SAC Rate Changes with Depth

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!

As evidenced by the discussion in the thread, rightly or wrongly, people often use RMV and SAC in different ways. It is a noble but probably hopeless goal to get everyone on the same page, definitionally. Just be clear to specify your units. Cf/min or L/min at 1ATA is most useful, but if you insist on making me do the math and want to say psi/min, then make sure to tell me your cylinder volume. That's probably the best we can hope for....

OP's specific question was why his gas consumption was lower at depth than on his safety stop. That is backwards from what one would usually expect. My gas consumption on deco is typically a third or more less than during the "working portion" of the dive -- assuming "working portion" is only light/moderate stuff. YMMV.

As to why your consumption is higher on the safety stop than at depth, I can only speculate, but two things come to mind:

First, perhaps your shallow time involved harder work - catching up to the DM, swimming for the boat, fighting buoyancy issues, etc., while your bottom time was a nice drift. Obviously, buoyancy is easier at depth, so if for some reason you were "fighting it" shallow, that could be an issue.

Second, some folks are more conscious about their breathing at depth, aware that they are burning through gas at a much higher rate. Early in the dive, they worry about being the guy who runs low and has to cut the dive short. In response to these things, they try to "conserve," sometimes unconsciously, and that leads to bad habits, like skip breathing. Once they get shallow, they are less worried and breath they way they should have all along.

Obviously, skip breathing is not a good practice, but it might explain "better" gas consumption at depth -- but it isn't really "better." If you have headaches or other indicia of CO2 retention after diving, that would be another indicator of bad breathing habits at depth.
 
i would guess that it could have to do with bouyancy being easier at depth, so for shallower dives you either make more changes in your bc or you fight changes by "swimming" harder. properly weighted you should not need air in your bc to start the dive as you mentioned earlier, but rather only at depth once your neoprene compresses. also using your lungs more than your bc for small changes in depth (wich is easier to do when properly weighted) will help a lot.
 
RMV goes one more step by taking cylinder size out of the equation as well as depth.

Actually RMV is a term from physiology and most likely predates the use of SAC in scuba which is a way to use that information when you have an SPG and know your tank size.


Bob
 
04797D86-A78E-4DA0-873B-8BEDE9695ED9.jpeg
Dont know if it will mean anything, but I have learned (and researched) that:

SAC is based on psi used per minute and is a quick calculation for those using set gear. For example... divers who always use AL80 may quickly calculate a SAC of say 15psi per minute. If you multiply this by depth in ATA you easily figure how long you will last.

Whereas RMV takes in account volume so that the math from one size cylinder will transfer more readily to a different size cylinder. Say I have an RMV of 0.5cf/min, now there are more steps to figuring this up but i can go from HP120 to an AL80 and then to an AL40 and the math works on all.
 
... but if you insist on making me do the math and want to say psi/min, then make sure to tell me your cylinder volume. That's probably the best we can hope for....

Not quite. Actually, you also need to know the working pressure of the tank. A LP steel 80 @ 2400psi is 0.0333 psi/cf while an aluminum 80 (actually 77.4cf) @ 3000psi is 0.0258 psi/cf.

Seems like a small difference but it's actually rather large. A psi on the 80 cf Al is only 75% of a psi on the LP steel 80. The steel 80 will breath 25% longer than the Al 80.

That's why SAC and RMV are properly expressed in CF or liters. PSI varies with tank size and working pressure and as such is not a standard unit of measure. It is a variable dependant on other measurements. CF/liter is a standard unit of measure, not dependent on other parameters. A cf/liter is exactly the same from any tank of any size at any working pressure. PSI most certainly is not.

I agree that I will also not convince anyone. I will also not do the math but rather ignore the discussion altogether. I bid ths thread and all like discussions adieu
 
Not quite. Actually, you also need to know the working pressure of the tank. A LP steel 80 @ 2400psi is 0.0333 psi/cf while an aluminum 80 (actually 77.4cf) @ 3000psi is 0.0258 psi/cf.

Seems like a small difference but it's actually rather large. A psi on the 80 cf Al is only 75% of a psi on the LP steel 80. The steel 80 will breath 25% longer than the Al 80.

That's why SAC and RMV are properly expressed in CF or liters. PSI varies with tank size and working pressure and as such is not a standard unit of measure. It is a variable dependant on other measurements. CF/liter is a standard unit of measure, not dependent on other parameters. A cf/liter is exactly the same from any tank of any size at any working pressure. PSI most certainly is not.

I agree that I will also not convince anyone. I will also not do the math but rather ignore the discussion altogether. I bid ths thread and all like discussions adieu

Quite aware of that, thanks, but thanks for clarifying.

FWIW, the conventional "definitions," at least according to most agencies and DAN, are that SAC is expressed as psi/min, which is of limited use without information about the cylinder, and RMV is expressed in volume. The point of my post, illustrated by the fact that you equate them as the same thing, is that there is much confusion, or perhaps different understandings, of those terms and they are often, and incorrectly, used interchangeably. Thus, state your units. cf/min is more useful, for the reasons you note.

I'm was just trying to stay on OP's question, which had to do with why his gas consumption, however you wish to express it, was better shallow than deep, which is not usually the case.
 
This definition nicely explains why experienced divers have a lower SAC - they dive doubles. But why on earth then are they so proud on their low SAC?
 
This definition nicely explains why experienced divers have a lower SAC - they dive doubles. But why on earth then are they so proud on their low SAC?

That's not really it. In that case, it's just a definitional thing. I believe what they are saying, or trying to express, is that their gas consumption has improved (volume/min at a given ATA), so they should say RMV, not SAC. Again though, that's just the sloppiness of terminology. Those terms get used interchangeably though technically they are not.

Experience (if properly applied) generally = lower SAC because it correlates with better buoyancy and breathing technique, greater relaxation, more efficiency in propulsion, and streamlined gear.

There's also some real personal variability here. Some people just exchange more gas than others -- and that's okay. Obviously, eliminate the unnecessary causes of high gas consumption (see above list), but there will be a point where it is what it is and it may never be as good as your buddy's. Trying to hit a lower number at that point just leads to skip breathing at CO2 retention.

The same diver - at least this same diver - has a slightly higher RMV in twins or with a lot of stages than with a single -- just because it's more work moving that stuff through the water. Similarly, my RMV is probably 20% higher when I am taking a lot of photos because (a) it is a lot of extra gear and (b) it can be a lot of work with with breathing/buoyancy adjustments trying to get shots. It takes very little additional work to see a relatively significant change in RMV, particularly after you've eliminated the other factors.
 
I got curious so went to multiple websites and teaching guides to look up various definitions of SAC.
Pressure/minute: NAUI, DAN, Shearwater, NOAA
Volume/minute; PADI, SDI/TDI. BSAC, CMAS
PADI also says "it is sometimes pressure/minute." Jeez.

So it is critical you give the units of your SAC, for example psi/min, and not just say "15."
Example: 0.5 cubic feet/min is 14.2 liters/min.
In an AL80 this rate is 19.4 psi/min or 1.34 bar/min.
So bar/min in an AL80 (or thereabouts) and cuft/min are easily confused, as are liters/min and psi/min in an AL80 (or thereabouts).
You've got to tell me the units of your SAC, or you've told me nothing very useful.
 
Not quite. Actually, you also need to know the working pressure of the tank. A LP steel 80 @ 2400psi is 0.0333 psi/cf while an aluminum 80 (actually 77.4cf) @ 3000psi is 0.0258 psi/cf.
You have your units bass-ackwards at psi/cf -->should be cubic-feet-per-psi: "cf/psi".

Seems like a small difference but it's actually rather large. A psi on the 80 cf Al is only 75% of a psi on the LP steel 80. The steel 80 will breath 25% longer than the Al 80.

That's why SAC and RMV are properly expressed in CF or liters. PSI varies with tank size and working pressure and as such is not a standard unit of measure. It is a variable dependant on other measurements. CF/liter is a standard unit of measure, not dependent on other parameters. A cf/liter is exactly the same from any tank of any size at any working pressure. PSI most certainly is not.
(Already explained SAC & RMV nomenclature here in post #14 )

It's easier to fundamentally explain and conceptualize the rated volume and service pressure of a scuba cylinder based on the European/Asian surface atmosphere reference convention of 1 bar: The common AL80 tank has a metric cylinder rating factor of 11 liters/bar, or in other words, at the surface of 1 bar, if you pour water into the cylinder, the measured volume it can contain is roughly 10.5 to 11 liters. (It's easier to work with Metric Cylinder Ratings like 11 liters/bar, rather than cf/psi like 0.025 cf/psi at 14.7psi surface pressure US Imperial reference for the AL80 tank).

However when pressurized with breathing gas to any value up to its recommended Service Rating (207 bar for the 11L per bar Alu cylinder in this example ), a cylinder carries an equivalent volume of free gas much greater than its water capacity, because the gas is compressed to several hundred times the standard surface atmospheric pressure of 1 bar (as opposed to water which is incompressible). So if you have a gas pressure reading of 200 bar in your AL80 tank, you have a total available free gas volume of 200 bar multiplied-by 11 liters/bar or approximately 2200 liters.

As for the old steel LP80 tank, it has a metric cylinder rating of approximately 12 liters/bar, while the AL80 is at 11liters/bar: however, the steel LP80 has a lower service pressure at 182 bar versus the AL80 at 207 bar, so they both deliver nearly the same volume in free liters ~2200 liters. [The relatively new steel HP100 tank actually has the same 12L/bar rating as the old steel LP80 cylinder, but is redesigned to contain a higher service pressure of 237 bar in order to deliver near 2830 free liters (~100 cf)].
 
Last edited:
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom