|
|
Post by vance on Nov 28, 2016 17:08:45 GMT -8
It's a bit hard to see how this works, but I like it! Cool collectible regulator! I'll get me one if it comes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikeajax on Dec 5, 2016 8:37:21 GMT -8
Phil, could you please post an image of the second stage of you TDQK? John68 has given me some insight about it. Evidently, HW must have had an over stock of the original style covers left over: when they changed the styling in 1969, they all got the newly designed covers. When going back to the original styled cans, the TDQK got the older covers and clips too... I've also noticed in their catalogs that most of the models who are posing for shots aren't wearing the new gear either. Healthways was an odd company, that's why I love 'em so much; they're not unlike American Motors and Studebaker  JB |
|
|
|
Post by vance on Dec 5, 2016 9:26:32 GMT -8
 This is my first regulator from over 40 years ago! |
|
|
|
Post by diverdon on Dec 5, 2016 10:55:11 GMT -8
Nice reg Vance! The squared metal exhaust on your T.D.Q.K. are the same as my Gold 300. I love that look. I forget which, but one of JBs regs has that same style exhaust. Almost all of the chrome exhausts I have seen are of the round variety.
JB, How many of your regs have that body?
DD
|
|
|
|
Post by nikeajax on Dec 5, 2016 11:48:19 GMT -8
DD, believe it or not, I don't have one of those; I gave you the one I had...
It's becoming quite a task to document these regulators as they had lots of little changes between 1969 and 1973: I really don't think they had standardized much. This is why Healthways really reminds me of AMC and Studebaker: they would take stuff from different years and just play with what was at hand--SIGH!
JB
|
|
|
|
Post by diverdon on Dec 5, 2016 12:13:33 GMT -8
OK, I must have two then. You really should have one for your collection. I'll see if I can find it for you.
Phil, can we get a look at your reg from the bottom? I'm curious if it has the deep exhaust chamber and two "stacked" exhaust diaphragms.
DD
|
|
|
|
Post by nikeajax on Dec 5, 2016 12:57:12 GMT -8
OK, I must have two then. You really should have one for your collection. I'll see if I can find it for you. Phil, can we get a look at your reg from the bottom? I'm curious if it has the deep exhaust chamber and two "stacked" exhaust diaphragms. DD ARRRRRG!  I keep forgetting about this feature for these later models  Thanks for bringing this up; I don't pretend to know everything, and more than glad to have help JB |
|
|
|
Post by diverdon on Dec 5, 2016 14:02:49 GMT -8
Here is a pic of JB's 300 from the bottom. You'll notice how the t is sticking out some from the body. This is to accommodate a double exhaust mushroom valve configuration. I believe John was the first to point this out. It becomes difficult to exhale with both in place and so he merely uses one. Something I need to try once I've located the correct size diaphragm for mine.  Here you can see there are in fact two wagon wheels for the two diaphragms.  I'll pack your reg up shortly JB and send it back. Thanks, DD |
|
|
|
Post by vance on Dec 5, 2016 16:52:20 GMT -8
No, mine is not stepped away like that. My exhaust tee is flush against the bottom can. Odd that they'd use two. There must have been a problem at some point to go to the extreme of two mushrooms. Any idea why? I didn't take the rubber plug out on mine, afraid I'd tear it because of its stiffness. I need to get some silicone spay and condition it a bit before I try to remove it to inspect the mushroom.
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 5, 2016 18:26:39 GMT -8
No, mine is not stepped away like that. My exhaust tee is flush against the bottom can. Odd that they'd use two. There must have been a problem at some point to go to the extreme of two mushrooms. Any idea why? I didn't take the rubber plug out on mine, afraid I'd tear it because of its stiffness. I need to get some silicone spay and condition it a bit before I try to remove it to inspect the mushroom. Vance, Yes, I have a lot of insight on this double exhaust. At the time, Healthways and U.S. Divers Company were in tight competition with some of the first successful single hose regulators. Sportsways came in about the same time with their very successful Sport Diver regulator. But the main competition was between the USD Calypso and the Healthways Scubair, with Sportsways coming into the California scene. USD was advertising their downstream design, but their first generation Calypso had the exhaust mushroom in the diaphragm. Because of the placement of the exhaust vents in the second stage, there was the potential for the current to come through one side and open the mushroom valve on the diaphragm, flooding the regulator briefly. Cave divers in Florida actually complained of this, and when those mushroom valves were new and flexible, said that this flooding could be initiated by a severe head shake.  The first and second generation Calypso. Note the exhaust on the first (with the bright red label) exhaust on the original Calypso. Here is the Sportsways Sport Diver regulator, and you can see that the exhaust "T" (this actually is an exhaust "T" too, and is probably where the term originated) protects the mushroom valve of the exhaust from side water currents.  Here is what Healthways had to say about this double exhaust valve feature: What is interesting is that this claim was not made up front, but is secondary, for their higher-end regulators (Scubair, Scubair-J, and Scubair 300. Instead, for instance for the Scubair, they state: Later, when exhaust resistance was being used by the U.S. Navy for excluding single hose regulators, the double exhaust concept was dropped. The last statement in the quote above, "Developed by Richard E. Anderson," was interesting to me as it appears that Dick Anderson was the developer of the Scubair, and I don't think much credit has been given to him for that accomplishment. John PS, for more about Dick Anderson, please read his obituary: articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/11/local/me-anderson11 |
|
|
|
Post by nikeajax on Dec 5, 2016 18:36:51 GMT -8
The last statement in the quote above, "Developed by Richard E. Anderson," was interesting to me as it appears that Dick Anderson was the developer of the Scubair, and I don't think much credit has been given to him for that accomplishment. John BRAVO SIR! JB |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 5, 2016 20:52:45 GMT -8
I mentioned breathing resistance, and the U.S. Navy Experimental Diving Unit (EDU) testing. I just found a graph that they produced about the breathing characteristics of the Healthways Scubair II regulator. Here's the catalog of the Scubair II, from one of my New England Divers catalogs:  John |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 5, 2016 22:33:17 GMT -8
Okay, now we are going to compare charts. Below is the same study's chart of the Scubair 300. Take a look, and compare to the above chart of the Scubair II; remember that these are U.S. Navy Experimental Diving Unit charts for breathing resistance, and that these use an older protocol than is used today. And here is that breathing graphs, and the reference link to the entire study below it: Scubair II archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3435/NEDU_1975_05.pdf?sequence=1Scubair 300 Exhalation ResistanceNow, the study states that these two regulators meet the U.S. Navy Standard, MIL-R-24168A Limits for exhalation resistance. But both charts show that the exhalation is below the line, which means that there is greater exhalation resistance than is allowed by the regulation. Note too that the Scubair 300 is a bit worse than the Scubair II for exhalation resistance. Inhalation ResistanceNow, look at the inhalation resistance curve for 1400 psig on both regulators. The Scubair II has a much worse inhalation resistance than the Scubair 300. The Scubair 300 actually looks really good all the way down to 199 feet, great down to 99 feet, then after a slight raise essentially flat from 99 feet on down. This is about half the MIL standard, and well within the curve. But look at the Scubair II; it is right on the edge of acceptability, and sometimes slightly over the acceptable MIL standard curve. What could cause this? Well, about the only thing is a different diaphragm. I think one (Scubair II) was the older nylon/neoprene diaphragm, and the other was a newer, more flexible diaphragm. The second stages are otherwise identical. Now, look at the indications for breathing resistance at 200 psig for both regulators. The Scubair II is off the charts. I have a feeling that this regulator still has the restrictor installed, but that doesn't make sense for this time frame and design (flow-through piston). The Scubair 300's breathing resistance was equally high due, probably due to the restrictions of the sonic mechanism, but this is part of the warning of this regulator; it could also be because of the unbalanced piston design. These are interesting historical documents. It would be interesting to see how our souped-up Healthways regulators would compare to those regulators that Healthways sent to the Nave EDU. John |
|
|
|
Post by nikeajax on Dec 6, 2016 8:30:31 GMT -8
John, I'm hoping to make a manometer one of these days: I really want to see how they all perform. I especially appreciate the explanation of the graph; my brain finds things like that very unfriendly. I have an original HW diaphragm that I've reconditioned with your method, and it's VERY flexible and should be quite responsive. I think most people who offer opinions on these regs never used them new, and are only using dried out diaphragms: this is akin to judging a car's performance by driving it around town with flat tires, or a carburetor with gummed up jets... I honestly don't believe that these regs are the be all to end all, but what they are is fun: they make me think. Perhaps it's like when you find someone attractive and you really want to go out with them: what do I need to do to make this work? What should I do to make this a reliable relationship? That uncertainty is exhilarating and tantalizing. So maybe those IDI diaphragms are like when I gave my wife a wedding ring: I care enough to go out of my way to make it special. Some people just want to use a cool old regulator with readily available parts and have someone else work on it too. But for me, the pleasure is knowing exactly how my reg works, or my car works: if I breathe in, or step on the accelerator, I can quickly visualize the chain of events that is happening. I can also understand what's happening when things aren't doing what they are supposed to and how to remedy that  JB |
|
|
|
Post by vance on Dec 6, 2016 9:54:57 GMT -8
Here's mine from the bottom. No extended stack. 
Phil |
|
I keep forgetting about this feature for these later models 
Thanks for bringing this up; I don't pretend to know everything, and more than glad to have help 
