Underwater DistoX2 Housing

I will start by saying that this idea has been copied from other cavers/ divers, this isn’t the the first time someone has wanted to use a Distox2 underwater. My reason for wanting a waterproof Distox2 is allow me to use the same methodology for underwater photogrammetry geo-referencing that I use for above water photogrammetry geo-referencing to preserve accuracy through sumps. Lasers do have limitations underwater, light is attenuated by water quite readily especially red light or red lasers. so the range is going to be very limited even in very clear waters.

DistoX2 in underwater housing

The main body of the housing is made from Acetal, a small cut out sealed with an o ring allows the laser to emit and receive through the front of the box and is covered by 5 mm thick perspex. The lid is 12 mm thick polycarbonate and houses two brass buttons sealed with o rings to actuate the on/ off buttons. The springs have been taken from a Gopro housing and are the most ferrous part, making the bearing swing by 0.2° when they are swept close to the Distox2, all screws are brass. A standoff is fitted to the rear to extend the rear reference point to make it easier to align to the survey station. The gland sticking out the side doesn’t have a function other than to seal the hole present in the side ( the boxes previous life was a waterproof box for an Arduino Mega).

Box ready for testing

Due to the difference in refractive index of water and air the distance readings taken underwater are no longer correct when compared to the same measurements taken in air. The refractive index of air is around 1.00 and approximately 1.33 in the water I would be using the device in.

Button making on the lathe

To prove this I made a test in my bath, I put two pencil marks at either ends of my bath, with the Distox2 in the housing I made a measurement with the marks and device underwater then again with the water drained, I also measured with a tape measure for a sanity check.

The tape read 1.415 m, the dry Distox2 in the box read 1.31 m and the wet shot read 1.70 m.

The distance from the rear of the disto to the reference extension stick needs to be added which is an extra distance of 0.109 m, this added to 1.31 m gives 1.419 m which is very close to the taped measurement.

Converting the underwater shots distance requires the offset from the front of the device to the rear to be subtracted first as this is a fixed offset added by the Disto and doesn’t need to be scaled from water to air. There is also around 0.02 m of air in front of the disto before the laser passes through the housing lense and into the water and this doesn’t need to be scaled either, i’m purposefully ignoring the 5 mm of perspex as this is very small compared to the distance of the shots being taken and probably only accounts for a few millimeters of difference.

So starting with the wet shot distance of 1.70 m we need to subtract 0.134 m which is the length of the disto plus the air gap in front. This gives 1.566 m, which we need to scale by the refractive index of water 1.33, which gives 1.177 m. To this we need to add the length of the disto plus air gap and the extension distance so 1.177 + 0.134 + 0.109 + 1.420 m which is very close to the taped distance and the dry measured distance – Result !

Cat testing

The distoX2 manual available here:

Click to access DistoX2_UserManual.pdf

It states that the wavelength of the laser is 635 nm, using this calculator here we can confirm the refractive index of water is around 1.33xx.

https://www.staff.tugraz.at/manfred.kriechbaum/xitami/java/H2Orindex.html

The next phase is some pressure/ wet testing of the housing without the Disto installed in case it leaks then I can begin to put it into use, sump 9 in Porth Yr Ogof is the first place I have in mind for it so that data collected in Parker Series can be accurately aligned to the rest of the cave.

Downwards at Rickford

A few friends have been working at Rickford Rising removing large boulders and making progress downwards from where the previous protagonist left off some years ago. I have always fancied a dive here but had never got round to it for various reasons. It usually has good visibility so I thought I would attempt to create an accurate photogrammetry model of the site as a snap shot of progress at this point in time, and hope to go back and update the model as progress towards the Burrington Master Cave is made !

A video has been put together by the digging team and gives a rough overview of the site:

I made four short dives on my visit, facing head first slowly filming the descent from surface to dig face allowing sufficient time for the visibility to clear each time and a survey dive (after having planted the yellow builders square on the first dive).

The builders square was used to provide a scale reference (the lipped edge is 12″ or 0.31m long) and also to provide a fixed straight edge along which I could repeatedly align the edge of my survey box with to make foresights and backsights against to allow the model to be orientated correctly. Accurate depth of the square was also measured, 6.8 m to the yellow surface on the day but this will vary with flow and water level effects.

End of the dig and planted builders square (krab is ali)

I have setup the survey box so that it logs data continuously, this allows the diver to retreat whilst measurements are taken minimising any magnetic effects of steel cylinders or other dive gear, this is apparent in the good agreement between foresights and backsights taken, they are no worse than what I have measured on land away from ferrous materials. The upper part of the dig is festooned with scaffold and other metal things.

Survey results

The survey data was input to Survex and corrected for local magnetic deviation, a resulting bearing of 161° to was calculated for the lipped edge of the plastic square.

The model was processed without issue and was manually scaled, rotated aligned and translated with the survey data measured and the entrance location provided by the cave registry in CloudCompare.

The video from one of the dives can be seen here, attempting to slowly film the waters surface from underneath, down the rift to the current dig face.

A flythrough of the model is available to view below:

More Porth….

The image above shows progress so far, colour coded by area

Over the summer months this year (2021) I continued to visit, survey and video various parts of the cave upstream of Upper Cave Water Chamber. The results are very pleasing because not only is the level of detail being captured far in excess of any survey that has been conducted before (at this site) but this detailed data (the models produced by photogrammetry) is also matching well with the Distox2 data which gives real world scale and orientation meaning its not just pretty pictures which I prefer to avoid.

This area of the cave lends itself very well to my process as each section is short and clearly divided by short sumps giving nice workable areas to focus on. The below image shows a comparison with the UBSS survey in plan view.

Historical comparison (UBSS on left)
Plan view, blue line where visible is the DistoX2 centreline data
Side view, blue line where visible is the DistoX2 centreline data
UCWC looking downstream from Sump 8 (textured model)
Cobley crawl looking downstream into Sump 8 (textured model)
High level muddy tube (textured model)
Sump 9 looking upstream (textured model)

Where to go next ? I would like to improve the alignment of Sump 9 relative to the rest of the model as so far this has just been best fitted to the other data and I would prefer to link it directly. After this then adding the passages in Parker Series is the next logical step but perhaps this will have to wait until next summer.

I have uploaded the models of the three dry sections to Sketchfab, its low resolution due to the limits on the free account.

Upstream Porth Yr Ogof by cave-dive-make on Sketchfab

Underwater Testing

Sometimes its one of those days when nothing goes your way (of course you are still happy and healthy but the given goals for the day are unachievable), I set out last week with the aim of thoroughly testing the survey box underwater and having a good ride around on my scooter before the onslaught of a dry Christmas.

A short line course was laid underwater and surveyed by a friend with a Mnemo survey device (part of which is the inspiration for my own creation). I began taking foresights and backsights with my box (having added two line clips to allow hands free alignment with the line. Unfortunately on logging shot number 13 (unlucky for some) the display somehow went back to front then froze and refused to continue to work. I had planned to survey the course three times for further device assessment and comparison against the Mnemo but was unable to complete one entire loop.

Survey box line clip and count down modifications.

We were planning a dive of around 2 hrs, a bit of surveying then some scooter fun, having had to abandon my surveying after 20 minutes I decided to take my scooter for a run wanting to assess how much battery life I might have available in its top speed. Clipping off the tow cord I took off but every few seconds the motor cut out then restarted, making the already distinctive Aquazepp sound even worse. I quickly decided that it was inconvenient but didn’t seem to be doing any harm so stopped next to a known landmark then took off for a lap on the turning of a fresh minute of the dive time on my computer.

It took 20 minutes to complete a lap which is known to be about 1100 m at the depth is was taken at. Arriving back at the line course I decided that I was against any further scootering but would surface quickly, reboot the survey box then head back to the line course to complete my goals.

Surfacing went fine, kept kit on, isolated my oxygen supply, quick minute with a handy screw driver to open the power port on the survey, rebooted and re-calibrated it, all fine so closed it back up. Mask on, oxygen back on… PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsss the hose had popped off of my Kiss MAV 🙁

Kiss MAV thread failure

I thought it might have just come undone to start with but after a few tries it was clear the threads had gone and that was the end of the rebreather diving for the day, I had left my scooter underwater so went back in on my open circuit bailout to retrieve it.

To top the day off there was a power cut so no hot drinks or food were available 🙁

The list of annoyances goes as:

i) Frozen survey box display and Arduino after 13 shots (hopefully a random occurrence)

ii) Scooter not running smoothly (investigation ongoing)

iii) Kiss valve thread failure (its quite old and known to happen so…)

On arriving home and sorting out gear I was still able to download the 13 shots I had taken before the device froze, after the addition of the line clips I’m happy with the few foresight and backsights I was able to take, the first belay was metal as well as one in the middle so those are expected to be bad but the rest agree quite well I think, further testing to be done to confirm.

Foresight – Backsight comparisons

So taking away some positives…. I was able to complete a ‘fast lap’ on the scooter and after charging the batteries have discovered that 24 minutes of use used 2500 mAh from each battery giving about 160 minutes of burn time at top speed. The data I was able to collect with the box is encouraging and it seems to be able to record foresights and backsights to within a few degrees away from large metal objects. The Kiss valve failed on the surface not underwater. Further testing planned….

Underwater Survey Device Assessment

One of the previous posts on this website details the device I have assembled in the hope to speed up underwater cave surveying and at the same time make it more accurate than using the traditional divers compass, depth gauge and slate.

Using the Adafruit BN0055 ‘9 DoF IMU’ inside a waterproof housing as the tilt compensated compass should give a reasonable degree of accuracy but just how accurate is it going to be ?

To find out I ran some tests using a DistoX2 for comparison.

A small wooden jig was constructed that allowed easy foresight and backsight alignment of the home built device and the DistoX2 so that comparable shots could be easily collected.

Disto X2 in wooden Jig, Plastic pegs used for alignment
Survey box in wooden jig, axis of BN0055 co-incident with alignment of plastic pegs

The sizing of the recess in the wood is such that when the box is rotated for the foresight/ backsights and pushed up against the right and left hand edges the sensor of the BN0055 is in approximate alignment with the plastic pegs used to align the DistoX2, the BN0055 is mounted around 90° out from the long axis of the box so its raw reported bearings is around 90° different.

Forty comparable foresight and backsight shots were taken with both devices and the data entered into a spreadsheet. The first task was determining the average difference between the DistoX2 data and the box data (I should come up with a decent name for this device…) The average difference between the two was 89.56°.

The Raw data from the box was then corrected by 89.56° and re-compared to the DistoX2 data. Average difference to Distox2 and Standard deviation values were calculated.

The foresight and backsight differences were also calculated to give a quality check for the shots as the jig wasn’t moved until foresight/ backsights were taken with both devices. The DistoX2 foresight/ backsight differences were far smaller than those calculated for my home made device.

These tests were conducted on a flat surface so further tilted tests will be done to assess this aspect, overall I am happy with the results so far, I have been able to buy an off the shelf sensor and without any complicated calibrations or maths have a sensor that is able to report magnetic bearing to within a few degrees of a DistoX2.

Assuming the tilted performance isn’t much worse then any large errors underwater will come from the ferrous metal equipment carried by the diver (or in the sump) and the ability of the diver to align the device with the dive line which is another challenge itself which needs thinking about.

Underwater Cave Survey Device

A commercially available device for underwater cave surveying is available to purchase called the Mnemo, in keeping with traditional cave survey methods it logs distance, depth and bearing of the line used in caves to guide cave divers.

Inspired by this concept I set about designing and making my own version, it is a work in progress and in its current form can log depth (via a pressure sensor), bearing, temperature, pitch and roll of the device (useful for assessing how still the device was during logging, inclination (pitch) combined with depth change can also be used to estimate distance between belays using basic trigonometry).

The line measurement aspect of the Mnemo might be more difficult to implement in British caves as the line diameter varies greatly from cave to cave and sometimes even within the same sump so I have ignored that bit for now until the rest of the measurements are proven to be of reasonable accuracy.

Device assembled and ready for testing

Housed in a waterpoof box I have:

Adafruit Feather M0 SD (control and data logging)

Adafruit DS32231 RTC (timestamping)

Adafruit BN0055 (9 DOF IMU)

Blueorobotics Bar30 (pressure sensor)

Small screen (data display)

IP68 Momentary Piezo switch

18650 Battery

Assorted resistors, capacitors and a power switch

The components are mounted on a custom made isolation routed single sided PCB and hand soldered onto header pins.

The BN0055 IMU was chosen as it does the complicated sensor fusion on the board and outputs a heading, pitch and roll solution (it can also output raw data if required but the maths and programming is beyond me). This is much easier and hopefully more accurate than having to read and compute data from the separate IMU components.

The device is powered on by activating the latching on/off switch accessed by removing a 3/8″ UNF regulator blanking plug from the side (must be done out of water). When the program starts the battery voltage is displayed before showing the calibration status of the three sensors which make up the IMU which are ; a gyro, an accelerometer and a magnetometer. It is important each sensor is calibrated before use but this doesn’t take very long and once calibrated this status is held until the device is powered off. In between survey shots the status of each sensor and the overall system status is displayed on the screen

Once ready the device can be aligned with the dive line next to a belay, the button can be pressed then after a short delay the device writes 10 values at 10Hz to the SD card, it then waits for the next button push. The screen does display the shot data momentarily but as the screen is small this is more for reassurance.

http://https://youtu.be/mTJUWdjrYCA

 

In this manner it could be used to replaced the compass and depth gauge readings taken by a diver, line distance still needs to be measured traditionally and noted.

Test data

By automating the bearing and depth measurement and recording aspect of underwater cave surveying I hope to speed up the process and increase the accuracy of the data collected, this should prove useful in resurvey projects of caves which are thought to be close by to other caves.

The device could also be reprogrammed and repurposed as a DPV navigation console, or mounted to a camera and used to provide accurate camera orientation and depth data to improve under water photogrammetry image alignment (inspiration for this idea was taken from https://youtu.be/YKw3lBXX6vM ).

Building this device was the first goal, testing and appraising its accuracy is the second goal (currently ongoing) then if suitable putting it to use in some projects is the third and main goal.

Links to the various parts used are shown below:

https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-feather-m0-adalogger

https://www.adafruit.com/product/3028

https://www.adafruit.com/product/2472