|
Post by nemrod on Dec 1, 2005 1:18:05 GMT -8
"Thanks. As far as I can see, if the price of the "modern" reg exceeds that of a Royal AM, why bother? So I went for something that would a) not require designing a new 1st stage from scratch, and b) not require extensive alteration of the "donor reg.""
I don't really agree with that, people are spending way more than that on new single hose regulators and I could not expect a state of the art double hose to be cheaper than such as that.
Is the market really all that focused on rebreathers?--I don't think so--sure it is growing but I figure it will never push open circuit scuba aside. It cost tons of money, requires highly technical training and just on and on. Way beyond the 2 hour course PadI now teaches.
"You're caving in, James! Next time you post a picture, I bet you have a plastic Mares 2nd in your mouth!"
Uh, I just happen to have plastic Mares--lol.
Hey, for me, balloon size hoses are a no go after using the New Mistral I could never live with those huge hoses and mouthpiece--totally not vintage and much less comfortable than traditional hoses.
I am sure there are places here than can form new cans but that is outside my area of knowledge. The cheapest way is China probably. Yeah, I am sure there is a place here that could do a production run if it comes to that. This is the Air Capitol.
About the hose in hose thing with the sense diaphram in the moutpiece the only way I see to do that is via a servo mechanism where the small diaphram is in the moutpiece with the pilot valve and the tube in tube carries the pressure drop from the pilot valve in the mouthpiece back to the main body. That is why I always go on about servo second stages, part of it would be in the mouthpiece and use a hose in hose to transfer the pressure drop to actuate the main flow which would then be sustained by the larger main diaphram. I have mentioned this concept before in other similar threads.
There is much to be said for simple, developing a new body that would fit vintage cans or vintage identical new cans and use vintage style hoses that could be retrofitted to any USD regulator and using Conshelf parts and other off he shelf parts ma be the cheapest way. (Not to get back on the servo thing again but the main diaphram could be then the same as a Conshelf single hose thus eliminating the need to make that part also. I am whacked--I know it.)
It seems like the more parts that are common in design and interchangeable with current vintage USD dh regulators would be best for both old and new.
James
|
|
|
Post by Broxton Chuck on Dec 1, 2005 4:47:38 GMT -8
Instead of wasting time on conforming to what these overboard modern operators want, remember that we are "VINTAGE DIVERS" so lets make them conform to US! Just dont support those who dont support us. Theres a new wave of vintage gear washing up on EBAYS pages every day. There will be a supply of fine vintage equiptment arriving on the scene for years to come. Enjoy the original vintage gear as we did years ago, and those who dont approve, can go take a walk, or better yet a swim..........................
|
|
Buzz
Senior Diver
Posts: 64
|
Post by Buzz on Dec 1, 2005 7:46:15 GMT -8
SeaKrakken and I are not doing this project to find or create a new niche in the market for scuba regs. This is more of an exercise to take on a challange and have fun. All of us on this board are tinkerers and all we're doing with this project is taking that characteristic up a different road to see whats up there. Scuba manufacturers abandoned the double hose design long ago for a multitude of reasons which could be the subject of another very long thread on this board. However, I think most of us would agree that most of those reasons dont hold much validity with us.....that's why we are all here and active double hose lovers. For my own part, I am a mechanical design engineer by profession and desire. I love a design challange and I have been in this game long enough to realize that the double hose design was never flushed out properly before it was abandoned. The fun of this project is going to be to see where our current state of technology can take the design. The looks of a double hose is one of the most important aspects of the design.....it is already perfection....why would anyone want to make changes there??? I really love most of the ideas that have come up so far. I see no reason why any of them would cause a change in the looks. I like the idea of the smooth bore hoses...this will let the air stream flow with much less resistance and will eliminate the contraction of the inhale hose which will increase he sensitivity of the second stage. Obviously, the external features of the hose can be made to look exactly like a vintage hose (including parting lines). It would also be a big plus when used with the manual purge that I am thinking about.....however....if the final product doesn't flex and feel vintage and detracts from the overall vintage experience too much....it can get canned!! As far as the stainless steel is concerned, here in the oil field we have learned many techniques in using stainless to avoid all the infamous galling, corrosion, and pitting problems. Our equipment operates in some really harsh environments...and stainless is our bread and butter. Titanium is another intrigueing material. I have a lot of it in my garage....enough to build this prototye. What do ya'll think about a totally billet titanium regulator ....including the cans. Actually, there are lots of machine shops here in Houston that work with titanium all the time. Using CNC machines can really bring down the costs. To expand on the idea of the screw on hose ends.....this is an option that I thought would really make life easy when it comes to hose cleaning and dissinfecting....it would really cut down on the dissasembly wear and tear. Guess this is enough to chew on for a while...thanx for all the input so far.
Buzz
|
|
|
Post by nemrod on Dec 1, 2005 10:53:41 GMT -8
The manual purge button in the mouthpiece could use the hose in hose concept, the button pushed would vent air from a balancing chamber causing the main chamber to flow---like a servo valve--lol--without the sense diaphram--just a maually activated plunger only to avoid the "complication" of a full on servo/pilot valve. The hose in hose with either the manual purge or the servo activated design (which would have a manual purge by design as well) does not carry the air/gas for breathing but instead acts as a means of pressure transmission/communication between the mouthpiece located pilot sense diaphram or the manual purge valve in a mouthpiece without the servo feature...
Yes, the only reason for reworking the double hose and I understand what BUZZ is saying is that like Mt Rushmore or even our US Moon Missions , THE DOUBLE HOSE REGULATOR WAS NEVER FINSIHED BEFORE BEING ABANDONED BY USD/VOIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was uncompleted, unfullfilled. There is tremendous room for improvement and inclusion of capabilities that can only be added to a RAM by all sorts of adapters.
Hope it all works out for you BUZZ, if only as a computer design that never reaches reality it would be a cool wallo paper--a 3D transparent CAD drawing of what the 21st century RAM would have looked like had USD had more vision instead of becoming the Big Loosers/copy cats they became.
Meanwhile, I believe Luis will find fruition with his new nozzles and adapter that will allow my big knob, heavy yoke RAMs to be useable on any dive charter/cattle boat mission I choose to undertake. When I need a for real high performance regulator I got my "space age" Teknas---lol!!!!!! Nemrod
|
|
|
Post by luis on Dec 1, 2005 12:22:36 GMT -8
I think that putting a diaphragm/ sensor for a servo/ pilot valve in the mouthpiece will produce a free flow (in a swimming position) as long as your exhaust is on the back. The differential pressure between the sensor and the exhaust will continuously activate the pilot valve. Kind of like raising your mouth piece over the diaphragm while it is not in your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 1, 2005 12:22:57 GMT -8
...THE DOUBLE HOSE REGULATOR WAS NEVER FINSIHED BEFORE BEING ABANDONED BY USD/VOIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was uncompleted, unfullfilled. There is tremendous room for improvement and inclusion of capabilities that can only be added to a RAM by all sorts of adapters... Nemrod Actually, what I saw was products being put on the market with actual design flaws in them. The Trieste II is a perfect example, where the diaphragm was too stiff, the allignment for the LP nozzel was not well established, and the venturi was not designed correctly. Once all these actual flaws were worked out, the regulator became what it should have been in the first place, one on the best double hose regulators ever designed. Now, I had another thought about overcoming the design problem of positioning. Remember, above I discussed an old paper (from the 1960s) about using a weighted diaphragm. Well, this is 2005, and we can now do some things we could not do then. So you design engineers, think about this: what about a computer sensing device that would sense position, and spring load the demand seat according to the diver's orientation? That way, the regulator could internally adjust to position, and deliver air at the calculated actual pressure inside the diver's lungs by compensating for regulator positioning differentials. Think about a regulator with a zero differential between the regulator's breathing effort, and the position of the regulator respective to the water column. That would actually put it at an advantage over single hose systems. John
|
|
|
Post by chucko the bossman on Dec 1, 2005 16:40:29 GMT -8
Why not put tailfins and computers on it? Be proud, look away and walk on boy!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by treasureman on Dec 1, 2005 17:24:06 GMT -8
Let us look to the hoses. Would it be possible to make a plastic attachment which fits the mouthpiece dimensions, and has a one inch opening which a standrard hose would then fit on. This would eliminate cost in making molds as the dimensions from one end to the other would be the same one inch at the front as at the back end. Nylon or even rubber. LIke a reducer coupling from 1.5 inch reduced to 1 inch
|
|
|
Post by nemrod on Dec 2, 2005 1:05:02 GMT -8
"I think that putting a diaphragm/ sensor for a servo/ pilot valve in the mouthpiece will produce a free flow (in a swimming position) as long as your exhaust is on the back. The differential pressure between the sensor and the exhaust will continuously activate the pilot valve. Kind of like raising your mouth piece over the diaphragm while it is not in your mouth. "
It might and it might would have to be overbalanced to prevent that. The diaphram in the mouthpiece would be very small and only operates the pilot servo via the hose in hose. The main diaphram is still there in the can. I am, unlike the Omega, Tekna, Poseidin, thinking more of the pilot servo valve as a power assist to help kick start the venturi effect in the main can to suck the large diaphram down with little effort on the part of the diver. In the Tekna and Omega the poppet or tilt servo valve drops pressure in a balancing chamber when pushed upon by the very small main diaphram. The balance chamber is seperated from the main supply chamber by another diaphram with a small hole in it. This small hole restricts flow to the balance chamber sustaining the supply flow because the amount of air escaping from the balance chamber is greater than can move through the small hole in the "divider" diaphram. This concept is not used to produce a venturi in these single hose regulators. I want to use the concept to inititiate a powerful venturi effect to assist the movement of the large double hose diaphram or to allow that diaphram to be made smaller with no increase in effort as was found with the Trieste and to accelerate a large flow of air down the supply hose to the needy diver. I know it will never happen but I am pretty sure it could be made to work. Perhaps it is more complicated than needed to get good perfomance--oh well. Luis, do you see what I am talking about? James
|
|
|
Post by VintageDiverMN on Dec 2, 2005 8:06:36 GMT -8
I like the tailfins idea, it will go with the cars from the late 50s. Also, how about putting spinner hubcaps on it. Cool
|
|
Buzz
Senior Diver
Posts: 64
|
Post by Buzz on Dec 2, 2005 8:23:15 GMT -8
Actually .....the purge system that i was thinking of was one in which you would pull on the inhale hose, putting tension on the hose between you hand and regulator body.....not tension between you hand and mouthpiece! This action would actuate a very simple device to allow the second stage valve to shoot air through the jet venturi directly into the inhake hose. I'd like to keep things simple. I think a hose-within-a hose would be like heading the design back to a single hose design.....with the low pressue air available at the mouth....the next logical step would be to put the second stage up there too. Then all you would have is THE single hose design, with an extra hose to direct the exhaust to the rear.
Buzz
|
|
|
Post by nemrod on Dec 2, 2005 11:24:16 GMT -8
"I think a hose-within-a hose would be like heading the design back to a single hoe design.....with the low pressue air available at the mouth....the next logical step would be to put the second stage up there too. Then all you would have is THE single hose design, with an extra hose to direct the exhaust to the rear."
No, the above does not describe my idea at all, that is not at all what I am talking about. The LP air flow would come from the main body located in the box cans. LOL---no big deal, it is OK. Simple is good too.
Minnesota Diver, where you the guy with the spinner beany cap at Wazee? hanging out with Gomez? I think SeaRat is already working to cover the "tailfins on fins " concept so you will need to be more original!--LOL.
James
|
|
|
Post by nemrod on Dec 2, 2005 11:40:02 GMT -8
Well, sorry for another post--my last---on this, just to clear it up before I say nothing more for posterity, the hose in hose I am describing would be a pressure sense/communication hose approximately 1/8 inch ID. It's only purpose would be to trigger the main air flow when the mouthpiece mini diaphram is actuated. The pressure drop in the 1/8 hose would then trigger the main airflow from the regulator can on your back. Very little air would escape at the pilot valve in the mouthpiece. The little hose acts as a balance chamber against the main supply chamber. Once that main chamber is triggered to begin to flow the venturi effect assists the movement of the main diaphram power assisting the divers breathing. I am sure that makes it crytal clear. (rightttt) Anyways, such things are done all the time in other types of machinery and it is not considered complex. You ought to delve into a mechanical fuel control for a jet engine--that is complex. There is a reason they are being replaced by FADECs. (digital engine controls). One chip replaces a whole bunch of levers, springs, poppets, whizzets, kanuder valves, spinners and all that sort of stuff. " In this age of silicone the knowledge needed to build "mechanical" machines is being lost rapidly. It is just so complex! By it's nature anything mechanical is Vintage!!!! Chip controlled regulators are a --breath--away. Nemrod
|
|
|
Post by VintageDiverMN on Dec 2, 2005 11:43:52 GMT -8
That's a good idea, a spinner on top of my head, I won't need my fins then. Just point my head the way I want to go, and away I go. You maybe on to something. But wait, won't I get dizzy spinning around?
|
|
|
Post by nemrod on Dec 2, 2005 12:47:16 GMT -8
No VintageDiverMN, duhhhhh, the "tailfin fins" would provide the stabilizing force to counteract the torque from the beany spinner propeller! Thus, it's rotation would be transferred to the water providing forward thrust. The neck muscles might get a workout but we can probably solve that issue with a bit of exercise of something other than--er---lol (just messing with you!!!!LOL). My being a Southerner and you being a yankee, during the War of Northern Aggression we Rebs came up with submarines, ballistic missles, modern battlefield strategies, ironclad ships and on and on--so much for Yankee Ingenuity!!!!!!!!--and y'all gave us the Corps of Engineers in revenge so they could surround New Orleans with jello mud levees!! Are they really engineers? Don't answer. OK, really my last blabbering on this time, sent pics to Linda to insert. Thanks Linda. Look at the pics, notice the shiny linttle metal thing with the needle on it---that is the pilot tilt valve, balance chamber and main supply chamber all in one bitsy little piece. Notice how small the Tekna second stage is compared to a USD mouthpiece. Now imagine splitting the innards of the Tekna into three pieces, a pilot valve in the mouthpiece with purge, a balance chamber in the form of a 1/8 inch pressure rated urethane tube connected to the remaining supply chamber in the 1st stage/second stage assembly back in the box cans!!!!!! Since the pilot tilt valve w/purge would be the only thing in the mouthpiece the mouthpiece could be much smaller than the Tekna second stage or USD mouhtpiece. The urethane tube balance chamber would pass the intake cage valve via a molded in connection in the plastic mouthpiece. A Trieste size box can would probably suffice to house the main diaphram and first and second stages. OK, I am done, I am sure all are glad of that. Good luck in your endeavor, hope you guys great success. I have not disclosed my main device because it is probably patentable as perhaps is the balance chamber tube in this application and the pneumatic or spring over balance in the mouthpiece concept. Maybe, maybe not. James
|
|