Vintage Double Hose

OK, I did this experiment. It was not intended to be the absolute word on the subject. Using Dan's new super stretch hoses I did back to back comparisons using my excellent DA and one of my RAMs swapping hoses to standard hoses. The results best I can tell is that these new hoses actually breath better. This is my somewhat subjective opinion.

Why would this be? Well, your guess is as good as mine if even in fact there is any difference (assuming some other factor is in play other than hoses and I am all wet--lol). OK, well, I think the greater number of corrugations allows the air to see the inner surface of the hose as a smoother surface. The air sees a smooth surface, the large number of corrugations pruduce a boundry effect. There really is no difference in diameter so it is either imaginary or something is going on here worth investigation.

It would have been my opinion before this test that the super stretch hoses would have hindered breathing because they would tend to "shrink" or draw up upon inhalation and thus reducing the response of the main diaphram. I guess not.

I know Treasureman is reporting similar results, anyone else notice this?
Nemrod

James

I don't have a set of these new hoses, but eariler in this string I noted that the smaller gaps, or smoother surface as you called it might have this effect you and Treasureman experienced. You, from your own experience in aviation know that smaller holes, intakes etc on cowlings. fill with air quicker, and create this boundary effect you just wrote about..(less drag)......It would not be a suprise to me that this new hose has less drag internally, due to these very reasons.

I have been looking at different types of hoses for the past few months, mostly fluid or gas transmission types and have learned a bit about the effect of the convolutions, ie: large intermintant and many small types.

It seems the industrys (that need hoses that are flexible for various reasons) lean toward many multiple small convolutions in their hoses for quicker fluid or gas transmissions and reduced drag of said fluids or gas.

Looks like Dan stumbled on a great deal with these new hoses..........

Whatever is causing this and I suspect your right, I think it is a real effect. This was not something I really wanted to hear because the hoses are somewhat ugly--lol---well, perhaps an aquired taste. Actually they look fine but just different, have to get used to them.
James

I tried the new hoses last Monday. They worked great. I basically couldn’t tell they were there.

We did two dives; the first one to 85 ft in Sebago Lake and the second one we stayed in shallow water were my wife got to practice a compass course between three buoys.

We also got to play around practicing buddy breathing (more on this experience below) and I played around taking off my tank underwater to check the flexibility of the hoses.

• The hoses are very flexible but rugged. They will not collapse when you stretch and twist them (either buddy breathing or taking of my tank over my head and looking at it in front of me).

• The hoses are very heavy. The outside diameter is larger than the conventional USD hoses, but they seem to be so heavy that buoyancy is not an issue. If anything they may actually be a bit less buoyant.

• The breathing performance is at least as good as my conventional hoses, but I can’t really say that it is noticeably better. My experimental Royal breathes so well that to notice any minor improvements would have to be a side by side comparison. Looking down the inside of the hose, it looks like a more uniform air duct since the convolutions are closer together, but it is hard to tell how much of a difference that would make. When I get a chance, I will try to see if I can measure any side by side resistance difference with my Magnehelic gauge.

Over all the good points are that the hoses are very comfortable and perform well, but now for the bad points.

• They are ugly, but as an engineer, I can easily ignore looks as compared to function. Also looks is definitely on the eye of the beholder. I agree with Nemrod: “perhaps an acquired taste”.

• They are very…very hard to dry. I ran air from my hose dryer set up (a hair blower on cool, look at this link for picture: viewtopic.php?t=851&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15) through them and another pair of conventional hoses for over an hour. The conventional hoses are very dry. The new hoses seem dry, but I stick my finer deep in the corrugations and they are still wet.

I will try drying them further tonight, but when relaxed the convolutions tend to close and air may never flow into them enough to dry them well. Maybe if I stretch them a bit. I am thinking that the easier solution may just be the occasional use of something like Leistering mouth wash (or something similar) to control any potential bacterial growth.

This reminds me, one thing I notice; my hoses have a distinct mint smell to them when I was breathing. It was kind of pleasant, but weird. Has anyone else notice that?

Over all, IMHO the hoses are great, but the issue about moisture and bacteria growth can not be ignored. I think it can be easily dealt with regular cleaning and drying the best possible. I would like to thank Sam Miller for pointing this potential issue.


About buddy breathing, the hoses worked well, but I forgot to instruct Christine with some important details before we practiced. I forgot to mention to her that with my curved mouthpiece, when it is up side down, if you don’t blow all the water out, you are drinking it. The position of the mouth piece opening provides a small sump for the main user if there is any water, but during buddy breathing the receiving diver needs to deal with the upside down mouthpiece.

We will practice buddy breathing with my double again. But, that exercise convinced me that if I am diving with a mixed group of divers who are not very well practiced in buddy breathing specifically with a DH, an octopus can be very important.

ONe thing i did notice is the repro hoses i had been using were nopt as stretchy, but were actually stiffer. I did notice the new hoses were less stiff in terms of their ability to expand dimensionally. Perhaps I am losing it, but i felt like the hose was expanding internally when i drew a breath. Kind of like over inflating a ballon then releasing the air.

I put a hand around the inhalation hose loosely, and took a average breath, then a deep air sucking macho breath. in both instances, the hose felt like it expanded. Would this translate into a greater volume of air because of the expansion??

Controversy: n. 1. Debate or disputation arising from conflicting attitudes and opinions. PIA: acronym n. 1. A word formed by the combination of initial letters. 2. Anyone who starts a controversy.

With these two definitions as my basis, I would like to express on opinion on the subject of the new super-stretch hoses. Dan and Bryan are a godsend to the vintage world. Through their efforts those of us who enjoy the sport of diving with vintage gear are able to continue with equipment that functions as intended or even better. When a part necessary for the function of vintage gear was no longer available they have gone the extra mile (or thousands) to provide the item. Rubber parts do deteriorate over time and conditions and to this end both gentlemen have brought to the world reproduction parts to allow continued use of the vintage equipment. The new super-stretch hoses are a great contribution to the sport we all love. The last few weeks have been exciting and informative as many of us have experimented and tested the hoses. And rightfully, they are found to be superior or at least as good as originals. And this is where I wish to express my opinion. Again, it is my opinion and expressed with humility as the acronym IMHO so correctly implies. USD marketed the hoses in 1961, and that year only. Why? Many probably still ponder that question. Nevertheless, the only regulator to use the hoses was the 1961 DA Aqua-master with the 3323 West Delhi Rd or 3323 West Warner Ave addresses. Many of us will want to put these hoses on many other regulators, i.e., Royals, Mistrals, Jet Airs, etc. And of course, there is no jury to say you can’t. However, as a person who enjoys history and tries to recreate historically accurate vintage gear, I would not like to see a mix and match of vintage dive gear. Most of us are using older Mistrals with black hoses. The Mistrals did not use black hoses until 1963 and had even yellow mouthpieces prior to1960. But yellow hoses are almost impossible to get. Thus to dive the Mistrals we use black hoses because we really do not have the opinion of yellow hoses. I will put my set of new super-stretch hoses on a DA Aqua-master with the correct label, not that they wouldn’t breathe better on my Royals, but because they were not used on Royals. Again, IMHO, vintage (the type or kind current at a particular time) should be recreated as best possible with equipment available at that time. We have to make do for a while on using parts of later times due to the unavailability of original or reproduction parts. But when the reproduction parts do become available (thank you gentlemen) then IHMO they should be used as they were originally.

Hi Allan

That is an interesting perspective, but I have a question. If you are trying to recreate a particular year do you only use gear from that year or couldn’t you use any gear up to that year?

As an example: When I started diving, in 1971 I had available to me all the new gear of that year plus any gear that was available from previous years. The equipment was available used or new old stock. In my case, since I worked in a dive shop, I had access to a lot of old gear from the back room.

I had fun putting together some Frankenstein regulators from parts (from the back room) when I was a kid. I guess I am refusing to grow up; have you seen my experimental / prototype regulator? I am even trying the new hoses with it.

All that been said, I am not actually trying to recreate any time period. I am just having fun diving some of the same gear I had 35 years ago. And, discovering some gear I missed back then; like the Mistral. I rebuilt a couple, but I actually never dove one.

Back then I had fun picking what I thought was the best gear from any era, and now I am doing the same thing. In the early 70’s a double hose regulator was already considered old school. My buddy and I were the only ones diving them among all the divers I knew.

That is absolutely correct. You can always use something older than your chosen time period. I am trying to recreate a specific year, say 1962 and collect all the gear that was available then. Anything older is also good. But to do this for other years, you could be specific on a particular item. For example, I have a nice Royal Master. It was available new in 1964 and 1965. So I could base my dive gear on that particular piece of equipment and use fins, mask, etc. made before this specific regulator. But what I was refering to in my earlier post is that if the hoses were marketed in 1961 only, there must have been a reason. So to use them indiscrimately on Royals of 1966 or later would seem unreasonable IF one was into the vintage historical concept. I am very excited about your nozzle in that it will basically make a new, reproduction double hose regulator. It is not a copy anything that did exist. It could be called anything, like the Phoenix, but naming it a Royal Aqua Master would not be IMHO correct. You are making something NEW to the world. But again, that is my opinion. I will have the new super-stretch hoses on a DA soon and "join" the ranks of very happily impressed users.

Luis,
You have the right idea as a purist. I like that concept. I have tried to dive, even when I could not afford to. I always dived second-hand, oops I mean vintage, even before it became fashionable. I mean I occasionally bought new gear, such as a new ping-pong ball for the snorkel, etc. I personally see most divers using gear that covers a period of years. Some combinations should be outlawed. My old lady lets me know that it is unacceptable to wear camoflage pants with a Hawaiin shirt. Unless somebody told me I would not have known that.
I tried to stick with a certain manufacturer, such as Aqua Lung. I have complete sets of various vintage manufactures gear. But in the end I mix and match.

Allan, if someone doesn't have the means to be specific then they should just dive, dive, dive anyways. But, I agree that trying to be accurate to convey a certain period does add a whole lot more to the fun of collecting and diving the vintage gear (kind of like trying to replace ALL of the bolts on a Ford GPW with the correct script-"F" headed ones). That is why I anticipated the 1960s Aqua Lung catalogs you had digitally saved. I just got my CD copy from Bryan today (Thankyou, Bryan). Anyone interested in trying to be period-specific with Aqua Lung gear MUST get a copy if they don't have the actual catalogs. I want to thank you again for taking the time to make these available. What a treasure chest of information. If nothing else, it is interesting to see the evolution of their gear through that decade.

While I'm here I thought I'd make a comment in the deep convolutions/bacterial growth topic. I recently realized that the convolutions on the SCBA hoses our firefighters use are also deep and tight. I'm sure that they have their own effective cleaning protocols and it would be interesting to find out what they are.

Allan

I see your point, but let me throw in another twist to this subject (just to keep the discussion interesting ). For this discussion right up front I am going to point out that I will be intentionally biased due to my design engineering background.

In most machines like in a regulator we are going to have replaceable parts. Let’s use as an example the Royal Aqua Master. Parts like seals, O-rings, seats and even hoses will require replacing due to the fact that they have to be compliant and they are wear items.

Seals, O-rings, and seats don’t need to be replaced on a yearly basis like most modern manufacturers claim, but that is a different subject.

When the engineers / designers of a particular regulator selected O-rings, seats, etc. they picked from what was available at the time that met the requirements best (by either: function, durability, cost, etc. or a combination of criteria’s). Those items were designed to be replaced with a functionally equivalent or superior replacement parts during the live of the regulator.

As an example the use of newer O-rings and new Teflon seats on a 1971 USD Conshelf first stage, not only meets the intention of the original designer, but it is expected as part of its regular maintenance. IMHO the same applies to a RAM even if the original designers are not around anymore, improving on the replacement parts.

It could be argued that the use of new an improved replacement hoses was part of the plan of the original engineers / designers. I would be honored if someone continues to use and improve a design of mine 40 years from now.

My point is that we may need to distinguish between an original reconditioning that a curator would do (to a collector’s or museum piece) and a reconditioning / overhaul that a technician would do to a working piece of machinery or regulator. They are both preserving history in a different way, one in its original state and the other in the state the original designer intended it to function.

The Phoenix is a separate subject, because that is not truly functionally identical replacement part. By changing the packaging and adding HP and LP ports, you could say that it adds more functions. On the other hand, mechanically speaking it is still functionally a Royal Aqua Master.

duckbill wrote: While I'm here I thought I'd make a comment in the deep convolutions/bacterial growth topic. I recently realized that the convolutions on the SCBA hoses our firefighters use are also deep and tight. I'm sure that they have their own effective cleaning protocols and it would be interesting to find out what they are.

I have just been informed that SCBA hoses only carry fresh air, never exhaled gases. So, they apparently don't fall into consideration regarding cleaning to remove organic contamination.

duckbill wrote:

duckbill wrote: While I'm here I thought I'd make a comment in the deep convolutions/bacterial growth topic. I recently realized that the convolutions on the SCBA hoses our firefighters use are also deep and tight. I'm sure that they have their own effective cleaning protocols and it would be interesting to find out what they are.

I have just been informed that SCBA hoses only carry fresh air, never exhaled gases. So, they apparently don't fall into consideration regarding cleaning to remove organic contamination.

And they may get wet on the outside, but they don't normally get submerged either.

I like to sort of stay in period but at the same time I don't like passing up a comfort or performance increase just to stay absolutely period correct. My round label Royals, if I could install a Mr Fission in them I would, my purpose with them is not to make them correct but to allow them to exceed the performance of any modern regulator.

I like the period thoughts though and my period is mostly the end of double hose diving, 1966 to 1972 ish. A diver in 1968 might well have used a 1964 DA with replacement hoses and if it had been me as a poor barely HS kid I would have bought what was on the bargain table, probably those funny stretchy hoses nobody liked back then. Well, I did actually, my Mistral had yellow hoses, I could not find any back then and it needed new ones so it got black hoses and a black mouthpiece. Now, if somebody wants to put me on to some yellow hoses so I can be period correct and I could get Allen to make me a harness then I would have a period correct Pico Avenue set up--way cool. I got everything else I need to make that period work for me. LOL
Nemrod

Luis
I do agree with you in most respects. However, my intentions are to portray a specific time in historical diving. With that in mind, I also consider the availability of parts to maintain an authentic piece of equipment. One of your early reasons on the nozzle development was the unavailability of DA Aqua master parts, i.e., seats. Thus, by making your nozzle to the specifications of a Royal, you have in essence produced a reproduction Royal, capable of utilizing modern, more easily available parts. In no way are you trying to pass off the "repro" regulator as anything more than it is. Put into historical perspective, it will be a new PT Cruiser or the Chevy HST or whatever that thing was Fred and I drove to Sand Dog III. It is a reproduction of a style, with modern functions, power windows, automatic, etc. Your reg will have modern functions also, SPG and LP ports. Thus it is now a new historical item, one to "collect" in the future.
The use of modern reproduction hoses, be they the super-stretch or some yet-to-be-reproduced should be, IMHO, of a style or type that was consistant with that of the vintage era. To me, that is the way of vintage diving. If the new USD Mistral had been made without all the inherent problems would we, as vintage divers, abandon the DA AM or Royals, or Voits or Snarks, etc.? I doubt it. There is something rewarding and satisfying with using what was available during those golden years. Like I said earlier, I have obtained a pair of the hoses and will be using them soon. But for me, I would rather keep the vintage regulators as original as practical. But I would also have no problem diving with a new reproduction regulator that will be allowed by modern dive operators. I drive to an 18th century primitive encampment in my 2005 Tacoma. Once at the camp, modern items are left in the truck and only historically accurate items, be they original or reproductions are used.
An opinion dear friend, one that actually compliments yours.
Allan