|
|
Post by luis on Dec 30, 2007 6:41:58 GMT -8
It is interesting that the exhaust is not in the center of the can. I guess they never expected the minimum cracking effort to be less that 1.5 to 2 inWC. Without a scale is hard to tell, but that looks like the distance from the far edge of the mushroom valve to the center of the can.
I guess it was just a compromise to keep the exhaust can small and easier to manufacture.
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 30, 2007 17:34:10 GMT -8
Luis,
I think it is a bit more complex than what you say above. The exhaust is 7/8 inch (2.3 cm) in diameter, positioned 1 13/16 inches from the one side of the top box. It is also on an angle, unlike the Snark III (which is in the same plane as the main diaphragm). If you position the case as it would be when put together, with the horns in approximately the 2:00 and 10:00 positions, then the top of the exhaust mushroom is 7/8 inch (approximately 2 cm) from the diaphragm's center in a vertical plane. The top box itself is 5 inches (12.5 cm) in outside diameter. The box is actually a rather complex structure 1 3/4 inches (4.4 cm) at the center, and 2 inches (5 cm) at the outside where it connects to the box, on the bottom, but the some 1 3/4 inches on the top. The sides also were pre-manufactured to the bends of the box, and bent into shape. So they put some work into it. So with only a 7/8 inch (2 cm) difference, the leakage would be minimal.
The taper of the exhaust box also keeps the mushroom from being the high point in most positions, so that would keep leakage to a minimum too. I actually had one of the Gold Label Scuba Deluxe, into which I put an extra exhaust mushroom by simply drilling four holes with a fifth center hole for the mushroom. This was outboard from the main exhaust, and I don't remember any leakage in the dives I made.
The fact that it tapers, and is not in the same plane as the exhaust diaphragm, led to the diaphragm actually causing the exhaust mushroom not to open, as the diaphragm (without non-returns in the mouthpiece, which allowed a back-pressure into the case) blocked the exhalation mushroom. This necessitated the "L" tab on the Scuba Deluxe, Gold Label, to break the pressure potential for the diaphragm against the mushroom.
The Snark III apparently also ran into this problem, and mitigated it with a two metal projections about 0.5 cm high to keep the main diaphragm from hitting the exhaust mushroom. The Snark III exhaust mushroom is huge, and covers six circular openings each 0.8 cm wide. But the mushroom diameter is a full 5 cm (1 15/16 inch), positioned symmetrically around the center of the top box, and this regulator does leak in a vertical position.
Now, learning all this, I'm wondering whether the Aqualung Mentor has a feature with its exhaust mushroom which prevents the diaphragm from blocking it?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Broxton Carol on Dec 31, 2007 12:50:10 GMT -8
All this this time doing speculation, modification, speculation, modification................... get a broXton! They did it right the first time! Happy new year!!  |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Dec 31, 2007 17:58:30 GMT -8
Chuck,
I've got a BroXton, but never could get it to breath worth a darn (worse than my original Healthways Scuba). Could I send it to you for a bit of work?
Happy New Year to everyone.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by luis on Dec 31, 2007 19:55:39 GMT -8
Luis, I think it is a bit more complex than what you say above. John Actually, I don’t think it is very complex. Just think of it in a spherical coordinate system. After all a divers position should be able to take any attitude (as in any roll, pitch, and yaw angle, if you want to think about it in a Cartesian coordinate system). IMHO, nothing in a Scuba regulator is really that complex, definitely not the mechanism and not even the flow dynamics. Remember, must of them were design in a drawing board with a slide ruler. It is true that we also went to the moon using only drawing boards and slide rulers, but it took many more engineers and scientist to do that. The funny (and sad) thing is that the design (and technology) to build a Saturn V was thrown away years ago because the paper drawings took too much space. At this point we don’t have a design for a heavy lift rocket like we had in the 60’s and we could use it. Most regulators in the early days were design by a hand full of people. Very bright individuals, but they obviously kept it simple. Heck, Emile Gagnon alone introduced many if not most of the design concepts even used to this day, including the use of the venturi flow assist. A lot of the design process in those days involved a lot of trial and error. Oh BTW the Broxton do not have any venturi assist and therefore will never breathe like an Aqua Master or any other similar regulator. The second stage on the Broxton is on the opposite side of the can as the intake horn and the demand valve has no flow controlling nozzle or anything even close to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Broxton Carol on Jan 1, 2008 5:33:51 GMT -8
Sure John: Ill be happy to go through it for you. Ill send you a private message with particulars. I agree with Luis, that the broXton regs dont breathe as easy as an aquamaster, but Im going for the gusto, the excitement, and thrill of diving the very old stuff. I have dove my broxton to 125 feet and it breathes just fine. Its great that you have ideas that make the old gear more palatable to the newbie vintage diver, and those who dont care about originality but love the aura of using a 2 hoser in todays world with todays accessories. I still just dive with a belt, and if Im out in a lake, or in the ocean, I wear my vest, as Im not a strong swimmer. Happy new year to you all. Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by duckbill on Jan 8, 2008 23:18:35 GMT -8
Thanks for sharing your experiments with us, John. You are obviously having fun this cold, wet winter....somehow! (Brrrrrrr)
I'm curious. I always thought the three Healthways models were: "SCUBA" (early model) > "SCUBA Deluxe" > "SCUBA" (late model, i.e. Gold Label). Was the Gold Label ever marketed and advertised as a "Deluxe", or simply "SCUBA" as shown on it's label?
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Jan 9, 2008 6:26:28 GMT -8
You know, Duckbill  , I have always called the second and third generation a "SCUBA Deluxe," but the Gold Label shows it as simply "SCUBA." I did not know this for quite some time, and my original third generation did not have a label, and I simply put a NAUI Instructor sticker on the bottom box (it was round, and fit the same as the original label). In my mind, every generation after the first was a "SCUBA Deluxe," but I don't know what Healthways did with their advertising. Hold on, let me look at Fred Roberts Basic Scuba. According to Fred Roberts, under the heading: So Fred Roberts refers to it as the Scuba Deluxe, but then the "Figure 3-18 Exploded view and parts list Scuba regulator, models 1960 to 1962, Courtesy Healthways" confuses the issue, and the diagram itself, again from Healthways, refers to "SCUBA REGULATOR (1960-1962)." I am using Fred's terminology, but apparently Healthways never did refer to it as a "Deluxe" in the third generation. Fred has a separate section for the Scuba Deluxe (1960), but then referred to " Maintenance and Repair of 1960 Scuba Regulator." Confusing? I think so. John |
|
|
|
Post by duckbill on Jan 9, 2008 23:26:01 GMT -8
You're right. Now I AM comfused!
I thought the 1962- model to which he referred simply reflected changes made during the last year of the "SCUBA Deluxe's" production, which later (after the second edition was sent to the publisher) carried over to the third model to be renamed "SCUBA" with the gold label. Hmmm.
Thanks for the food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Broxton Carol on Jan 11, 2008 19:28:03 GMT -8
John sent me his box of broXton parts, and after assembling them, and carefully tuning, it breathes as great as new. The regulator turned out to be a rare early 1953 GREEN label broXton, serial 66xx! You are very lucky to own such a desirable piece. Now enjoy. Chucko
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Jan 23, 2008 9:52:52 GMT -8
John sent me his box of broXton parts, and after assembling them, and carefully tuning, it breathes as great as new. The regulator turned out to be a rare early 1953 GREEN label broXton, serial 66xx! You are very lucky to own such a desirable piece. Now enjoy. Chucko I got the BroXton back, and it is better than it has ever been. Thanks much for your work on it. It now appears to breathe the equivalent to my ol' Healthways Scuba regulator, which is not too bad. I choose the Healthways Scuba regulator in 1959 as my first regulator (used) that I bought after testing it with an old Dacor Dial-a-Breath two stage (the old style) and a USD Mistral. I liked the smoothness of the breathing with the Healthways Scuba, and it appears that the USD Aqualung, when tuned correctly, provides this same smoothness of breathing. I am frankly amazed at the difference, and now can see how Cousteau used the Aqualung regulator for so many years. This is something I couldn't comprehend earlier, when I had almost been done in by that one on a dive in Clear Lake. I had to turn onto my back to get enough air through it to breathe while ascending from about 50 feet against a half-know current. I hope to put this newly-tuned Aqualung into the water (maybe tonight) at the pool. Also, be aware that there are two very nice Healthways Scuba regulators on e-bay right now. The first is a Gold Label (late model, with the air ejector) Healthways Scuba, item #300192464138, end time January 27th. The other is a very good-looking Hearthways Scuba, first model, with the original blue hoses I loved so much in the late 1950s, item #170187494393. If I didn't already have one, I'd be sorely tempted for either of these. Here's a photo of the ebay Healthways Scuba regulator with blue hoses:  John |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Jan 27, 2008 15:18:32 GMT -8
I took all three of my Healthways Scuba regs into the pool today, along with the DA Aqualung that I got back from Chuck. I'm going to start another thread with a more detailed report, but suffice it to say that the DA Aqualung breathed better than the first two generations of the Healthways Scuba, and provided all the air I needed.
Since this is a Healthways Scuba thread, I'll discuss my findings about these three regs first. I took the DA Aqualung into the water first, to establish a baseline, then took the Healthways Scuba regs into the pool. The original Healthways Scuba (see the blue-hose beauty above) worked pretty well, but did not have a good exhalation as it did not have a duckbill valve imbedded into the exhaust system. So water came into the hose (see my experiments earlier). I was using it with a Hope-Page mouthpiece and Dan's super-flex hoses, and they worked extremely well on this regulator.
The second test was to take the Healthways Scuba Deluxe regulator into the pool. It has the same mechanism as the original Healthways Scuba, but has a mushroom valve exhaust. That exhaust was partially blocked by the diaphragm (again), as I was using the original Healthways mouthpiece, but without a non-return in the intake. As a matter of fact, the only reason it was as good as the original Healthways Scuba is that I have removed the mushroom valve cage from the intake of this mouthpiece. Also, I used Nemrod Snark III hoses with this mouthpiece, as the original hoses are too short (in my opinion) to be practical. With these modifications, the inhalation resistance is on par with the original Healthways Scuba regulator.
I than took the third generation Healthways Scuba into the water, with the air ejector in place. This regulator breaths on par with a USD Mistral, and did so using either hose-mouthpiece system described above. It is quite noisy, however.
Next I used a modified AMF Voit 50 Fathom (downstream) single stage, and it was a very nice performer, on par with the third-generation Healthways Scuba.
Finally, I went back to the DA Aqualung, and enjoyed it for the last ten or so minutes of these dives. I even tested it by swimming hard underwater to try to build up an oxygen debt, but could not. The DA Aqualung provided all the air I needed. The air flowed smoothly, responsive to my inhalations, but not with the venturi that we are used to. So while it was smooth, it did take some minimal effort throughout the inhalation to keep air moving. This was a surprise, as before I had Broxton Chuck go through this regulator, I had relegated it to the collection tray. It had not been in the water since about 1974, when in Clear Lake I couldn't get enough air through it to sustain me without swimming on my back against a 1/2 knot current when ascending from about 50 feet. Now, I think it will come along and go diving this spring and summer. It is a quiet regulator, and the exhalation is very nice (USD two-hose regs always were superb at exhalation because of their duckbill design, right Duckbill?).
So that's the report. I'll do a bit more later, starting a new thread devoted to the DA Aqualung.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Mar 25, 2008 7:42:20 GMT -8
Last Sunday I again too the Healthways Scuba (original) into the pool, this time with a modified duckbill in the exhaust. There is little room for the duckbill, and it had to be trimmed in order to get it into the exhaust port inside the main housing. But this time, it worked well. When I took it into the water, I was surprised that all the exhalation problems that I had documented above had gone away. The regulator breathed smoothly, and provided the air I needed with a smooth draw. There is no real venturi here, but part of the inflow of air goes at the hose, and therefore does draw well down the hose.
Years ago, when I was buying my first regulator from another diver (used), I tried the Dacor Dial-a-Breath, the USD Mistral, and the Healthways Scuba in the Salem, Oregon YMCA pool. This was about 1959. I choose the Healthways Scuba as the regulator I would buy, and it became my first regulator. I chose it over the other two, as I liked the way it breathed--nice and smooth.
Last Sunday, I again took the Healthways Scuba, Healthways Scuba Deluxe (Gold Label) and USD Mistral into the pool. Without a doubt, the USD Mistral and the Scuba Deluxe breathed easier than the original Healthways Scuba. But this dive again reinforced that the Healthways Scuba was a real contender at the time, and had a popular following. I liked it, and it was a quieter regulator than the other two. So it will be going into open water again this spring or summer.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Broxton Carol on Mar 25, 2008 11:57:36 GMT -8
Now John, I know that you have that great broXton just waiting to go in your gear bag, out on all your dives this summer. Save a lot of grief, and leave the healthways at home, go first class with the reg that captain nemo used! I just got my 1953 greenie tuned up, for divin this summer in the lakes of northern michigan. Dive a broXton, even a caveman can do it! |
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Mar 25, 2008 17:00:06 GMT -8
Hi Chuck,
I know what you mean, but I only have one tank system (my twin 50s) with a valve which will fit the yolk of the BroXton. It's being filled right now (probably done, and awaiting me at the dive shop. I'll get it this week, then the BroXton will have its turn.
John
|
|
, I have always called the second and third generation a "SCUBA Deluxe," but the Gold Label shows it as simply "SCUBA." I did not know this for quite some time, and my original third generation did not have a label, and I simply put a NAUI Instructor sticker on the bottom box (it was round, and fit the same as the original label). In my mind, every generation after the first was a "SCUBA Deluxe," but I don't know what Healthways did with their advertising. Hold on, let me look at Fred Roberts Basic Scuba. According to Fred Roberts, under the heading: