scaph wrote:
The size of the valve seems to be quite small (better than some others regs however)....
As Bryan mentioned, there is no need to make the valve any larger than the mouthpiece valves.
It would actually be counter productive to make it any larger than absolutely necessary. A larger valve will not reduce the flow resistance, but will allow a free flow if the regulator is fine tuned.
A one inch diameter valve means that the lowest cracking suction that the regulator can be adjusted to is ½ inWC (half of the diameter). It actually has to be a bit higher to account for the distance from the valve to the diaphragm.
Below are some pictures of an early experiment/ prototype made by Allan.
I have tested the flow resistance from the prototype and the resistance is below what my Magnehelic can measure. The flow resistance was very close to zero. The duckbill on the other hand has a low but very measureable flow resistance.
Rob Sewell design is much neater and easier retrofit, but the function and performance should be the same.
BTW, Allan is a great craftsman… the prototype was intended to be functional and obviously no effort was spent on the looks…
I am really looking forward to this new duckbill replacement.
I hate duckbills… not as much as the little C-clips… but I still hate them. I just cleaned an old duckbill…
BTW, I like the texture of that 3D plastic printer. That is some neat stuff.