX is biggier an heavier, but it is not disturbing me and is also free from above mnetioned problem with bubbles.
Taking all above (and few other reasons) into consideration, my preference is DS4 for 1st stage and TX50 for 2nd. This option is also cheaper from FST/ATX100 which you recommend :D
BR Shrek
PS. I own and use a three DS4/TX50, one DS4/ATX50, two FST/TX100 one DS4/ATX40 and some others, I dove on FSR/ATX200 so I dare to say that I have a good picture on Apex regulators. However my opinion is no doubtly influenced by the way I use them and the dives I make, so may be slightly different than opinion of other users. BR Shrek
Anthony - 04 Apr 2006 22:35 GMT > Like many experienced divers, I don't care for air integrated computers. I > prefer to use a contents gauge to monitor gas and a computer to monitor > other aspects of my dive. <lots of good stuff snipped>
I happen to like air-integrated, and I've had a couple of Uwatec, currently the Z Nitrox, which goes on my wrist. It shows psi, minutes it calculates you have left and bitches if it thinks your consumption is on the high side. But, but if it fails you are then free from information and this has happened to me twice, first time the whole computer died and second time just the air guage (trouble with the transmitter). The correct back-up is to have a second computer and a small spg.
sytech@yahoo.com - 05 Apr 2006 01:42 GMT Thanks for your very comprehensive feedback.
Whatever I do end up buying will be most certainly for warm waters. I see that I have lots of homework to do.
>Personally, I suggest you think about quality first >and price second. Not >saying you're not, just trying to keep things >focused on what is important. Agreed of course. Lee, can you give me a ballpark guesstimate of price for something like what you decribe (reg. & gauges).
Thanks,
Sy
Lee Bell - 05 Apr 2006 01:58 GMT > Whatever I do end up buying will be most certainly for warm waters. I > see that I have lots of homework to do. That opens up your options considerably. By the way, I'm a strictly warm water diver myself. The coldest water I've ever been in was 68 F.
> >Personally, I suggest you think about quality first >and price second. > >Not > >saying you're not, just trying to keep things >focused on what is > >important.
> Agreed of course. Lee, can you give me a ballpark guesstimate of price > for something like what you decribe (reg. & gauges). Not very well. I bought my Scuba Pro in 1999. Everything else, including my nitrox computers, is considerably older that that. I'm quite certain that I would not like today's prices, even for moderately priced gear.
Perhaps someone else in the group could do better.
Lee
Steve - 08 Apr 2006 08:31 GMT > Agreed of course. Lee, can you give me a ballpark guesstimate of price > for something like what you decribe (reg. & gauges). There are a number of online sources where you can check the price for any given item they sell. Some brands, such as Scuba Pro will be harder to find online, and some companies (including SP) will deny warranty coverage for anything not bought from an authorized dealer.
My entry level Oceanic nitrox computer, in a console mount with compass and pressure gauge was about $350 at the LDS a bit over a year ago. An air integrated model could be $750 to $1000. You may find reliable and well-performing regs (1st, 2nd and octo) for under $300 online, or you could pay about $1000 (or more)for a high end reg at your LDS. Personally I don't see much need for more than a basic gauge package, but I would definitely move up a step or two from the low end models of regs.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Popeye - 05 Apr 2006 05:43 GMT > Was wondering if I could get some recommendations for a regulator and a > gauge to purchase. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks, Check out the Sea Elite brand at Diver's Supply.
http://www.diverssupplyusa.com/index.asp
I had that as my first reg, and -loved- it.
I since "upgraded" to Scubapro, but primarily because I got it at 50% off.
The reg was semi-permanently loaned to another Rec.scuban.
 Signature "The fishermen know that the sea is dangerous and the storms terrible, but they have never found these dangers sufficient reason for remaining ashore." - Vincent van Gogh
www.finalprotectivefire.com
|
|
|