Dacor DH regs

[luis]

Dec 23, 2018 11:32:07 GMT -8 @michael said:

I stated earlier that I tried to convert a dacor back in 2010. I found the preliminary drawings of the 2nd stage that I never had built. They do not have too many dims. One would have to match up the Dacor 2nd stage dims to these drawings.......when designing the Mk3 I chose not to make a new 2nd stage but instead used the old USD 2nd stage design like Luis did with his two creations......however, the 2nd stage cone, a separate machined part that screwed in and then soldered to prevent leakage was adapted.......If anyone wants them, PM me as I will email......forgot my passwords for the two photo storage sites and just not interested in doing battle with computers to regain my passwords......Maybe these will give one some ideas.

That is a totally incorrect statement. I would appreciate it if you stop spreading wrong information.

The first stage in the Phoenix and the Argonaut both used the same mechanical design as a well proven design that has been around for decades and is used by many regulators (both single and double hose regulators). I only improved the aerodynamic interface between the first and the second stage.


But the second stage, the HPR and the Argonaut second stage doesn’t even resemble the original Royal Aqua Master second stage. The lever mechanism (the contact points, the fulcrum, the static and dynamic mechanical advantages) are all very different to the RAM design.

The HPR and Argonaut second stage is a new design. It uses many of the same principles as many downstream demand valves, but the dimensions of the valve and the lever are all my design. It looks similar to others (all regulators are based on a few similar principles), but it is all about the details.

I did all the engineering analysis including computational mechanic analysis of the valve and lever interface for the complete travel of the mechanism. I also did the pneumatic and fluid dynamic analysis and design. My design also incorporates a means of adjusting the venturi effect.

The design of the second stage is a plug in module that can be removed as a unit (including the lever), replace the seat (for service) and re-install the complete unit without having to re-adjust anything.

Both the first and second stage have replaceable volcano orifices. The volcano orifices can be easily removed and they can be serviced or replaced if they get damaged. This provides a sharp valve seating interface and a regulator that can be serviced  way into the future.

Added:
The second stage volcano orifice is not only replaceable, but it is also adjustable.
The spring tension, lever height, and venturi effect can all be adjusted if desired to fine tune the performance. But once adjusted, the second stage can be serviced without changing any adjustments. This is due to the modular design.


Here is some of the information that I have shared about my second stage.
vintagedoublehose.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8065

So please stop spreading wrong information.

I don’t want to derail the subject about the Dacor. I just don’t like my name to be used while spreading wrong information.

[Deleted]

Luis,
I did not say your phoenix was the same......it fit the USD AM and RAM...and the 2nd stage of those was not changed until your improved 2nd stage you call a HPR came along, which is still basically a down stream poppet valve.
Your Kraken may have a new (dimensionally as well as assembly method) 2nd stage, but it is still the basic design that USD first used. A down stream poppet valve. (and they didn't invent the down stream poppet valve, just adjusted the concept to fit their regs.) It doesn't matter whether it screws in, bolted in or plugs in or is glued in......it is still basically a down stream poppet valve.

Kudo's to you for taking the time to improve said 2nd stage down stream poppet valve......there are others who will or have done similar efforts but have not brought them forward as of yet.


I will not engage in a spittin match with you, but I stand by my statement and if you don't like it that is your issue.

Merry Christmas ol' salt...and a very Happy New Year.

[vance]

Thanks for pointing out the potential for misunderstanding what Michael wrote, Luis, although I took what he meant as more general than specific.

For those who have never seen one, I have an HPR second stage, and it is most certainly not a clone of the USD 2nd. It has more in common with the Trieste's 2nd than the DA's (appearance-wise), and incorporates many improvements.

Anyway, to return to the Dacor regulators, I am mulling over a Trieste style 2nd stage and lever system for the R-1,2 regs.... Dunno if that is even a reasonable idea. I need to look at my R-2 and do some measuring.

[luis]

It is nothing new that there are only three second stage design in production at this moment. All demand valves in production fit one of these three designs: 1) basic downstream demand valve, 2) pneumatically balanced demand valve, and 3) pilot valve/ servo valve assisted demand valve. I would say that well over 90% of the regulator use one of the first tow designs.

You are correct in that no one has invented a new wheel yet.

I have never called my designs a new invention, but it is a new design. There is a big difference between an invention and a design.


Michael,
You can try to diminish it all you want by saying: “it is still basically a down stream poppet valve”

But that is the difference between a new invention and a new design. There has not been a new invention in regulator design probably since 1977, but there have been many new designs.


If you don’t want to get into a “spitting match”, quit referring to me and referencing my designs with a diminishing tone. It is entirely up to you. You are the one that often references me and my deigns and often in a diminishing tone.


Again I don’t want to derail this thread.

Merry Christmas to all

[SeaRat]

Michael,

I'm still enjoying your Mossback Mk 3. I used it this summer, as I stated above, and here's one of the photos I took in Yaquina Bay while using it.

As you may already know, I was trying to dive the sixth jetty to determine whether the amphipods I discovered in 1973 were still in the estuary, but it was not to be. The reason is that the bottom is now at 35 feet where they were located, but the rock which housed the specific anemones were at a depth of 45 feet. The South Jetty was extended 1,000 feet in the 1980s, and that allowed the bottom to "silt in," although it is not silt, but sand and rock from the Yaquina River above. Here is a photo from a slide I took at that time:

Note that these anemones actually silted in during the winter at that time. But ten feet of sand and silt is more than they could endure. The photo above taken last summer was taken in the intertidal area near shore, as there were no surviving anemones of the type colonized by the amphipods in the subtidal areas of this sixth finger jetty.

Luis,

I enjoy seeing the the Argonaut out there, for photographers and divers interested in close-up observation of marine and aquatic life. I'm also very happy that there have been continuing evolutions of double hose designs. Right now, I've got so many double hose regulators, and I'm getting to the age where I count the number of dives per year in the tens and not hundreds, that I cannot keep my own regs in the water annually. (Almost all of my regulators are divable.) This is a great contribution to vintage-style diving, bringing it into our time.

I will say that I think the Scubapro Pilot was a new design, and it exactly in the time period you specified (1977 according to Scubapro 50 Years). I have a Pilot, and it is one weird regulator; I've got it working, and need to orient the venturi a slight bit more toward the mouthpiece (it's very, very sensitive).



Now, back to Dacor double hose regulators. I have "tweaked" the levers on my Clipper/R-4 to the point where the breathing is very good. That involved bending the primary lever down so as to increase the spring tension, and then bending the secondary lever both down and back up (two bends, as I recall) to bring the two "feet" of the lever back up to the primary diaphragm. In doing so, I believe I increased the IP too, to the point where I had to adjust the IP screw (that weird center screw in the HP diaphragm) as far as it would got to make the IP work. It is a really weird way to tweak the IP. Everyone else actually increases the spring tension with a nut against the spring, but the Dacor double hose regulator designers decided not to do that, and instead made the pin adjustable (Luis, I'd be interested in your "take" on this too).

Concerning Dacor's exhaust, I have shown that it is not as good as the duckbill in other tests. But it is very, very durable. Especially the R-1 through R-3 regulators, that mushroom valve really stands the test of time. I did some calculations on the exhaust size between the R-1 through R-3, and the newer R-4 design. The former were six holes drilled around the center of the diaphragm, while the latter R-4 design was three rectangular areas punched out to form a three-stop legs that can push against the primary diaphragm. But the older diaphragm had a larger surface area than the newer diaphragm exhaust:

Older: 230.9 square millimeters
Newer: 210 square millimeters

I then thought, what would happen if the same size holes were drilled in the newer diaphragm between the three punched out rectangles. It turns out that this would result in a surface area of 325.5 square millimeters. Here are a couple of photos illustrating this:




John

[vance]

Dec 24, 2018 10:09:42 GMT -8 luis said:

Again I don’t want to derail this thread.

Ok then, let us proceed about Dacor stuff!

[technidiver]

John, is there a reason why Dacor changed the size of the exhaust ports/holes? Why would they limit the size? Also, does the size of the holes/amount/area play a huge part in exhalation resistance, or lack thereof?

TD

[SeaRat]

Dec 24, 2018 20:28:35 GMT -8 technidiver said:

John, is there a reason why Dacor changed the size of the exhaust ports/holes? Why would they limit the size? Also, does the size of the holes/amount/area play a huge part in exhalation resistance, or lack thereof?

TD

If you'll look at the two different diaphragms, I think the change in the exhaust ports/holes was a cost savings, without respect to the actual performance. It is far easier to stamp out three rectangles than to drill six holes, then rivet the "U" shaped diaphragm baffle. At the time Dacor was no longer committed to the double diaphragm, double hose R-4 anyway, as they had their Olympic series of single hose regulators which were selling much better.

John

[technidiver]

Thanks John, that clears it up for me. It's all about cutting costs!

TD

[Deleted]

[quote author="luis" source="/post/42208/thread" quit referring to me and referencing my designs with a diminishing tone. It is entirely up to you. You are the one that often references me and my deigns and often in a diminishing tone.


Again I don’t want to derail this thread.

Merry Christmas to all

[/quote]

Luis, I, to my knowledge, have never referenced you or your designs in a diminishing tone. Perhaps that is your perception, but I have no control over that.

I can not say that for your cohorts who have put me down ever since I came out with the the Hookah Port Adapter, the Mk3 or the yellow hoses. Even your associate, stealing my ad on Ebay which he paid a price for, or his followers has never relented disparaging my work.

I so sorry you think that what I say about you is diminishing, however, I consider you a Genius at improving things to make them better.....Never said you invented anything either, only improved them, but I am a realist and what you improved is still basically the same function, but you made it better..using a Model A Ford carburettor engine and a modern fuel injected Ford engine as an example....one is many times improved in every way.....however, they are still both do basically the same function, and that is what you do and I am proud that you do that.

However, I am so sorry you are so thin skinned that you take offense at any reference to your work. But as long as the 1st Amendment exists.......I will say as I please.

[SeaRat]

Dec 25, 2018 9:36:10 GMT -8 technidiver said:

Thanks John, that clears it up for me. It's all about cutting costs!
TD

Well, one of the winter projects now is to drill three new holes on one of my Dacor new-style exhaust diaphragms and use it in 2019. That should improve exhalation resistance with no down-side whatsoever.

John

[vance]

I made an IP gauge adapter for the later Dacor double hosers today. It is a relatively simple 2 piece thingy.










It takes the guesswork out of the equation!

[vance]

Now I need an LP seat for the C-2. The one it came with was a homemade seat made from something very soft like silicone sheet. This seat carrier is smaller than the C3-N and C-3 I have, and the paper-punched USD/universal type don't fit. I tried swapping the seat carriers from a C-2 and a C-3, but the larger C-3 type won't fit into the smaller C-2 type second stage. The second stages are virtually identical, but for this, and you can swap the whole units around.

I wonder if the R-4 has the small seat carrier? I don't have one of those, to check.

My C-2 also had a home-made diaphragm made out of the same stuff as the LP seat. I have no idea if it worked, since I didn't try it before I cut the diaphragm up to make a spacer/reinforcing ring out of it to back up a thin early diaphragm that's in my R-2. I wish I'd tried it, but the whole reg was so messed up that the diaphragm was the least of its problems.

BTW, does anyone have a spare R-1,2 type body? And brass washer? I'd like to experiment with making a Trieste style second stage for them. This might be difficult/way too much trouble as it is a small diameter hole.   What I need is the round part that is on page one of this thread that has the holes drilled into it.

[vance]

I need the big brass washer that fits between the body and HP nozzle. Anyone have a suggestion for a replacement part? Edit: USD phenolic washers are too small.

[SeaRat]

I got some old Dacor parts from my LDS, but I don't know whether it has those. I'll check, probably tomorrow sometime.

Great job on the LP pressure gauge adaptor!

John