PDA

View Full Version : KISS Classic WOB



mrmints
11-04-2016, 10:52 AM
I'm sure I read recently (almost certainly during the wee hours with an awake toddler) that the KISS Classic WOB wasn't actually quite as bad as previously thought. Has anyone else seen this and if so, could they point me to the article/thread. I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.

Help much appreciated.

ebt
11-04-2016, 11:23 AM
Ive not seen anything recently to suggest a WOB improvement. I did think there was something on the kiss site, but that seems to be focused on scrubber duration: http://www.kissrebreathers.com/pdf/scrubberClassic.pdf

Historically, I seem to recall one of the 'steves' oop norf swapped his kiss dsv out for an inspo one and got a noticeable improvement, but I guess with KISS embracing the hollis/golem dsv's there may be data available with them?

mrmints
11-04-2016, 02:02 PM
I don't think it was to do with WOB improvement, rather that it wasn't in fact as bad as the Kevin Gurr chart suggested it was.

It's interesting that the TDI KISS manual recommends using 4-8 mesh slime and the KISS manual 797 which is 8-12.

ebt
11-04-2016, 02:22 PM
Personally I've always taken KG's chart with a pinch of salt, until you see the actual test data its all 'marketing'. I did get promised sight of the test data from KG & his cohorts ages back, but it never materialised.

On the slime front, I'd imagine the difference is probably inertia. Originally the classic was recommended for 4-8.

What is it you want to achieve, peace of mind... enlightenment... karmic balance? :)

Capt Morgan
11-04-2016, 03:53 PM
I don't think it was to do with WOB improvement, rather that it wasn't in fact as bad as the Kevin Gurr chart suggested it was.

It's interesting that the TDI KISS manual recommends using 4-8 mesh slime and the KISS manual 797 which is 8-12.

I always use 4-8 and that was on recommendation from Kim, I had one fill of 8-12 and can't say I noticed any difference
though it was all shallow diving at that time. I still run 3 hours with the 4-8 and I'm sure I could push it more but why ?
3 hours is long enough on a dive.
As for the WOB I've never had any problems with it using a GG prototype BOV and I'm sure the Hollis will be great,
I'm temped to get one myself.
I think the figures changed with the various BOV's that Kiss used.

mrmints
11-04-2016, 04:17 PM
Personally I've always taken KG's chart with a pinch of salt, until you see the actual test data its all 'marketing'. I did get promised sight of the test data from KG & his cohorts ages back, but it never materialised.

On the slime front, I'd imagine the difference is probably inertia. Originally the classic was recommended for 4-8.

What is it you want to achieve, peace of mind... enlightenment... karmic balance? :)

karma hates me.

Mark Chase
11-04-2016, 04:42 PM
Actualy Kevins test on the KISS Clasic found its WOB to be 1.78Jl which was the same as the Inspo Classic.

The KISS sport however got slated at 5Jl


I agree I got a noticable improvement on my KISS using cooper hoses and a Golum BOV

ATB

Capt Morgan
11-04-2016, 05:17 PM
Actualy Kevins test on the KISS Clasic found its WOB to be 1.78Jl which was the same as the Inspo Classic.

The KISS sport however got slated at 5Jl


I agree I got a noticable improvement on my KISS using cooper hoses and a Golum BOV

ATB

I forgot I have Cooper hoses fitted also, can't say I noticed a big difference but I fitted
them before I started doing any deep dives. I would imagine I'd see the difference
if I switched back ;)

Dave1w
11-04-2016, 05:40 PM
There was mention, when they announced the syntactic foam coatings that they had also tested the WOB with the newer Kiss BOV ( I am assuming it's the VR/Apeks tie up one, but could be the hollis one) and they said it came out a 1 or .99 JL.

This was done by Micropore I think, and there was little or no more details.

I noticed a big difference between the old Jetsam BOV and the Shrimp. I have fitted coopers now and a Hollis BOV, but won't be diving it until I get some more molex cells. I also had it very close to my back, with a soft backplate, and used Dromlite bags, but no idea how much that helps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Capt Morgan
11-04-2016, 06:01 PM
There was mention, when they announced the syntactic foam coatings that they had also tested the WOB with the newer Kiss BOV ( I am assuming it's the VR/Apeks tie up one, but could be the hollis one) and they said it came out a 1 or .99 JL.

This was done by Micropore I think, and there was little or no more details.

I noticed a big difference between the old Jetsam BOV and the Shrimp. I have fitted coppers now and a Hollic BOV, but won't be diving it until I get some more moles cells. I also had it very close to my back, with a soft backplate, and used Dromlite bags, but no idea how much that helps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it was done at the time of the syntactic foam announcement I'd say it was the
Hollis BOV as it and the shrimp were the only two being offered at that time.
What do you think of the Dromilite bags ? They are nice and red ;)

Dave1w
11-04-2016, 09:23 PM
They are cheaper and I was thinking they could be a tiny bit more supple. Not really a difference I can tell, but they are nice and red as you say!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mrmints
12-04-2016, 08:24 AM
Actualy Kevins test on the KISS Clasic found its WOB to be 1.78Jl which was the same as the Inspo Classic.

The KISS sport however got slated at 5Jl


I agree I got a noticable improvement on my KISS using cooper hoses and a Golum BOV

ATB

I think it was more like 3.44J/L according to Kevin.

Dave, that was it, with the comments on the foam covering for the scrubber! I now know where to look!!

iain/hsm
12-04-2016, 08:53 AM
I'm sure I read recently (almost certainly during the wee hours with an awake toddler) that the KISS Classic WOB wasn't actually quite as bad as previously thought. Has anyone else seen this and if so, could they point me to the article/thread. I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.

Help much appreciated.

Been trying to get the same info onto Scubaboard after the death of Shane Thompson last week on his Kiss Spirit.

The Kiss website interestingly omit the WOB and RMV figures in favour of duration and spin.

For Reference:

http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/bad-news-from-santa-rosa-blue-hole.524658/page-13

WFO
12-04-2016, 09:37 AM
That's a spirit not a classic though?

The classic has something like 70% the cross section scrubber area of an inspo, so you can see why it might need coarse lime to get decent WOB.
Haven't had a proper look at a KISS classic head but don't think there is anything ridiculously convoluted in there to get in the way of flow... just a limiting scrubber design and originally a really shit BOV.


Things like backplate design affecting WOB... do these effects on hydrostatic head actually affect the J/l figure since the pressure effects both sides of the curve? Not knocking the fact that they are important.


Edited to add
The spirit looks absolutely wank. How can that tiny, convoluted multi scrubber thing be safe for 90m? Maybe if you breath like a hamster. My 6m O2 unit had a better scrubber design than that...

ebt
12-04-2016, 09:51 AM
The classic head is pretty simple. It could be improved, but I suspect it'd be marginal (increase the CSA a bit and smooth a couple of turns). I think describing the BOV as 'really shit' is a bit harsh, given it was the first unit to come with one as standard. Its just semantics though....

Its a shame that all manufacturers don't produce their WOB charts & scrubber test results online (and all to the same standard).

WFO
12-04-2016, 10:13 AM
The classic head is pretty simple. It could be improved, but I suspect it'd be marginal (increase the CSA a bit and smooth a couple of turns). I think describing the BOV as 'really shit' is a bit harsh, given it was the first unit to come with one as standard. Its just semantics though....

Its a shame that all manufacturers don't produce their WOB charts & scrubber test results online (and all to the same standard).

Ok maybe it was good for the time but by comparison to modern standards, not so much.

I suspect you can get away with a multitude of sins in the unit gas flow since the losses in the scrubber and turbulent losses in the DSV are so enormous.


However I still can't get over the fact that they're selling that Spirit thing as a 90m unit.

ebt
12-04-2016, 04:34 PM
Yup. I think its a shame they havent done more to modernise the Classic (whilst still in the spirit of the original design).

I've yet to see a BOV i think is worth the money though to be honest.....

mrmints
13-04-2016, 10:27 AM
Here is the quote:

"If there is any question as to what a 4mm layer of Syntactic Foam applied to the outside surface of the scrubber on a KISS Classic Explorer, looking at the latest test results conducted at Micropore's testing facility puts it to rest.

When the tests were performed, two versions of the Classic were used; one with an exterior 4mm lining of Syntactic foam, and one without. Both using Sodasorb 4-8 Mesh HP absorbent, both where subjected to Micropore's own test parameters using a RMV rate of 30 liter/minute RMV at 1.2 LPM CO2 measured under a simulated depth equivalent of 40 metres/131 feet, with water temps at 4.4C/40F.

Scrubber duration with the Syntactic Foam Lining run a full 230 minutes, where as a second Classic with a stock unlined scrubber went 145 minutes.

Where some might take note is the difference between Micropore's test results on the unlined scrubber and the first test results when the KISS Classic was first officially tested back in 2006, it was in accordance with the CE standard of EN14143 by the ANSTI test facility in the United kingdom. Back then, the criteria used to determine the duration capabilities of a rebreather's scrubber was done using a RMV rate of 40 liter/minute at 1.6 liter/minutes under a simulated depth equivalent of 40 metres/131 feet, with surrounding water temps of 4C/39.2F. Test results then with Sofnolime 797 (4-8 British Standard Mesh) rendered a duration time of 157 minutes before CO2 breakthrough began to take place.

According to Micropore, the bases for dropping the RMV rate from 40 to 30 liter/minute RMV at 1.2 LPM in the tests is better mitigate the production too much CO2 which would, create false heat readings rendering less accurate test results. Even with a RMV rate of 30 liter/minute RMV at 1.2 LPM, is still well beyond what even a very physically fit diver could possibly do for more than a few minutes at a time. Either one you look at, 40 or 30 RMV, the scrubber duration on a standard Classic scrubber averages 151 minutes. Not at all shabby when you think about it.

But when you compare the numbers from either test models (ANSTI or Micropore), tests results from the Syntactic treat version has it clearly on top by an additional 73 - 85 minutes respectively.

In addition to discovering just how much a 4mm thick Syntactic lining can provide in terms of maintaining heat retention in the scrubber in extreme cold-water environments, Micropore's workload tests also showed the Classic's WOB levels measured .995. Surface WOB measurements on the standard BOV sold by KISS Rebreathers delivered resistance level .209.

So there you have it. The KISS Classic, first seen as a reliable workhorse, and still proving it still can hold it with the best of them."

mrmints
13-04-2016, 10:30 AM
I guess the problem is that it doesn't give the units for the figures quoted... .995 ELEPHANTS?!?! as my Physics teacher would write...

This takes some of the credibility of the "report" away for me.







DOH! Mike Young clarifies it's J/L further down the thread.

Capt Morgan
13-04-2016, 11:11 AM
I guess the problem is that it doesn't give the units for the figures quoted... .995 ELEPHANTS?!?! as my Physics teacher would write...

This takes some of the credibility of the "report" away for me.







DOH! Mike Young clarifies it's J/L further down the thread.

I asked Mike to clarify the units used in the test and he confirmed they were J/L
and I'd guess that was with the BOV that you have.
As I said before I don't see any problem with the WOB of the Kiss Classic.

ebt
13-04-2016, 12:03 PM
Regardless of who the company is, whenever they choose NOT to test to the CE requirements Im afraid I mostly discount the results, simply because it renders me unable to make an apples to apples comparison. 4-8 isnt the same as 797, so that makes the WOB results a bit less than useful.

Im still a big fan of the classic, but they're shooting themselves in the foot by not providing standardised results. All you know for sure is that its performance cannot be as good in the environment that most brits dive in (cold water, 797 sorb). I'm still happily diving mine (especially since WOB/Duration are only part of the picture), but Im well aware that the units performance could be improved.

PS. All kit has limits, the trick is to understand those and work within them ;)

Capt Morgan
13-04-2016, 12:20 PM
Regardless of who the company is, whenever they choose NOT to test to the CE requirements Im afraid I mostly discount the results, simply because it renders me unable to make an apples to apples comparison. 4-8 isnt the same as 797, so that makes the WOB results a bit less than useful.

Im still a big fan of the classic, but they're shooting themselves in the foot by not providing standardised results. All you know for sure is that its performance cannot be as good in the environment that most brits dive in (cold water, 797 sorb). I'm still happily diving mine (especially since WOB/Duration are only part of the picture), but Im well aware that the units performance could be improved.

PS. All kit has limits, the trick is to understand those and work within them ;)

So what would you say the limits of the Classic are ?

notdeadyet
13-04-2016, 12:38 PM
So what would you say the limits of the Classic are ?
With mine I found working hard past 50m wasn't something I wanted to do. I cant say I'm all the comfortable doing it on my Mk15 but I've got more confidence that I'm not going to reach a point where I'll be producing more co2 than I can eliminate. A few times I felt I was going to overbreathe the scrubber.

I loved my CK but I also felt the cheapening of parts by Jetsam weakened the unit. The plastic MAV was shite compared to the stainless versions. The ADV... aaargh! I don't know if it was the diaphragm or the tilt valve but I never got it working right after I replaced both. I think they lost their way as a company after Gordon died, it's easy to forget how innovative he was in this world where BOV's, boosters and rebreathers are nothing unusual. They needed to maintain and develop the KISS instead of effectively dumping it with a few cursory bought in add ons.

I'd have another in a shot. Just not a new one. Cant remember what number mine was, in the 50's I think, something of that era with a 2nd gen MAV, black handsets, steel hoses and an adv no one had fucked around with.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Capt Morgan
13-04-2016, 12:54 PM
I can't think of many rebreathers that like to be worked hard, though I'm sure Brad knows of at least one ;)
I bought a sheet of silicone and cut my own diaphragm for the ADV and love the way it just works.
My unit came with the plastic MAV but has stainless hoses, so far I've had no problems with the MAV.
I like the fact that I have never missed a dive because of rebreather problem and almost everything
can be field repaired.
So far I have only used it down to about 90m and I don't see myself going much deeper, it would need
to be a special dive for it to justify the deco.
I know Rick Stanton did some fairly big dives on the classic.

notdeadyet
13-04-2016, 02:49 PM
There were a few times that I was starting to feel I was sucking and blowing against too much resistance. I've never felt that on my Mk15. Really felt like I need to just stop for a second or it's going to start spiralling.

You're lucky, my MAV used to unscrew itself all the time. Flow rate on the button was like a 70 year old's first piss of the day too.

Don't get me wrong, it was a great unit in its day and if they'd stayed on top of it probably still would be. Jetsam's service is/was fantastic too. But there's better units as a new buy when you look at the cost. As a second hand buy, I'd take one over an Inspo any day.

I dont think I ever missed a dive that wasnt just down to cells either.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Mark Chase
13-04-2016, 08:40 PM
So what would you say the limits of the Classic are ?

Most I ever did on my one was I think 4 hours 15min single dive to 63m avg (Audascious in Atlantic) . Did dive it to 80 something for 3.5 hours once in the chanel. Did 6 hours on the KISS scrubber in Mexico caves several times

Didnt some nutty cave diver take the KISS to 200m in the UK?

For the diving I intended to do in the 30-100m range average 180mins, it was the favorite of all my CCR to dive but I had Sheerwater intigrated display, SHearwater HUD, Golum BOV and John Falcone ADV. so not realy a standard KISS

Capt Morgan
13-04-2016, 09:05 PM
Mark your post reminds me of the first question Dave Crockford asked me when I asked
him about training, he said "What's done to it ? I've never known a standard KISS"
I told him I'd nothing done to it, only ................ so I guess he's right :)
I've no intention of going super deep as I just find deco a bit boring so I'm happy with the
unit I have doing the diving I do. You know some of the mods I have done to it and it works
for me but I just don't get the way people always talk about them having WOB issues as I just
don't see it myself.
I must be one of the lucky ones who has an ADV that just works. When I got the unit the diaphragm
was a bit baggy so I got a sheet of silicone and cut a new one and it's been fine since.

WFO
14-04-2016, 07:22 AM
Regardless of who the company is, whenever they choose NOT to test to the CE requirements Im afraid I mostly discount the results, simply because it renders me unable to make an apples to apples comparison. 4-8 isnt the same as 797, so that makes the WOB results a bit less than useful.


But it was designed for coarse lime from the start wasn't it?

ebt
14-04-2016, 09:32 AM
So what would you say the limits of the Classic are ?

Hmmm i was in two minds whether to reply, since people look at stuff in isolation. So before I carry on, I'll say this..... out of the current crop of rebreathers, the classic would still be my choice (or a MK15.5 with modified loop [wider bore] and homebuild elecs).

Classics limits (in my humble opinion)


WOB. All CCR's are WOB limited sooner or later, but Ive found the edge in a classic a bit earlier than I have in eg an inspo.
Flood Recovery. Every time I've worked out a solution to it, it has added more complexity than I like....so I subscribe to the KISS methodology and make sure it doesnt flood in the first place.
Elecs. The original elecs are the best in terms of redundancy/simplicity, but they could do with being isolated from the loop gas (the pots age anyway, the moist gas doesnt help), and having a built in second take off port for redundan
BOV. Im aware theres other options now, but I'd still like a better performer thats small and maintainable.
ADV. The current offering is nice since you can feel its edge, but its awful if you have to SCR the unit. I'd quite like a switchable ADV (along the lines of how the jetstream worked, for example).
Construction. Theres a few changes I'd make, thread inserts, a replaceable metal insert for the head mount etc etc.


The problem is most folks 'improve' the kiss with lots of add on crap that ends up detracting from the strengths of its original ethos. Sadly to keep it 'clean' and simple is probably a re-design..... and most divers seem to value bells/whistles over robust basics.

I'll say again, for reliability and easy of use, I'd still take a KISS over the current crop (although like NDY says, I'd want an early model before it hit the plastic fantastic stage).....even including the JJ ;)

ebt
14-04-2016, 09:42 AM
But it was designed for coarse lime from the start wasn't it?

Yup. its what was mostly available in the US at the time (I believe it still is, but havent checked recently)

Capt Morgan
14-04-2016, 10:01 AM
Hmmm i was in two minds whether to reply, since people look at stuff in isolation. So before I carry on, I'll say this..... out of the current crop of rebreathers, the classic would still be my choice (or a MK15.5 with modified loop [wider bore] and homebuild elecs).

Classics limits (in my humble opinion)


WOB. All CCR's are WOB limited sooner or later, but Ive found the edge in a classic a bit earlier than I have in eg an inspo.
Flood Recovery. Every time I've worked out a solution to it, it has added more complexity than I like....so I subscribe to the KISS methodology and make sure it doesnt flood in the first place.
Elecs. The original elecs are the best in terms of redundancy/simplicity, but they could do with being isolated from the loop gas (the pots age anyway, the moist gas doesnt help), and having a built in second take off port for redundan
BOV. Im aware theres other options now, but I'd still like a better performer thats small and maintainable.
ADV. The current offering is nice since you can feel its edge, but its awful if you have to SCR the unit. I'd quite like a switchable ADV (along the lines of how the jetstream worked, for example).
Construction. Theres a few changes I'd make, thread inserts, a replaceable metal insert for the head mount etc etc.


The problem is most folks 'improve' the kiss with lots of add on crap that ends up detracting from the strengths of its original ethos. Sadly to keep it 'clean' and simple is probably a re-design..... and most divers seem to value bells/whistles over robust basics.

I'll say again, for reliability and easy of use, I'd still take a KISS over the current crop.....even including the JJ ;)

Thanks ebt I always interested in peoples opinions on the unit.
Let me say what I think on your points.

1. I've only dived my unit to about 90m and have not worked hard at depth so it's not something I've had an issue with.
2. I agree with the lack of flood recovery and like yourself have thought of ways to solve it but never actually tried.
3. My unit came with solid wiring from the head to the displays so it would be less of a problem than the early units
that came with hoses and loose wires. I have to say that the fact each cell has its own wiring, battery and display
can only be a good thing though I took them off and fitted a Shearwater computer and a hud.
4. As far as I know the Hollis that is now offered is a super BOV and looks super compact, I'm tempted to get one.
5. I would like an ADV that could be isolated but it would involve some complicated hose routing so I don't think it will happen.
6. I agree that the screws going directly into delrin is a rubbish idea, I fitted stainless helicoils to the kidney holes.

I've done bits to my unit to "improve" it and some of them are back to standard again others may stay or go the same way ;)

ebt
14-04-2016, 10:19 AM
Interesting, so your generation of displays weren't at ambient pressure? I never knew they'd done that. Whats your unit number?

I looked at the Hollis a while back and discounted it for reasons Im buggered if I can remember...helpful eh?!

Flood recovery rapidly becomes more hassle than its worth. My final idea was to blank the top dump valve, machine a longer scrubber base and make it deep enough to fit a LP dump inside a chamber. I never got around to doing it, inherent lazyness struck.

My unit started life stock, then I added 5L drive tanks (big mistake, back to 3's pretty rapidly), offboard gas via a GCS into the manifold and added a Dave.D. stainless CL case.

Nowadays, its a stock unit, apart from the counterlung case (which rocks) and a more flexible hose on the DIL side.

Capt Morgan
14-04-2016, 10:53 AM
My unit is number 270 and it must be close to the last with the stainless hoses. The displays
aren't at ambient unless some pressure comes down the cable as it's not potted but the displays
don't show any sign of moisture that I'd expect if it did.
I toyed with the idea of a stainless case but just stuck to the standard case with a 6lb top hat,
I took a grinder to the case and made it easier to access the counter lungs.

Brad_Horn
14-04-2016, 10:55 AM
"Both using Sodasorb 4-8 Mesh HP absorbent, both where subjected to Micropore's own test parameters using a RMV rate of 30 liter/minute RMV at 1.2 LPM CO2 measured under a simulated depth equivalent of 40 metres/131 feet, with water temps at 4.4C/40F.

Micropore's workload tests also showed the Classic's WOB levels measured .995. [/I]


I asked Mike to clarify the units used in the test and he confirmed they were J/L
and I'd guess that was with the BOV that you have.
As I said before I don't see any problem with the WOB of the Kiss Classic.

Their using an RMV of 30LPM makes it challenging to compare, as the default even for scrubber duration is 40lpm and for WOB 75lpm; does makes the figures for marketing look good though BUT you can have a crack at it if you have comparable testing for another unit.

Assuming KISS quoted the optimum orientation for the unit: http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/DV_OR_WOB_Respiratory_C1_101111.pdf
Apoc at 40m Air 22.5LPM WOB is 0.25J/L
Apoc at 40m Air 40LPM WOB is 0.46J/L
As the KISS Classic is 0.995J/L at 40m 30LPM Air, its WOB is not 4 times worse than the Apoc but greater than twice!

As the Apoc is 1.44J/L at 75LPM at 40m Air: KISS Classic is therefore somewhere north of 2.88J/L and likely somewhere closer to 4+J/L for direct comparison to other CE tested CCRs.

If anyone has the results of another CCR's WOB at 22.5LPM and 40LPM for 40m Air then that can also be used as a reference bracket.

Alby R
14-04-2016, 12:22 PM
hi brad

nice to see you are still banging on, but you have still not answered my question listed below in another thread. Brad what is so difficult in just giving a straight answer to the inquiries about the invisible apoc electronics you say are in production, they'll be ready for the antiques show if and when they arrive.

alby


hi brad

nice to hear you banging on again, now that you have re-surfaced have you been given a date for the electronics that you keep saying are in production, or will the ea's be fobbed off again

alby

Dave1w
19-04-2016, 06:12 PM
Their using an RMV of 30LPM makes it challenging to compare, as the default even for scrubber duration is 40lpm and for WOB 75lpm; does makes the figures for marketing look good though BUT you can have a crack at it if you have comparable testing for another unit.

Assuming KISS quoted the optimum orientation for the unit: http://www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/DV_OR_WOB_Respiratory_C1_101111.pdf
Apoc at 40m Air 22.5LPM WOB is 0.25J/L
Apoc at 40m Air 40LPM WOB is 0.46J/L
As the KISS Classic is 0.995J/L at 40m 30LPM Air, its WOB is not 4 times worse than the Apoc but greater than twice!

As the Apoc is 1.44J/L at 75LPM at 40m Air: KISS Classic is therefore somewhere north of 2.88J/L and likely somewhere closer to 4+J/L for direct comparison to other CE tested CCRs.

If anyone has the results of another CCR's WOB at 22.5LPM and 40LPM for 40m Air then that can also be used as a reference bracket.

Is there a MTBF figure yet for the Apoc? Was there a target during the design phases? How would it compare with the Kiss?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk