Misconceptions and Fallacies

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I can't get over the fact that many divers (experienced too) feel YOU MUST add air to your BC when diving warm with minimal thermal protection, to become neutral. That YOU CAN'T use your lungs to get to neutral (only to make minor adjustments). That in order to compensate for "gas weight" you HAVE to use a BC.

I always bring up the fact that divers were actually diving before BC's were invented. I get no responce.

What did they do? Scurry along the bottom until their tanks ran dry????
 
I can't get over the fact that you don't realize that over course of your dive, consuming the air in your tank increases your buoyancy by 6 pounds and that the way to manage this is not by shallow breathing at the end of the dive. Start with 6 pounds of air in your wing (BC) and work down to empty by the end of the dive to counteract the increasing buoyancy of your tank. Breath normally and your consumption will be lower.

I'm done.

-Ben
 
JeffG:
One of my favorites Misconceptions and Fallacies

"The water that is trapped between you and your wetsuit is what keeps you warm."

Is pee considered "water" in this discussion?
 
airsix:
I can't get over the fact that you don't realize that over course of your dive, consuming the air in your tank increases your buoyancy by 6 pounds and that the way to manage this is not by shallow breathing at the end of the dive. Start with 6 pounds of air in your wing (BC) and work down to empty by the end of the dive to counteract the increasing buoyancy of your tank. Breath normally and your consumption will be lower.

I'm done.

-Ben

LOL we're chasing eachother around threads here. :shakehead
What makes you think I don't know that as I'm consuming gas I'm not gaining positive buoyancy? That's why I overweight myself with lead (or steel in my backplate) or whatever to offset the "extra" gas in my tank. I dive several types of tanks but it's all the same. I just compensate for the estimated swing and the specifics of each tank type. Diving warm I have a respectable SAC rate. With minimal or NO (yes NO) air in my wing I'm streamlined and burn less air.

Breath control/ Lung control is something we attain over time as we dive more and gain more experience. I know many divers like me that don't use much, if any, air in their BC or wing and have no problems holding stops. They breathe normally, have great SAC rates and maintain expert buoyancy control.

Again, we're talking warm water, minimal thermal protection.
 
LOL. :cheers: I agree it takes very little air to manage the swing. Sorry for getting a little testy. I'm actually pretty mellow. I think we're agreeing on the key points. Buoyancy is definitely much less of an issue when neoprene isn't a factor, as you have pointed out.

Regards,
Ben
 
NP Ben. I'd take you up on a beer but it looks like we're a good distance apart!
Goodnight all, I'm done for tonight :)
 
ccohn2000:
It's the insulating qualities in the bubbles trapped in the neoprene that keep you warm in a wet suit.
Hmmm....and there I was thinking it had something to do with Biochemistry!
 
RiverRat:
I can't get over the fact that many divers (experienced too) feel YOU MUST add air to your BC when diving warm with minimal thermal protection, to become neutral. That YOU CAN'T use your lungs to get to neutral (only to make minor adjustments). That in order to compensate for "gas weight" you HAVE to use a BC.

Since the displacement of your lungs is limited, I'd say it would depend on how much gas you are carrying and how much of a buoyancy change you have to compensate for.

So...yes, warm water, no buoyant exposure protection and a small tank...probably not to big of a deal.
I always bring up the fact that divers were actually diving before BC's were invented. I get no responce.

What did they do? Scurry along the bottom until their tanks ran dry????

There's a lot written on what cave divers did before they had a BC. They had to lite on the floor when they stopped finning. They silted everything out and it caused all kinds of problems. Read "Caverns Measureless to Man" if you haven't. So...they started using whatever kind of plastic bottle they could find to put on a string and used it for a bc until someone built a real one. They also used drop weights. These very skilled divers had a pretty rough time with the equipment they had at the time.

OW divers in compressible wet suits went in the water underweighted at the surface and swam or pulled themselves down so they can be neutral at depth. Lots of ascents had to have been pretty fast.

I remember watching all the Coustou shows when I was young. They spent lots of time on the bottom. They weren't at all excersizing the same sort of buoyancy control and trim that we shoot for.

Anytime the diver had significan't buoyancy changes to deal with (either from exposure protection or carrying lots of gas) it was a mess, which is why most of us use a BC now days. It's better.

Beyond that, a pool is the only place I've been able to dive much where I didn't need a heavy exposure suit...and some of the pools I've had to use were to cold for diving without one too. But....just a swim suit and a small tank...no problem.
 
Thanks Mike! That's what I was looking for. Some real info from some divers that have been around diving longer than I have. It's funny how some subject matter always seems to turn up the heat. Like Backplate/Wings versus BCD's, DIR, Buoyancy control and weighting etc.etc. The thing is, if the thread doesn't totally blow up usually some very interesting info comes about and folks actually learn from it.
 
miketsp:
Let's not get carried away. 1ppm is actually quite a lot of blood.
Let's take a cylinder of water radius 0.25 miles and say 60ft depth.
Unless my arithmetic is wrong that's 328 million cubic ft.
So to fill that entire cylinder with 1ppm would need 328 cu ft of blood. That's hardly what I'd call a scratch. Now you may just be unlucky in that the blood drifts down to the shark leaving a fairly concentrated trail...
It wouldn't nessecarilly be that much blood. The mistake is that you are using "part" as in the cooking meaning (volume for volume), in chemistry "part" means molecule or atom, and the atoms or molecules aren't the same size. Because of that there could be the same number of parts, with out the volume being the same.
 

Back
Top Bottom