h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This system would rely on a sliding flotation
device to keep the top upright, but it would
let you decend much farther than that puny
footlong breather. It would be a dual-
chambered valve-action tube: exhale
through one tube, inhale through the other,
as CO2 would fill the chamber were it
to be
one tube. See illustration.
[This idea has been modified from a "Six-
foot snorkel" to the "Extra Long
Snorkel" to avoid any health issues.]
Illustration
https://live.static...21_ffe454478c_o.jpg
X-tra Long Snorkel Illustration [ophello, Sep 28 2005, last modified Oct 28 2024]
(???) Snorkel Science
http://www.absolute...ia/s/sn/snorkel.htm
From the article: "The maximum length of the tube is around 50 cm / 18 inches. A longer tube would place the lungs in deeper water where the surrounding water pressure is higher and the lungs would be unable to inflate when the diver inhales, because the muscles that expand the lungs are not strong enough to operate against the higher pressure." [jurist, Sep 28 2005]
[link]
|
| |
Make the snorkel so that you have to blow out hard. Then use the pressure of the blowing to pre-pressurise the incoming air. Solves the pressure differential between the water and the ambient air to an extent. |
|
| |
With the shorter version, this won't be as
much of a problem (I hope). |
|
| |
It's wonderful to see illustrations of that caliber, [ophello], but this idea didn't work out for Billy Green and me when we tried testing our first submarine in Layton's pond when we were nine. The boat submerged spectacularly, exactly as designed, but our snorkel tube helmets made from galvanized buckets and vacuum cleaner extendible hose attached to an overhead inflated innertube left us gasping for air. [see link for science] Billy swallowed so much pond water that he was sick for a week and I'm pretty sure the old rowboat is still on the bottom of the pond. Mrs. Green didn't let me play with Billy much after that adventure. |
|
| |
I would still advocate for the longest
snorkel safely possible. The one-foot
version we have seems arbitrary. |
|
| |
For every foot of water above your lungs, there is .433 lbs of pressure per square inch. After you go about five feet down, the pressure is so great, you simply can not inhale. Believe me, I've tried this idea and found out the hard way...so I did a little scientific investigation on why I could not breath through a perfectly good hose to the surface. So, I hooked up my Mom's vacuum cleaner exhaust to the hose and tried again. Was able to breath at the bottom at about six foot level, but not very well...vacuum cleaners don't produce very many pounds of pressure. So, my next try was with a bucket I soldered a fitting to and hooked up my Dad's air compresser to it..put my head in the bucket and ...presto, I was a diver at the deepest part of the pool (8') with no problems. But, the bucket kept trying to float me to the surface...so I tied two heavy concret bricks to my feet and strapped the bucket on my head...as I got to the point where water just covered the bucket (and my head) the bucket slipped off and I was anchored to the bottom of the pool and could not quickly get back to shallower water...I managed to slip my feet from the blocks and scramble to the surface just before drowning...so I quit my experiments in any environment that is devoid of natural iar...I've lived just fine so far. |
|
| |
Is there any risk of tearing something loose if you try REALLY HARD to inhale through a tube at deeper depths? I'd hate to go experimenting and collapse a lung or tear my diaphragm... That'd be almost as bad as tying bricks to one's feet! |
|
| |
[Navy], [longshot], you’re toying with the possibility of ruptured alveoli. |
|
| |
The problem with this snorkel is that you can’t go under. Suppose you want to play with the interesting sea creature (nice drawing) and it’s 15’ down? |
|
| |
//so I tied two heavy concrete bricks to my feet and strapped the bucket on my head//
I'm still laughing. |
|
| |
Would it work if there was a pair of waders with a long rigid vertical transparent tube into which you inserted your body? That way, your head and torso would be outside the water and close to sea level pressure but you could stick your limbs into sleeves and trousers to do stuff underwater, and you could see. The tube could be buoyant at the top. |
|
| |
There is a risk of collapsing your lungs, or at least there was when I took physics 101. Perhaps times have changed. |
|
| |
I actually made something like this as a teenager to scrub black algae off of the deepend of our swimming pool. I used a pvc pipe and a piece of styrofoam to float the end. There is indeed a maximum depth, and it's quite shallow. It didn't work. I couldn't breath...exhale but no inhale sorry to say. |
|
| |
you could extend the snorkel to the surface from the back of a waistbelt then a secondary tube (unladen by drag) to the mouth. But considering [jurist]'s <link> (which is dead).... :( |
|
| |
Ar from a compressor will have aerosol oil in it, amongst other harmful contaminants. You need special filters to make standard compressor air respirable. |
|
| |
Experiments like this are very dangerous. |
|
| |
[Ling] is on to something. Could you use a turbocharger? You wouldn't actually have to blow out hard as your lungs are under pressure making the air 'want' to get out. The only thing you'd have to get over is the inefficiency of the compressor. To avoid pressure differential issues, you'd either have to go down slowly or go down holding a full breath. |
|
| |
Also, you are basically SCUBA diving so you if you went deeper than a few metres, you'd need to come up slowly to avoid the bends. |
|
| |
//Experiments like this are very dangerous.// Pah! I'm going Turbo Diving ya big nancy. |
|
| |
If you reeealy need to, you can safely ascend from a depth of eighteen meters without getting the bends. |
|
| |
You're not supposed to ... but you can. |
|
| |
I have to (+) this because I once posted the same idea but called snorklescopic. |
|
| |
" If you reeealy need to, you can safely ascend from a depth of eighteen meters without getting the bends. |
|
| |
You're not supposed to ... but you can. " |
|
| |
I believe it's referred to as sub-clinical DCS - you get bent but not enough to need to go in the chamber. Don't ask me how I know this ... I was at seventy feet and my speargun line was a tangled mess and I was certain the anchor line was just a little ways away and I hadn't thought about how much more quickly you use air than at forty feet and ... Okay, go ahead and ask if you want to. |
|
| |
So, [norm], I hear that you had an interesting incident
seventy feet under water. Care to talk about it? |
|
| |
It was early in my diving days and I was naive. I got caught up in hunting and didn't maintain gauge discipline as I should have. Probably about dive 20 in a series of about 165 over a couple of years until I began doing primarily freediving. |
|
| |
I was also carrying a spare air bottle that would have given me a few breaths on the way up but I'd been instructed that you could do depth to surface on one breath and I wanted to experience that. |
|
| |
Additionally I disregarded the counsel to let some breath out on the way up so as to not overinflate your lungs, so I found air forcing it's way past my teeth as I neared the surface. |
|
| |
I cleared the surface going fast enough that my mentor commented on it when I was back on the boat. I'm lucky I didn't need to go to the chamber. |
|
| |
I was picturing an extra-extra-long snorkel, to be lowered into the
atmosphere by someone in low Earth orbit. |
|
| |