As long as you're happy though
As long as you're happy though
Hope it is ok to resurrect this thread ... any more thoughts / experience in using Intersorb 812 .. particularly in an Inspiration.
I would use Sofnalime if it was not a pain to get hold of in Spain (no local dealer /importer that I can find) and there is a local supplier of the Intersorb.
I don't think that the dust issue is a problem for me and I didn't really see a difference in WOB between the two.
I am aware that there is potentially a difference in the amount of CO2 that 812 can absorb being lower than 797, but I never push my scrubber.
I read a comment on another forum that said he believed the difference in time available on 797 made up for the difference in price, but you would then need to run a CO2 monitor and push things - something I'm not prepared to do.
I believe subsequent posts focused on consistency of the product. From my experience warm water negates most evils with absorbent.The problem is no one is dipping their hand in their pocket to pay for all the testing required on the different materials. The tests are time consuming and costly and above all, it has to make business sense… and from our past experience with Sodalime 812 – we didn’t know the limitations of the material until we had a large batch in.[/FONT]
The Intersorb 812 wasn’t the same as 797 as claimed by an Intersorb representative. We learned within 4 test dives, 2 days of testing, that the Tempstik needs adjusting for that material as the warnings are inappropriate and the Intersorb 812s performance wasn’t as good at depth. To properly verify the material in each rebreather will be too costly.
Intersurgical say their absorbent is better: http://www.divelong.com/files/test-data1.pdf
Molecular say their absorbent is better: https://jmldiving.com/data/include/c...ctober2012.pdf
Look at the test characteristics of each and make your own decision, the test environment is not the same for each.
I have used 812 for up to five hours total in a JJ CCR and down to 96m. I have regularly dived it for 3-4 hours single dive depths 60-80m
If I were pushing the max duration (which for me would be over 6 hours on one dive or multiple dives, or over 100m depth) I'd want the 797
For anything else 812 has been fine
I did dive 812 in an Inspo classic but only one tub, so not a great deal of data, but several dives in the 70m zone for over 3 hours
Personaly I think its more dusty but not by enough to make me not use it.
In the course of the spherasorb vs sofnolime study.....
.... we ran a couple of 812 canisters. We may finish enough runs to publish a proper comparison, but (based on limited date) there was effectively little difference in duration to significant CO2 break through on our 6 MET protocol between 812 and 797.
The significant difference between spherasorb and 797 has been discussed previously and is documented in the paper which can be accessed at the above link.
I think it is appropriate to re-mention that your testing was only done at the surface.
The tests commissioned by Molecular Products compared performance at 40m and in 4C ( CE test rate of 40 RMV and 1.6 lpm CO2) - and it showed the performance of the Intersorb product was down on the Sofnolime 797. From memory it was about 20% down.
Most importantly though, the temp-stik warnings didn't work properly with the Intersorb, and it is the use of the Tempstik that allows worry free, multi-dive, extended use, basically taking the guess work out, giving you lots of extra duration in most diving scenarios.