Why dont you breath less at depth?

[dhampton82]

Hey fellow SBers.. can't we keep this nice and civil =)

Sorry about the thread dying in civility dhampton.....

Best wishes everyone,
Scott

No worries , I was just a wee bit curious as to the meaning of the statement.

(that, and just looking for a place to get my 300th post in )

 

[RJP]

Woah, hold on. This is supposed to mean what? Please explain....

Again - not a comment on YOUR original question, which was a fine question.

More a comment on the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" statement, which is proven to be untrue on a regular basis all across the globe.

 

[H2Andy]

i can prove that there is no such thing as a stupid question!!!

vis-a-vis, Relativity

(but how, you saucy devil, you may ask? sit tight, my friend)

it's all relative, right?

so, if someone asks a "stupid question" it is only stupid relative to the asker and the askee ...

for example, if Heisenberg were to say to Einstein and Schroedinger "What was the third reverse function of the Hamiltonian again?"

they'd die laughing at his dumb *** question...

but if I were to ask that same question to a couple of your avergae SB users, we'd all be scratching our heads going ... "Hot dang ... we need to do some serious reasearch!"

ok... so.... herein lies the problem....

if YOU think the question being asked is dumb, just remember, the poor person asking the question will think you're a GENIUS when you give them an answer just like that...

i have reduced the whole thing to a nifty equation:

dumb quotient = difficulty of question for asker / difficutly of question for askee

so as you can see, the dumb quotient is effectively the result of the interplay of asker and askee's relative difficulties in answering the question

i think ...

 

[beautybelow]

therefore I am

 

[ScottB]

Ham-ill-tuna-what?

 

[rawls]

But there is such thing as dumb people asking questions.

And then there are dumb statements...

Then there's the fine line between sarcasm...Sorry I forgot the smiley...

 

[friscuba]

Because the gas is compressed and is more dense but your lungs remain the same and it's necessary to "fill" them when you breathe. The gas law is Boyle's (volume). Wouldn't it be grand though to not have pesky physics in the way. We'd never get bent either !!!

So far, unless I missed something, this is the only answer that answered the original question.

Back to the original question... I think it all boils down, in simple terms, since you are at depth, the air coming out of your regulator will be compressed by the depth as it leaves your regulator, but the chamber you are filling (your lungs) will remain the same size as it was on the surface, so it will take more of that compressed air at depth to fill the chamber.

 

[H2Andy]

once the original question is answered correctly, there's little point in repeating the same answer over and over again

you'll see that threads at that point take on a life of their own, the sign of a vibrant on-line community

 

[Rick Inman]

This is one of those posts, that when he looks back 2 years later, realise what a dumb***** question it was

Sorry I'm a couple of days late here, but I believe Mister Zulu was making a funny relating to a thread I'd started the other day, called, Be Careful What You Post!!, hence the nice smiley face .

Masterful hijack, BTW.

 

[Scuba Brad]

Yes but always sage wisdom Master Rick!!

Happy Diving