Finally a technological breakthru for all those who can't snorkel

[agilis]

Yup, just looked at that.

Funny, I was in an airbuddy thread recently, and I raised some concerns about this rather unorthodox alternate air supply gadget (as did a number of other divers). I got totally flamed by the OP, whose position was that if I hadn't used it myself, then I had no business saying anything critical about it. I wrote back why I thought that in a public forum, it was reasonable for divers to express opinions and that you didn't necessarily have to have used something to point out it's obvious limitations.

Here, on the other hand, I'm starting to take the opposite position - that before trashing something like this, one might at least see what it's like to use.

That thread raises some good points, but also some that are off base - to paraphrase:

"I tried this in the 60s, and it was a complete failure" - well, there might have been some design or material improvements over the past 50 years...

"This is no good because it get people with severe limitations into the water, and dive training is already too dumbed down" - yes, but this isn't made for scuba divers at all. And it's true that there are some people who are so phobic that it's probably not a good idea for them to do anything like this, but there are a lot of others who are never going to dive, but might be able to enjoy using something like this, and take it off if they had a problem.

The critics do raise some good points, but given the fact that it's (1) easily removable, and (2) designed for use on the surface, in benign conditions, I don't think that it's necessarily a failure out of the gate. As I said, my wife really thought that this looked good. We just got back from Turks where she snorkeled a bit with me and had some of the issues that they mentioned in the video. It might be worth 39 Euros to check this out. Since I could easily spend $1700 on a flashlight for diving, I don't think that's such a bit investment.

In the previous thread on this topic I mentioned that this full face mask/snorkel reminded me of masks that had been around in the 60s, but my concerns had absolutely nothing to do with that superficial resemblance. That there have been improvements in materials and designs is obvious. The "paraphrase" is actually a significant misreading of what I wrote. Time constraints, I suppose.

This device seems to be modeled after medical equipment I've seen. It's probably easily removable on land, but it may be a different story in the water, especially for someone who is uncomfortable in a snorkeling situation.

My essential point is that anything causing the mask to flood could cause serious problems because it seems that the device would have to be removed before another breath could be taken. It is abundantly clear that flooding will not result from submergence or a wave. I don't think anyone implied that it might. Flooding can result from anything that causes a mask's face seal to break. An accidental kick from another swimmer or just attempting to adjust any mask while submerged might cause water to enter, and complete flooding of a mask can occur very quickly.

With a standard snorkel simply lifting one's face above the surface and spitting out the mouthpiece will allow normal breathing. Lifting one's head out of the water with one of these large complex devices may not help. The mask, which seems to be held in place with several bands, is likely to continue holding some water and may have to be completely removed before breathing without swallowing water is possible. This might be a serious problem for people with limited water skills and confidence.

It's very possible that my concerns are completely unfounded, but they are not the result of "I tried this in the 60s, and it was a complete failure." I'm not that simpleminded. I saw a few people floundering with those old full face/ping pong ball things things way back then, but I never used one; I knew better. It may be that these devices will provide a wonder cure for snorkeling fears, and work safely and perfectly. We'll see.

 

[doctormike]

In the previous thread on this topic I mentioned that this full face mask/snorkel reminded me of masks that had been around in the 60s, but my concerns had absolutely nothing to do with that superficial resemblance. That there have been obvious improvements in materials and designs is obvious. The "paraphrase" is actually a significant and inexplicable misreading of what I wrote. Time constraints, I suppose.

This device seems to be modeled after medical equipment I've seen. It's probably easily removable on land, but it may be a different story in the water, especially for someone who in uncomfortable in a snorkeling situation.

My essential point is that anything causing the mask to flood could cause serious problems because it seems that the device would have to be removed before another breath could be taken. It is abundantly clear that flooding will not result from submergence or a wave. I don't think anyone implied that it might. Flooding can result from anything that causes a mask's face seal to break. An accidental kick from another swimmer or just attempting to adjust any mask while submerged might cause water to enter, and complete flooding of a mask can occur very quickly.

With a standard snorkel simply lifting one's face above the surface and spitting out the mouthpiece will allow normal breathing. Lifting one's head out of the water with one of these large complex devices may not help. The mask, which seems to be held in place with several bands, is likely to continue holding some water and may have to be completely removed before breathing without swallowing water is possible. This might be a serious problem for people with limited water skills and confidence.

It very possible that my concerns are completely unfounded, but they are not the result of "I tried this in the 60s, and it was a complete failure." I'm not that simpleminded. I saw a few people floundering with those old full face/ping pong ball things things way back then, but I never used one; I knew better. It may be that these devices will provide a wonder cure for snorkeling fears, and work safely and perfectly. We'll see.

Hey, I actually liked that thread, and I thought your concerns were legitimate. I also agree with you about a lot of this. And the reason that I paraphrased and didn't link directly to that thread or to specific posters was that I didn't want to have this thread progress to point-by-point rebuttals of previous posts. I guess this didn't work out that well.

But since you brought it up, you DID say exactly this: "Dangerous. Very dangerous. It's been tried before, back in the 60s, and was a complete failure." And then you went on to point out specific failure issues - all of which are good points.

While you are correct that this could have problems, and were correct in voicing them, the fact that it didn't work well 50 years ago doesn't seem to mean that we should dismiss a 2014 version out of hand. I mean, it is possible that some problems have been addressed by changes in engineering, design, materials or implementation - I don't know. That's all I was saying.

Remember, if we didn't keep reinventing the wheel, we would still have stone wheels.

 

[agilis]

Hey, I actually liked that thread, and I thought your concerns were legitimate. I also agree with you about a lot of this. And the reason that I paraphrased and didn't link directly to that thread or to specific posters was that I didn't want to have this thread progress to point-by-point rebuttals of previous posts. I guess this didn't work out that well.

But since you brought it up, you DID say exactly this: "Dangerous. Very dangerous. It's been tried before, back in the 60s, and was a complete failure." And then you went on to point out specific failure issues - all of which are good points.

While you are correct that this could have problems, and were correct in voicing them, the fact that it didn't work well 50 years ago doesn't seem to mean that we should dismiss a 2014 version out of hand. I mean, it is possible that some problems have been addressed by changes in engineering, design, materials or implementation - I don't know. That's all I was saying.

Remember, if we didn't keep reinventing the wheel, we would still have stone wheels.

There's nothing wrong with stone wheels. It depends on the application. I once saw a exquisite stone wheel in an installation at MOMA, and my grandfather had a huge stone grinding wheel on his farm that you operated with a foot treadle.

Seriously, though, some of those old full face masks ( my kid brother had one) were made of natural rubber, comparable to silicone. Design, of course, is another story. They were very basic. Their main design flaw was that sometimes the ping pong ball snorkel sealers would stick up in the closed position. One significant design advantage, though, was that the mask could be removed instantly with one hand. My brother claimed the stuck ping pong balls could be dislodged by exhaling forcefully into the mask, but he tended to lie.

 

[diver 85]

What's the cost of this 'new technology'???........Bet they don't give it away......

 

[David Wilson]

What's the cost of this 'new technology'???........Bet they don't give it away......

According to
EASYBREATH snorkeling mask | Tribord
the recommended retail price of the mask will be €39.95 when it is eventually marketed. That approximates to US$55.