Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Quick water Density Question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
seapan - 24 Feb 2006 06:18 GMT
I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
In order to do this I need to know what will be the density of water at
a given depth and am unable to find any equations that model this. I
don't really know were to look after exhausting the local library so
am at a loss, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance,
Panky
morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk - 24 Feb 2006 08:50 GMT
> *From:* "seapan" <panky.pankmiser@gmail.com>
> *Date:* 23 Feb 2006 22:18:59 -0800
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thank you in advance,
> Panky

Anyone in here from Groton ?

www.seatreker.com
Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
Dillon Pyron - 24 Feb 2006 22:51 GMT
>> *From:* "seapan" <panky.pankmiser@gmail.com>
>> *Date:* 23 Feb 2006 22:18:59 -0800
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>www.seatreker.com
>Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK

Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!!  My
neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two
year tour (two trips) on a boomer can not believe it.
Signature

dillon

Could have been is in the past
Could be is in the future
There is only the now

Grumman-581 - 26 Feb 2006 08:15 GMT
> Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!!  My
> neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two
> year tour (two trips) on a boomer can not believe it.

Damn... I thought it was sacrilege when they closed NTC/RTD San Diego, but
to close Groton is blasphemous... Hell, next they'll be closing Norfolk...
Not that I actually *liked* Norfolk anyway...
Dillon Pyron - 27 Feb 2006 00:03 GMT
>> Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!!  My
>> neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>to close Groton is blasphemous... Hell, next they'll be closing Norfolk...
>Not that I actually *liked* Norfolk anyway...

"Then she saya 'Be gentle, izza my first time',  Suddenly conductor
come through train shouting 'no focka virgina'"
Signature

dillon

Could have been is in the past
Could be is in the future
There is only the now

seapan - 02 Mar 2006 04:36 GMT
So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite
easy.
I am currently planning in metric, in freshwater, with an assumed temp
between 46 and 65 F. I am well away of the density issuse but the shape
of the toy is a cylinder so compressional strength is quite high, so
long as everything can be sealled. The ability for ballast water to be
pumped back out is most definately an issuse but I think I have
designed for that.

I will assume a variance in density of +/- .1, that should work out
nicely.

Thanks and sorry for my late reply,
Panky
JRE - 02 Mar 2006 19:53 GMT
> So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite
> easy.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks and sorry for my late reply,
> Panky

Yeahbut...the compression of the cylinder itself might be a significant
factor in buoyancy.  Don't forget to think about the change in effective
density that will result from that if you're anywhere near the margins.

(This is a real factor in AL80s, in fact.  The weight of 80cf of air is
near 8LBS, not the 6LBS of typical buoyancy change from full to empty.
The difference is in the tank's expansion displacing more water when
it's full.)

John Eells
zippthorne - 02 Mar 2006 22:01 GMT
>> So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite
>> easy.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> John Eells

um.. no.
The real change is very small and difficult to measure, and not
significant.

The weight of 80 cubic feet of air is 5.1 lbs.  If you surface with 500
psi as recommended by the training agencies, you'll have breathed only
4.3 lbs. of air.  If you surface with 50 bar, it's slightly less.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=80ft%5E3+*+1.029+kg%2Fm%5E3+in
+lbs&btnG=Search


Certainly there is *some* change due to reduced strain, but we're
talking about a change in radius that doesn't even significantly affect
tank strap tightness.  You do raise the intersting possibility however,
of using advanced materials to create a zero net buoyancy change tank.
JRE - 03 Mar 2006 10:56 GMT
<snip>
> The weight of 80 cubic feet of air is 5.1 lbs.  If you surface with 500
> psi as recommended by the training agencies, you'll have breathed only
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> tank strap tightness.  You do raise the intersting possibility however,
> of using advanced materials to create a zero net buoyancy change tank.

Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071
lb/cu ft.  So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air
at 8lbs when it's actually 6.46 lbs, and we were both wrong.  (Must have
been thinking of 100s...sure...but since I don't own any so I can't
really claim that. ;-)

John Eells
-hh - 03 Mar 2006 12:07 GMT
> Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071
> lb/cu ft.  So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air
> at 8lbs when it's actually 6.46 lbs, and we were both wrong.  (Must have
> been thinking of 100s...sure...but since I don't own any so I can't
> really claim that. ;-)

There's a lot of small places to get tripped up behind the decimal
point.  For example, the generic AL80 isn't rated at 80 cubic feet, but
is {usually} 77.4 ft^3.

http://www.luxfercylinders.com/products/scuba/specifications/us_imperial.shtml

At .08071 lb/ft^3, that works out to ~6.25 lbs for a complete tank
drain....77.4 vs 80 is a quick ~3% error.

Interestingly, when looking at Luxfer's chart (above URL), for their
7.25" diameter 3000psi "AL80" (part#S080), they project that it will
have a net weight change of (4.40 + 1.40) = 5.8 lbs

Taking Luxfer's number and working it backwards, division by 0.08071
suggests that their tank volume change is 71.9 ft^3, which since it is
listed as 77.4 works out to be that they assume their "empty" rating is
actually at around 200psi remaining.

FWIW, my advice to the OP is that a toy submarine is going to be like a
real one when it comes to ballast tanks:  you'll want it to have some
excess capacity in both directions.  How much excess depends on the
overall size of the sub:  you'll want to be able to become negative in
order to dive without using the control fins and forward motion, and
when you surface, you probably want enough bouyancy to be able to have
the conning tower to freeboard above the water's surface.

And another potential source of good practical information would be to
find the hobbiests who do radio-controlled (R/C) model ship-to-ship
combat.  I have heard that there has been at least one example of
someone coming to the fight with a sub and wreaking havok :-)

-hh
-hh - 03 Mar 2006 17:28 GMT
> And another potential source of good practical information would be to
> find the hobbiests who do radio-controlled (R/C) model ship-to-ship
> combat.  I have heard that there has been at least one example of
> someone coming to the fight with a sub and wreaking havok :-)

Actual Scuba content:

http://www.vabiz.com/d&e/images/2_7.jpg

Other found URL's:
http://www.vabiz.com/d&e/default.htm
http://www.pittelli.com/warship/encf/SubRon37.html
http://www.rcwarships.com/rcwarships/
http://www.ausbg.org/learn_more.html

Overall, its a perfect hobby to combine scuba and guns (two frequent
rec.scuba topics!)

-hh
zippthorne - 03 Mar 2006 17:36 GMT
>>Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071
>>lb/cu ft.  So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> At .08071 lb/ft^3, that works out to ~6.25 lbs for a complete tank
> drain....77.4 vs 80 is a quick ~3% error.

gahh.. stupid air, with it's similar numbers for density, 1.29 and index
of refraction, 1.00029

Well that's what I get for doing back-o-the-envelope calculations from
the top of my head.
a - 24 Feb 2006 09:20 GMT
>I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
>would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Thank you in advance,
>Panky

The water is almost incompressible, so the pressure is irrelevant
(for what you plan to do). If you want to be really precise, the
sea water density depends on the salinity and the temperature.
Here is a handy table.

Density of Seawater (from www.britannica.com)

      Salinity  5        10       20        30      35
Temperature
   0          3.97      8.01    16.07     24.10   28.13
   5          4.01      7.97    15.86     23.74   27.70
  10          3.67      7.56    15.32     23.08   26.97
  15          3.01      6.85    14.50     22.15   25.99
  20          2.07      5.86    13.42     20.98   24.78
  25          0.87      4.62    12.10     19.60   23.36
  30         -0.57      3.15    10.57     18.01   21.75

For example, 35 o/oo and 30 deg C give 1.02175 g/cm3.
Lee Bell - 24 Feb 2006 10:24 GMT
>I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
> In order to do this I need to know what will be the density of water at
> a given depth and am unable to find any equations that model this. I
> don't really know were to look after exhausting the local library so
> am at a loss, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

For most practical purposes, water does not compress.  The density at the
bottom will be approximately the same as the density at the surface.

I would think a bigger concern would be the pressure the chamber will have
to withstand at depth.  There is a simple formula for that.  Pressure
increases by about 14.7 psi for every 33 feet of depth.

Lee
Christopher Lewis - 24 Feb 2006 14:58 GMT
>I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thank you in advance,
> Panky

For most purposes (and definately this one) water can be considered to be
incompressible.  That means that the water at any depth a toy sub would go
to (even if its 100 meters) the density can be assumed to be equal.

The biggest problem is depth related rpessure.  pressure increases by 1
atmosphere for every 10 meters of water (or 14.7 psi for evey 33 feet)  and
i suppose this will influence the strength of your tank.

What is you max vertical speed (descent or asscent)?  Depending on this and
how quickly you can fill/empty the tank will determine the maximum
differential pressure the walls will have to withstand.

HTH HAND

Chris
Alan Street - 24 Feb 2006 16:01 GMT
> I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thank you in advance,
> Panky

For this calculation, water can be considered incompressable and has a
constant density.
Matthias Voss - 24 Feb 2006 17:13 GMT
> € I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> € would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> For this calculation, water can be considered incompressable and has a
> constant density.

I'd guess, the smaller the toy's weight, the more density
variations matter.
The trap the OP ran into was to assume a depth only relation
to density.
Much more important are salinity and temperature.

Matthias
jim frei - 24 Feb 2006 22:25 GMT
>I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thank you in advance,
> Panky

Do you want the density in metric or american units?

Salt or fresh?
JRE - 24 Feb 2006 23:55 GMT
> I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I
> would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thank you in advance,
> Panky

One gram per cc, irrespective of depth, is a reasonable design assumption.

John Eells
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.