Base standard

[Deleted]

I was wondering what is considered the base standard for Double Hose Regulators? The late model Royal AquaMaster? Or something other than that?

What is the generally accepted criteria? Cracking effort or volume of air delivered or both? Does maintanence play into this?

Does the weight of the regulator play into this, size, hose/mouthpiece weight and size....color of hose...chrome vs other finishes?

From what I have read on these strings, the new Aqualung Mistral wanta be doublehose, does not breath any better than the Royal when the Royal is tuned up........any comments on that?

What improvements (wish list) on the Base Standard would be generally acceptable...........IE: silicon parts, replaceable mouth piece bit...........etc.?

[swimjim]

My dos centavos. A base standard should be based on performance. I have a Dacor Diving lung thats near original, looks sweet, but is an aweful breather. I have a DA Aquamaster thats a little rough around the edges, but breathes great. Which one would you take on a dive? DA, hands down. My Healthways gold label comes pretty close, skinnyer hoses and all. Its one of the smoothest regs I've ever used. The chrome is nice too. I don't have a Royal yet to compare. It would be tough to beat the DA though.

Jim

[nemrod]

"What improvements (wish list) on the Base Standard would be generally acceptable...........IE: silicon parts, replaceable mouth piece bit...........etc.?"

There have been many threads on this board on exactly that subject and no consensus.


I have stated mine before and the Amazing Luis is building his--yeehaaa!!! Yep, I want silicone cage valves and a silicone main diaphram with a nylon/teflon insert to reduce friction.

Standard??, I am not sure I follow? If your asking what double hose regulator breaths best then my opnion and it is that only--an opinion-- is that the Royal Aqua Master knows no equal and the late round label units with the heavy yokes are the most desirable and that again is an opinion (as opposed to an absolute fact).

James

[Deleted]

[quote author=nemrod board=general thread=1151422690 post=1151481461There have been many threads on this board on exactly that subject and no consensus.


That's my point exactly..........lots of opinions but no bases or standard to judge other regs by.........how do we come up with a standard? Voting? Scientific research? Opinion polls?.......

Swimjim hasn't a RAM to opinion by and I suspect there are lots of others out there in the same boat.........He likes his DA but can't compare to a RAM.

So voting and or opinion polls are out...........is there another way besides scientific research?

What is the base standard for single hose regs.....what reg stands out the best and all others are judged by? How is that done?

Sorta like, judgin all motorcycles against a Harley Davidson.....

[Gomez' echo]

The questions you ask are indeed valid. However, there are numerous comparisons on single hose regulators available. For example, Rodale's Scuba Diving magazine runs periodic test on regulators. Here is a link to one:
www.scubadiving.com/gear/regulators/2005%27s_best_new_breathers/

When it comes to double hose regulators, the "cracking" effort can be measured, but for what purpose? Surely the lower the better, but it is not only this criteria that is important. As anyone who has dived a double hose knows, they are position-orientation sensative. That is, whenever the regulator body is lower in the water column than the mouthpiece then the "cracking" effort is decreased. Conversely whenever the body is above the mouthpiece say when you are upside down in the water, the effort is greater. That being said, the deliverly of air quantity is also important. I have dived many different double hoses from an early 1950's to the latest Snark III and have found them all capable of delivering the quantity of air I have desired. The effort of breathing based on position in the water did change however. But most of the "characteristics" are subjective. When I first started diving, single hose regulators were just in their "training wheel" phase. Double hoses were fine, because we had few, if anything else for comparison. So to try to judge a vintage double hose by modern standards is not important. Enjoy driving your 1960 Chevy with "3 on the tree" and not compare it to the 2006 Escalade you might have in your garage.
Allan

[Deleted]

Allan

I haven't had the opportunety to use a SnarkIII.......since it was the last of the doublehoses to be sold......late 90's wasn't it...and do not know if its ability vs a RAM/New Mistral/other regs...I was wondering on a base standard to compare for a new doublehose.......

from what I see and hear, the later model RAM is as good as the new Mistral, the most modern, if different, doublehose, given all the breathing techniques you described are considered......which one would be the standard to judge anything new on the market?

As I stated in my original message, what considerations other than cracking effort, air delivery etc should be considered?

[Gomez' echo]

I dived the new Aqualung Mistral at Sand Dog III. The breathing was ok, nothing to write home about. The hoses and mouthpiece are the worst I have ever used in my decades of diving. When my dive of 45 minutes was over, my mouth literally hurt from the mouthpiece. Again, breathability was no better than a well tuned DA. My favorite reg is a RAM (rectangular label circa 1966-1970). I have a late round label, but the rectangular one is fantastic. I recently acquired a Royal Master (1964-1965), had it rebuilt and tuned. I have only dived it once, but it is almost at a par with my rectangular RAM. I also have a Mistral which I really like using. The "roar" of the venturi nozzle is a very endearing sound. My Snark is good also, in fact I also like the mouthpiece with the neck strap. The extra rubber around your lips is very comfortable.
If I had to list the factors that I would put in order of desirable characteristics of a double hose, it might go like this:
1) ease of breathing
2) adequate volume
3) ease of exhale
4) dryness
5) comfort of mouthpiece/hose
(I prefer the later USD curved, but the straight ones are cooler)
6) quietness (forgiving a Mistral of course)
7) long yoke (if banjo is desired)
8) LP access port (hookah does work) for BC/Air 2 for commercial dive op requirements)
9) physical condition of parts
10) Availability of parts/serviceability (USD seems to have the market on this, and we do have numerous technitions available)

This list could probably go on. But again, these are only my opinion. As I said before, don't try to equate a modern single hose with a vintage double hose. They are both great in their own way. Enjoy and have fun for what they are.
Allan

[BLT]

simonbeans said:

Enjoy driving your 1960 Chevy with "3 on the tree" and not compare it to the 2006 Escalade you might have in your garage.
Allan

:'(Dang it all! I knew I was missing something...
:PIf I could only find my garage, then I wouldn't have to drive this POS Chevy!! ;D

[Deleted]

Allan,

Is what you are saying, is a new double hose on the market would have to equal say a Titan or one of the top Scubapros or Apex's in breathability to be competitive?

Would that be the base standard to judge a new doublehose? If so then the New Mistral apparently fails to meet those standards. Or does it?

Or is this the wrong track to take regarding such a mythical thing as a new double hose?

[Gomez' echo]

Yes, if a "new" double hose were introduced to the market, I would expect it to have some of the better breathing characteristics of a modern single hose, i.e., Scubapro G250, etc. No matter how you build a double hose, the distance from the regulator to the mouthpiece and the resultant pressure differential will always be an issue. This will occur assuming that the regulator is mounted on the tank and not on the chest, etc. I think that this pressure differential/breathing change is just a law of physics. Not that the position or orientation causes any problems whatsoever. One must just be aware of these characteristics of a double hose. I could also assume that if the new Mistral would change to more vintage type hoses, then it probably would be an OK regulator. Esthetics not withstanding. As far as I am concerned, that if the nozzle of Lois were installed, and if new silicone parts (diaphram, mushrooms, duckbill, hoses like original) were available then with any DA, which is still very plentiful, you would have a great regulator with breathabiliy, realiability and all of the various esthetic and safety features needed to compliment both vintage and modern divers. Plus, the availablility of service and parts would become a mute point.
I am more of a vintage diver in regards to historical aspects. I like to use the gear of that time and the way we dove in the early 1960's. But then we all have to live in the modern world and comply with liabilities, etc. Most of us who dive vintage are doing this at either private quarries or in places without the benefits of dive operations. With the regulator I have oulined above, we would definitely fulfill all boat operators criteria. We do sign away everything when we do each of the boat wavers, but this "new" regulator would allow us to dive the vintage way, within the modern world.
Allan

[Deleted]

Allan

thanks for your input, is greatly appreciated.......

Would you concur that given cracking effort was sustained at 3/4 to 1/2 inch of water........and all other things being equal given the physics of the lungs/regulator position......that air flow volume would be important as a new regulator requirement?

IE: the total flow of air from each breath from the second stage orfice, down the hose to the mouthpiece and lungs.

What I'm getting at, I believe it's the shape/size of the second stage orifice, horn, hose, valve and mouth piece that needs refinement.......

My reasoning stems from the reports of more volume of air per breath with the new hose from Dan's shop......

[Gomez' echo]

You could be right, however I have never been in any situation that the demand was greater than the amount supplied. The new hoses worked well for me although the taste was very disconcerning. I have found a new approach as to how to rid the taste on the VDH forum. I will try that. With the venturi hole on the DA and RAM and the nozzle on a Mistral shooting right down the intake hose nozzle, I can't see how enlarging or reorienting the horns would make much of a difference. In the Voit 50 Fathom Regulator (discussed a lot in earlier forum threads) the hole was oriented away from the intake horn and thus was a poor breather. When the internals were reoriented, breathing effort was greatly reduced.

As to cracking values. Values of .5-.75 inches of water are very low. Normal settings on single hoses range from .8 to 1.2 or more. Some of the pilot valve regs might go down to .6. Again, this varies with regulator manufacturer. I am sure my best RAM cracks just over 1 or a little more, but to me that is not important. If you want to have a low cracking value, just turn on your back. You will probably get a free flow. One of the best swimming positions is slightly tilted to the left. That is a very easy breathing position.
Allan

[SeaRat]

michael said:

Allan

thanks for your input, is greatly appreciated.......

Would you concur that given cracking effort was sustained at 3/4 to 1/2 inch of water........and all other things being equal given the physics of the lungs/regulator position......that air flow volume would be important as a new regulator requirement?

IE: the total flow of air from each breath from the second stage orfice, down the hose to the mouthpiece and lungs.

What I'm getting at, I believe it's the shape/size of the second stage orifice, horn, hose, valve and mouth piece that needs refinement.......

My reasoning stems from the reports of more volume of air per breath with the new hose from Dan's shop......

I was the one who made the initial observation that it appeared that the new hoses Dan has were delivering more air than the other hoses I had. I have not quantified that observation, although I'm closer to doing an experiment that may produce information on this question.

Concerning the "standard," it does exist, but is not referenced much anymore. It was put by USD in a performance chart, and used the military standard for that determination:

It wasn't until the 1970s that the single hose regulators started meeting this standard, and it was because of exhalation resistance and not inhalation resistance. The early single hose regulators had openings which were too small to give sufficient volume of air in exhalation. This is also why the U.S. Navy took so long to recognize the single hose regulators. The first regulator to meet the standard was the Voit MR12, followed very quickly by the USD Calypso and Conshelf regulators (the original Calypso regulator did not meet that standard).

There is now another European standard, which I have seen but am not completely familiar with, but which apparently shows the "work" of breathing with the regulators against a standard.

Concerning a new regulator, and the standard it should meet, I would concur with the list Simonbeans put together, and add a bit to it.

First, I would want it to have a breaking effort at or below 1/2 inch of water pressure.

Second, air flow volume is important, especially in deeper water. I have used regulators (the DA Aqualung) which did not deliver enough air at depth. I had to swim against a current (~1/2 knot) from 60+ feet in depth, and could only get enough air out of it by swimming on my back, and it still was not enough.

Third, the venturi should allow air to flow without effort.

Fourth, the hoses should be long enough to get the regulator to the point between the shoulder blades of the diver. At this point, the regulator performs effortlessly in most swimming positions--lower is better. By the way, it is not the difference in pressure between the regulator and the mouthpiece, but between the regulator and the lungs. We've discussed this in the instruction thread:

vintagescuba.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=instruction&action=display&n=1&thread=1142&page=2

I would also want a regulator which was comfortable to wear, and did not protrude into my back. It seems that the new Aqualung Mistral may have problems with this requirement with some tank configurations.

By the way, there is the Mentor regulator, which is a new double hose regulator for the Navy not available to the divers at this time (unless huge costs and special ordering are done), but it appears to meet much of this criterion.

John

[Deleted]

Allan/John

thanks for the replies.......I've been talking with a hose manufacture on different types, his comments concerning volume flow (not pressure) can be increased if different configuration hoses are used vs the old "accordian" types used on the vintage stuff........John your right on the positioning.....length of hose is important, however, too much stretchabiltiy (is there such a word?) can result in some of the convolutions pinching together or opening up under some conditions (heavy turburlence, currents, etc), this could possibly interrupt the smooth air flow during a breath.......so I don't think the old style hose is the answer, even with additional rings as Dan sells. (he is selling historic reproductions I believe)....

for a modern double hose, something different probably needs to be tried.........on the other hand, if one gets too big, as the hoses on the New Mistral show, they can get clumbersome and I seem to hear from everyone that they don't breath any better.......

John, what do you mean when you stated "the venturi should flow with out effort"...? Do you mean without any interference? Or something else meant?

I think (my opinion only) the venturi on the USD reg's is poorly designed, it is just a small hole and the air flow must jump across dead air space to the horn opening where another constriction that is slightly shaped like a venturi structure where the air must pass before entering the hose.........a lot of wasted energy......

I am not versed on the Voit, but the Dacor is even worse....that second stage air opening is just that......a big gapping slot that blasts air everywhere, hoping I guess, to enter the horn. That horn has a tighter shaped venturi type structure, but with little air actually getting shot thru it, I am not surprised of its poor performance.........

I guess what I am wanting to see is a system where the air travels in less time and a higher volume from the second stage to the mouth piece than currently does.........I don't know if this is possible........

[SeaRat]

michael said:

...John, what do you mean when you stated "the venturi should flow with out effort"...? Do you mean without any interference? Or something else meant?

I think (my opinion only) the venturi on the USD reg's is poorly designed, it is just a small hole and the air flow must jump across dead air space to the horn opening where another constriction that is slightly shaped like a venturi structure where the air must pass before entering the hose.........a lot of wasted energy......

I am not versed on the Voit, but the Dacor is even worse....that second stage air opening is just that......a big gapping slot that blasts air everywhere, hoping I guess, to enter the horn. That horn has a tighter shaped venturi type structure, but with little air actually getting shot thru it, I am not surprised of its poor performance.........

I guess what I am wanting to see is a system where the air travels in less time and a higher volume from the second stage to the mouth piece than currently does.........I don't know if this is possible........

mossback,

What I mean is that once a breath is initiated, it should continue until I'm ready to exhale, but gently so that it doesn't overwhelm the exhalation.

The USD venturi is pretty well designed on the DA Aquamaster and Royal Aquamaster, and extremely well designed on the old USD Mistral, the AMF Voit 50 Fathom, and the Healthways Scuba Delux (Gold).

I'm curious which Dacor regulator you have? I've had the original Dial-a-Breath, and it actually did not breath too badly. The R4 actually had a pretty good design, but the mouthpiece compromised it.

There is another way for the venturi to work, and I'll explain it later (I'm a bit tired right now, and need to do the dishes).

John