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 / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
CB - 29 Apr 2007 02:52 GMT
How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
Carl Nisarel - 29 Apr 2007 04:47 GMT
> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

It depends upon how big your cock is and whether it will fit my butt.
Scott - 29 Apr 2007 05:02 GMT
> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

How ever much it takes for you to be neutral at 10 feet with 500 or less PSI
in your bottle(s).

This is on the off chance you aren't a troll.
CB - 29 Apr 2007 06:49 GMT
>> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
>> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> This is on the off chance you aren't a troll.

I was told that I should take 10% of my weight, sounds like a great deal of
weight but that's what I'm bringing today.

This newsgroup has become a haven for low lives.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 29 Apr 2007 01:11 GMT
>>> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
>>> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> This newsgroup has become a haven for low lives.

 We don't -all- think of you that way.
-hh - 29 Apr 2007 10:47 GMT
> I was told that I should take 10% of my weight, sounds like a great deal
> of weight but that's what I'm bringing today.

20lbs for a 3mm shorty does sound a bit high, but with person-to-
person variation, plus with variance in trapped air space in gear, it
isn't impossible, either.

My guess would be that you'll be under 15lbs, but it would be helpful
if you could provide data on how much weighting you needed in any
other situation.  For example, if you needed 0lbs in a freshwater pool
and no wetsuit, going from fresh to salt for 200lbs will add around
6lbs.

Similarly, its pretty easy to take a new wetsuit down to the pool, put
it in a mesh bag and see how many weights need to be added to the bag
to sink it.  Since this will give you its buoyancy at the surface
(instead of at your safety stop), you should subtract off a bit, plus
after a new suit gets 3-5 dives on it, even a shorty will give up a
pound.

In any event, what you should do after you get a basic buoyancy check
done is at the end of your dive at your safety stop, before heading to
the surface, take a moment and assess how much air was left in your BC
during your safety stop because this represents compensation for
ballast that you didn't need.

One way of doing this would be after you've completed your 15fsw
safety stop, completely empty your BC and gage how negative you
become.  Just make sure to then re-fill it to regain neutrality, do
another minute at 15fsw just to be safe, then surface and go write
some notes in your logbook for what you just learned, so as to help
with fine-tuning your weights when planning your next dive.

> This newsgroup has become a haven for low lives.

There's a lot of low lifes everywhere these days, unfortunately.
Fortunately, a good on-topic post here still draws out good
information from the community here.  Only problem is the shortage of
good, on-topic posts.

-hh
Rod - 29 Apr 2007 15:27 GMT
>> I was told that I should take 10% of my weight, sounds like a great deal
>> of weight but that's what I'm bringing today.

Take 2 4 pound, 2 3 pound and 2 2pound weights, On the first dive wear
it all. at the end try to remember to keep 500 psi in your tank and
then experiment. remove a weight and take all the air out of your BC
you are looking to have a float depth of half way up your mask. If you
go lower take off another weight etc then write the number down in
your log book along with the thickness of your dive suit
bracuk@axxent.ca - 29 Apr 2007 16:16 GMT
> Take 2 4 pound, 2 3 pound and 2 2pound weights, On the first dive wear
> it all. at the end try to remember to keep 500 psi in your tank and
> then experiment. remove a weight and take all the air out of your BC
> you are looking to have a float depth of half way up your mask. If you
> go lower take off another weight etc then write the number down in
> your log book along with the thickness of your dive suit

Generally ok, but could be simplified.  Float depth to halfway up your
mask is way more precise than necessary.  All you have to know is
whether you float or sink.  If you float, you need more weight.  The
least amount of weight that causes you to sink is what you want.

Plus, when you are doing this test, exhale first.
Carl Nisarel - 29 Apr 2007 19:38 GMT
bracuk@axxent.ca sexually excited me with:

> Generally ok, but could be simplified.  Float depth to halfway up your
> mask is way more precise than necessary.  All you have to know is
> whether you float or sink.  If you float, you need more weight.  The
> least amount of weight that causes you to sink is what you want.
>
> Plus, when you are doing this test, exhale first.

oh, i love it when you big macho men do those deep breathing exercises.  it
just gets me -so- horny.
Carl Nisarel - 29 Apr 2007 15:30 GMT
rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com>
sputtered:

> This is on the off chance you aren't a troll.

Scotty is paranoid about everyone.

There's a greater chance that the person is just one of Scotty's
sockpuppets.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

red sea diver - 29 Apr 2007 10:08 GMT
> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

hi
we get this question so often here as well in the red sea, and the
typical answer and the best solution is to PERFORM A BUOYANCY CHECK.
because no calculation would be useful.it's all individual
differences, some people are relaxed and some others not, some people
have good breathing and others don't, some have the most of their
weight in their fats while others have it in their muscles...
buoyancy check.
1-put all equipment in place.
2-enter water too deep to stand up in.
3-stay vertical and motionless in the water.
4-deflate all the air from your BCD and hold a normal breath.
5-if you are properly weighted u should float to eye level, to test
it  exhale , you should sink slowly.
6-add 2 kg to compensate for you air as u breathing it the tank will
go lighter.

i hope you find this information useful
Dive Well
Yasser
Sheldon - 29 Apr 2007 20:29 GMT
>> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
>> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Dive Well
> Yasser

What he said!  Don't guess.  Too little and you won't sink.  Too much and
you'll have trouble getting to the surface.  And put everything down in your
log book.  Any changes in equipment, clothing, diet or exercise will change
the weight.

Sheldon
Grumman-581 - 30 Apr 2007 20:06 GMT
> What he said!  Don't guess.  Too little and you won't sink.  Too much and
> you'll have trouble getting to the surface.  And put everything down in your
> log book.  Any changes in equipment, clothing, diet or exercise will change
> the weight.

I have to wonder if perhaps the dive shops don't really go much into
proper weighting these days... Kaitlyn finished up her open water
dives for her SSI certification this weekend and this was one of the
things that I noticed... It seems that their philosophy is to just
throw enough weight on them so that they can *definitely* sink and
then rely on the BC to make up for it... I spent some time between
dives with Kaitlyn, adding one weight at a time to her weightbelt,
getting her as close to neutrally buoyant on the surface as
possible... Since she was using Grace's BC (which is a typical jacket
style unit), I added soft weights separately to it in the pockets to
get it neutrally buoyant with no air in the BC and a nearly empty
tank...

I saw students who would not jump into the water with their weightbelt
on and their BC not on because they weren't sure how negatively
buoyant they would be without the BC... Personally, I figure that is
something that you should figure out either in the class or at least
in the time before the dives on the open water days...

It was kind of funny to watch the students trying to put on their
jacket style BCs in the water for one of the skill tests... They would
pump their BC completely full of air and then to wiggle around and get
both arms in it... What with all the dangling hoses and straps and the
fact that the BC was way up on the surface, this ended up looking like
some sort of contortion contest...

It's a good thing that they were doing the skills tests on a platform
that was suspended well off the bottom... The students had gauges,
regs, and whatnot dangling all over everywhere... If they had been
near the bottom, everything would have been dragging through it and
making the visibility even crappier than it already was...

Oh well... It was a busy weekend (and a busy 3 weeks for the classes),
but she's finally certified... Looks like she'll be making the trip to
Florida with me this year...
Carl Nisarel - 01 May 2007 08:30 GMT
Mikey sexually stimulated me with:

> I have to wonder if perhaps the dive shops don't really go much into
> proper weighting these days... Kaitlyn finished up her open water
> dives for her SSI certification this weekend and this was one of the
> things that I noticed...

so kaitlyn finished up her cert?  well, for a reward, i'll let her butt
f.ck me.  i usually only let little boys do it, but for her, i'll make an
exception.  maybe she can put her snorkel between her legs so that i can
pretend that she's a little boy?

uh oh, i creamed my keeeeyyyyybbboooaarrrd agggaaaiinnn.
Chris Guynn - 01 May 2007 14:20 GMT
<snip>

> It was kind of funny to watch the students trying to put on their
> jacket style BCs in the water for one of the skill tests... They would
> pump their BC completely full of air and then to wiggle around and get
> both arms in it... What with all the dangling hoses and straps and the
> fact that the BC was way up on the surface, this ended up looking like
> some sort of contortion contest...

I took two separate scuba classes: once when I was in college just for fun (not for certification
because I couldn't afford the check out dives at the time) and once a few years after college (for
certification).  I learned my favorite "in-water" equipment don in the first class.  Basically, it
involves filling the BC with just enough air to keep it floating.  Then, I sit on it, find the arm
holes, and slide in.
Grumman-581 - 01 May 2007 19:38 GMT
> I took two separate scuba classes: once when I
> was in college just for fun (not for certification
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> keep it floating.  Then, I sit on it, find the arm
> holes, and slide in.

I'm kind of surprised that apparently they didn't teach them the
overhead water don of the tank... The one where you lay the BC out in
front of you with the valve pointing towards you and then dive under
it and flip it over you at the same time... Of course, it probably
works better when you have less air than I saw all of them with in
their BCs...

Another thing that I noticed is that they didn't put their reg in
their mouth until after they had the BC on and hooked up... The of
course results in them trying to keep their head above the water while
fighting with an overinflated BC...

Oh well... The end result is that they all get their C-cards and they
can now go about the process of learning how to *really* dive...

One thing that was a bit funny there was that Kaitlyn was wearing a
7mm FJ wetsuit... During the snorkeling 'dive', she was basically
floating with her chest out of the water since she hadn't worn her
weight belt... When it got time for her to flip and dive down, all
that happened was that she went inverted, tried to go under, and then
popped back to the surface... Oh well... Unlike a lot of the other
divers there, at least she was warm...
Chris Guynn - 01 May 2007 21:50 GMT
> > I took two separate scuba classes: once when I
> > was in college just for fun (not for certification
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> works better when you have less air than I saw all of them with in
> their BCs...

I never liked that one.  It always took me two tries to be be able to get it so that the hoses were
all in the right place.  I like my method because it allows me to use the bouyancy in the BC to keep
my head above water until I've got the BC on.  It's pretty simple to do to and you don't have to
worry about the routing of the hoses.  It's the easiest way I've tried to don my gear at the
surface.  On the other hand, it doesn't really work that well at depth, so I'll do the overhead don
then.

> Another thing that I noticed is that they didn't put their reg in
> their mouth until after they had the BC on and hooked up... The of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Oh well... The end result is that they all get their C-cards and they
> can now go about the process of learning how to *really* dive...

I'll be glad when I can start that process.  :-)

So far, my experience has been way more limited than I would prefer.

> One thing that was a bit funny there was that Kaitlyn was wearing a
> 7mm FJ wetsuit... During the snorkeling 'dive', she was basically
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> popped back to the surface... Oh well... Unlike a lot of the other
> divers there, at least she was warm...

Janeen has had that problem before.

As a matter of fact, for her second dive (Negril, Jamaica) she was underweighted.  At the time,
neither of us was certified (diving on "resort course" certs) so we really didn't have much of an
idea what was going on.  Even with her BC completely empty, she spent the entire dive at 45 degrees
kicking to simultaneously keep up and stay down.  The next day she told the people that she needed
more weight and they didn't believe her.  We argued with them for about 15 minutes before they gave
her a weight belt with more weight.  She enjoyed that third dive much better than the previous one.
nitespark - 29 Apr 2007 11:17 GMT
> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

The "10%" rule is a good place to start but the BEST way is to perform a
bouyancy check before the dive.

There are SO many variables here.

Different people have different bouyancy characteristics.  Another 205lb
person may require more or less weight than you.

Also, what style tanks will you be using?  An Al80 will be positive when
empty whereas a steel 100 will be negative.

How new is your wetsuit?  After a wetsuit has been used a bit and been
to some depth, it will become less bouyant.

This is why I said 10% is a good place to start.  I would have more
weight available if you need it.
Chuck Tribolet - 29 Apr 2007 22:31 GMT
Can you get in fresh water (say, a pool) with the same gear?

If so: get weighted neutrally.  Take the weight of the system (diver, tank, lead, P valve, whatever).  If you have a
full AL80, add 6 pounds.  If you have an emptyish AL80, add nothing, if something else, ask here.  Take
that weight, multiply by .0256.  That's how much MORE lead you will need in salt water.  That's not a rule
of thumb, that's high school physics.

> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
CB - 30 Apr 2007 19:31 GMT
> How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
> spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?

I ended up with 17.3 lbs. and it was ok. I had to dump absolutely all gas
from my BC to get down passed 20 feet but after that sunk like a rock.

I should say that most of my 205 lbs. is muscle and not from being 'big
boned'...(at the risk of getting homos all excited).
Scott - 30 Apr 2007 19:58 GMT
> I ended up with 17.3 lbs. and it was ok. I had to dump absolutely all gas
> from my BC to get down passed 20 feet but after that sunk like a rock.
>
> I should say that most of my 205 lbs. is muscle and not from being 'big
> boned'...(at the risk of getting homos all excited).

Sounds good, you should have to dump all of your BC gas to descend.

What you don't want is to do a long dive, be at the edge of a potential deco
hit, have 300 psi left in your bottle and be unable to stay at 20 or ten
feet for a safety stop.

If that does happen, you hit the surface, orally inflate (again not wanting
to get Carl excited) your BC and just be as still as you can for ten minutes
minimum.

Obviously this is not possible in many boat dive situations, but is the
ideal.

It is actually better to dive a little heavy than to be at the edge.

My rig is 5# heavy, and I have a solid 5# weight that I can pull out quickly
to hand off to divers when we hit 20 so they can hang on to it and finish
the safety stop.

In the past 5 years, I have used this so many times I cant count them all.

In my locale it isn't such a big deal, we live at the edge of a glacial
fjord, and most of our dives you can hit 30 feet within 50 feet of the
waterline.

Worse comes to worse, you can just pick up a big rock.
Grumman-581 - 30 Apr 2007 20:34 GMT
> Sounds good, you should have to dump all of your BC gas to descend.
>
> What you don't want is to do a long dive, be at the edge of a potential deco
> hit, have 300 psi left in your bottle and be unable to stay at 20 or ten
> feet for a safety stop.

These days, I'm tending to go with the idea of determining the weight
needed for diver separately from the equipment... Putting it all
together is great if you always dive the same configuration, but you
mix and match things dependent upon the conditions for the dive for
that day, it would be nice to just have a list of weights needed for
each piece of gear... Instead of having to list all the possible
combinations of gear that you might dive with, you just list each item
separately... You probably still have to list a value for the item in
salt and fresh water, but it is probably a bit less work than listing
every possible combination like normally...

Let's say that the equipment choices are a FJ top, FJ bottom, FJ
top+bottom, single AL80, double AL80s, single steel-72, double steel
72s... With the all possible combination method, you end up with
3*4=12 possible weighting options for each particular water type (i.e.
fresh or salt) + 1 more weighting for your own natural buoyancy =
13...

FJ top, AL80
FJ top, double AL80s
FJ top, steel-72
FJ top, double steel-72s
FJ bottom, AL80
FJ bottom, double AL80s
FJ bottom, steel-72
FJ bottom, double steel-72s
FJ top+bottom, AL80
FJ top+bottom, double AL80s
FJ top+bottom, steel-72
FJ top+bottom, double steel-72s
your own natural buoyancy weighting

With the separate method of weight calculation, you would need 4
measurements for each water type:

your own natural buoyancy weighting
FJ top
FJ bottom
steel-72
AL80

Kind of like when we're calculating weight and balance on aircraft,
come to think of it... We start out with a base measurement and then
add on the other items that get added to the plane and their moment
arm locations in reference to some base point...

With respect to the fresh vs salt water weighting issues, if this can
be accurately calculated mathematically as someone previously
suggested, that's one less set of measurements that you would need to
take...
-hh - 30 Apr 2007 23:25 GMT
> These days, I'm tending to go with the idea of determining the weight
> needed for diver separately from the equipment... Putting it all
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> salt and fresh water, but it is probably a bit less work than listing
> every possible combination like normally...

I did something like that years ago.

Only real difference is that I used typical groupings instead of
individual pieces.

> Kind of like when we're calculating weight and balance on aircraft,
> come to think of it... We start out with a base measurement and then
> add on the other items that get added to the plane and their moment
> arm locations in reference to some base point...

Pretty much.

FWIW, I did the same thing for SAC estimates, a baseline plus
modifiers for various environmental and/or condition factors (cold,
current, etc).  For the most part, I run these as +X% percentages.

-hh
Grumman-581 - 01 May 2007 00:08 GMT
> I did something like that years ago.
>
> Only real difference is that I used typical groupings instead of
> individual pieces.

I can see a certain logic in that since one could argue that certain
combinations don't get used together very much... I think I would
still prefer it on a per equipment piece basis... That way, for the
dive where you end up with 2 AL80s for back gas and 2 AL80s for
stages, you just multiply the single AL80 extra weight by 4... Having
to substitute steel 72s at the last minute for a couple of the tanks
just ends up still being easy to handle even if you hadn't preplanned
for that particular gear configuration...

On the other hand, if you are needing to measure the negative buoyancy
of a particular item, a 2-liter soda bottle works pretty good... Or
perhaps multiple 2-liter bottles if the item is quite a bit negatively
buoyant... Tie a string from the item to the top of the bottle... The
bottle will be inverted in the water with the cap on it... Keep adding
water until the bottle is completely submerged just below the surface
of the water... Remove the bottle from the water and measure that
amount of water that you had to add... Figure on 1g per cc of water...
Fill the bottle all the way to the top and measure how many cc's that
it takes to fill it... Although they are quoted as 2-liter bottles,
they hold a bit more since there is an air space at the top of the
bottles when "full"... 1 cc = 1 ml, thus 2 liters = 2,000 cc's +
whatever headspace... The 2 liter PET bottles are so light that their
weight can basically be ignored... Especially since you are not going
to calculate the buoyancy of most of your gear in fractional pounds
anyway... Spend a little bit of time and make accurate measurements on
your gear and the only thing that might change over the years is your
own personal buoyancy and perhaps your wetsuit as it starts getting
worn out from neoprene compression over the years of deep dives...
nitespark - 30 Apr 2007 22:02 GMT
>>How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
>>spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I should say that most of my 205 lbs. is muscle and not from being 'big
> boned'...(at the risk of getting homos all excited).

This leads me to ask, and perhaps I am reading something into your
message.  Did you have to work at it to get to 20 ft, or did you drop
immediately once you dumped your BC?  If you had to struggle, then how
was your buoyancy at the end of the dive?  Could you easily maintain
neutral buoyancy at 15-20 ft for you safety stop?
CB - 01 May 2007 06:57 GMT
>>>How much weight do I need in salt water if I weigh 205lbs. and wearing a
>>>spring suit (long sleaves/short legs 3mil?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> your buoyancy at the end of the dive?  Could you easily maintain neutral
> buoyancy at 15-20 ft for you safety stop?

Max depth was 85ft, I started up at 500 lbs (EAN) and stopped at 20ft. for 3
minutes. It was easy to maintain depth with breathing...and the marker
and/or the anchor line. I must say that I had a speargun, knife and catch
ring, all added up to maybe 3lbs. in the wa'da.

There was no struggle getting down. I bailed, sank slowly, flipped and
headed straight down after completely submerged.

We did the USS Mindanao, off Daytona Beach. Saw some big Goliath Grouper,
3-400 lbs., a turtle, millions of fee'ish but only got a 17 lb. Yellow Jack
and a 7 lb. Amber Jack. One might say it was a 'hundred dollar Jack' with
all the gas we used.

Check it out at... alt.binaries.monster-movies in "Monster of the Sea"
nitespark - 01 May 2007 10:53 GMT
> "nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message

> Max depth was 85ft, I started up at 500 lbs (EAN) and stopped at 20ft. for 3
> minutes. It was easy to maintain depth with breathing...and the marker
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> There was no struggle getting down. I bailed, sank slowly, flipped and
> headed straight down after completely submerged.

Then it sounds like you were properly weighted.

Just be aware, on future dives, if you use a different wetsuit, such as
thicker suit, full length suit, farmer john style, or go with a drysuit,
it will change your buoyancy.

Also, you can probably drop 5-6 lbs if you dive the same configuration
in fresh water.

Also, you didn't mention to type tank you were using, but a typical Al80
will be 1-2lbs positive at the end of a dive.  A steel tank (I use HP
100's) will be negative.
CB - 02 May 2007 17:08 GMT
>> "nitespark" <nitespark@cox.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Also, you can probably drop 5-6 lbs if you dive the same configuration in
> fresh water.

The only time I ever dove fresh water was in Ponce or Blue Springs...I
ferget. I had to turn my flash light off to see where the entrance of the
spring was, dumb, dumb dumb.

> Also, you didn't mention to type tank you were using, but a typical Al80

AL80s NITROX 40%

> will be 1-2lbs positive at the end of a dive.  A steel tank (I use HP
> 100's) will be negative.

It's probably a good thing the tank weighs a few pounds more on empty. It
helps to stabilize buoyancy if one is a bit light on the front end of the
dive.
Greg Mossman - 02 May 2007 17:41 GMT
> "nitespark" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message

> It's probably a good thing the tank weighs a few pounds more on empty. It
> helps to stabilize buoyancy if one is a bit light on the front end of the
> dive.

Huh?

The steel tank doesn't weigh more when empty.  It may still be
negative, but it's less negative.  All that air you breathe and exhale
into the water weighs something.
CB - 02 May 2007 19:35 GMT
>> "nitespark" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> negative, but it's less negative.  All that air you breathe and exhale
> into the water weighs something.

Read my post again, you snipped the part were I said AL80s, not steel

"Also, you didn't mention to type tank you were using, but a typical Al80
will be 1-2lbs positive at the end of a dive.  A steel tank (I use HP
100's) will be negative."
--nitespark
nitespark - 02 May 2007 19:42 GMT
>>>"nitespark" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 100's) will be negative."
> --nitespark

Understood.  I was merely pointing out one of the many factors that will
affect your buoyancy.  Style of tank being one of them.
CB - 03 May 2007 06:52 GMT
>>>>"nitespark" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Understood.  I was merely pointing out one of the many factors that will
> affect your buoyancy.  Style of tank being one of them.

I'd like to try a steel 100 some time. Bottom time at 85ft. on a AL80 with
40% O2 was 31 minutes. It would be nice to stay down 45 minutes
nitespark - 02 May 2007 19:40 GMT
>>"nitespark" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> negative, but it's less negative.  All that air you breathe and exhale
> into the water weighs something.

An empty steel tank will weigh more than an empty aluminum tank of
comparable or near comparable capacities. Sorry I didn't put it in
"lawyerese".
Matthias Voss - 02 May 2007 20:13 GMT
>>> It's probably a good thing the tank weighs a few pounds more on
>>> empty.

>> Huh?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> An empty steel tank will weigh more than an empty aluminum tank of
> comparable or near comparable capacities.

Not my ones.
Matthias
Grumman-581 - 02 May 2007 20:54 GMT
> Not my ones.

Did a quick weigh of one of my AL80s and a steel 72... The full AL80
weighs 38 lbs... The full steel 72 weighs 35 lbs... The steel 72 is a
2250 psi tank... Adding another 250 psi (i.e. 2500 psi total) will
result in 80 cu-ft... If your local fill station doesn't mind adding a
bit extra to a steel tank, the steel 72s seem like a better deal than
the AL80s... I've noticed that the fill stations are more likely to
give you a fill above the tank's rated pressure if it is steel vs
aluminum...
Lee Bell - 02 May 2007 21:07 GMT
> Did a quick weigh of one of my AL80s and a steel 72... The full AL80
> weighs 38 lbs... The full steel 72 weighs 35 lbs... The steel 72 is a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> give you a fill above the tank's rated pressure if it is steel vs
> aluminum...

For good reason.  The strength in steel tanks is partly in their ability to
stretch and return to or near their original shape.  Aluminum does not
stretch as well.

The discussion, I believe, was about buoyancy, not weight.  I think Hugh
made a mistake when he said steel tanks were heavier.  That's often, perhaps
usually not the case.  Steel tanks are, however, often less buoyant than
aluminum ones.  As noted, standard aluminum tanks are buoyant when empty
while steel tanks are normally neutral or slightly positive.

Lee
Matthias Voss - 02 May 2007 21:52 GMT
>>Not my ones.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> give you a fill above the tank's rated pressure if it is steel vs
> aluminum...

A wise move.
Matthias
nitespark - 02 May 2007 22:34 GMT
>>>> It's probably a good thing the tank weighs a few pounds more on empty.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Not my ones.

Geez....I am speaking GENERALLY.  There are exceptions to almost every
rule.  I used some aluminum tanks in Key Largo a year or so ago that
were negative when near empty. GENERALLY speaking and empty Al80 (which
are very common) are slightly positive when empty vs an empty Steel
which is negative when empty.
Grumman-581 - 02 May 2007 23:57 GMT
> Geez....I am speaking GENERALLY.  There are exceptions to almost every
> rule.  I used some aluminum tanks in Key Largo a year or so ago that
> were negative when near empty. GENERALLY speaking and empty Al80 (which
> are very common) are slightly positive when empty vs an empty Steel
> which is negative when empty.

Given the number of steel-72s that were produced over the years and
the fact that they rarely fail inspection and hydro, one could
probably make a good argument that they are probably the most common
steel tank out there... Unfortunately, I have no figures to back up
this, but it's not like this has ever stopped anyone around here
anyway... <grin>
Matthias Voss - 03 May 2007 08:28 GMT
>>>>> It's probably a good thing the tank weighs a few pounds more on empty.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> are very common) are slightly positive when empty vs an empty Steel
> which is negative when empty.

What Lee said... AL's weigh more on the scale, less in the
water. Density of AL is 2,7 [kg/dm^3[, of steel 7,85..

Matthias
Grumman-581 - 03 May 2007 09:02 GMT
> What Lee said... AL's weigh more on the scale, less in the
> water. Density of AL is 2,7 [kg/dm^3[, of steel 7,85..

But density is not everything... Given the same pressure rating, the
aluminum tanks will have a thicker wall thickness than the steel
ones... I don't know the exact figures, perhaps someone else does...
If I remember correctly, the AL80s have a wall thickness of
approximately 1/2 inch whereas a comparable steel tank will have a
wall thickness of approximately 3/16th of an inch...
Matthias Voss - 03 May 2007 20:24 GMT
>>What Lee said... AL's weigh more on the scale, less in the
>>water. Density of AL is 2,7 [kg/dm^3[, of steel 7,85..
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> approximately 1/2 inch whereas a comparable steel tank will have a
> wall thickness of approximately 3/16th of an inch...

When I find my ultrasonic thickness meter I'll have a look.
With steel ones, it differs with to the manufacturing
process. Worthington bottles are especially heavy, late IWK
ones much lighter, Eurocylinder something in between, Faber
the similar to IWK.

Matthias
Lee Bell - 02 May 2007 21:02 GMT
> The only time I ever dove fresh water was in Ponce or Blue Springs...I
> ferget. I had to turn my flash light off to see where the entrance of the
> spring was, dumb, dumb dumb.

If you're talking in the Orange City area, it was Blue Springs.  Ponce De
Leon Springs has had a locked gate over the cave system for as long as I can
remember.

Lee
Grumman-581 - 02 May 2007 21:16 GMT
> If you're talking in the Orange City area, it was Blue Springs.  Ponce De
> Leon Springs has had a locked gate over the cave system for as long as I can
> remember.

There wasn't a locked gate back around 1981 when we used to dive it...
When I was there on a previous Florida trip though, it didn't look
like I remembered it... Perhaps there's another spring with a similar
name... Perhaps I'm just having an Alzheimer's Moment...
Lee Bell - 03 May 2007 01:34 GMT
>> If you're talking in the Orange City area, it was Blue Springs.  Ponce De
>> Leon Springs has had a locked gate over the cave system for as long as I
>> can
>> remember.

> There wasn't a locked gate back around 1981 when we used to dive it...
> When I was there on a previous Florida trip though, it didn't look
> like I remembered it... Perhaps there's another spring with a similar
> name... Perhaps I'm just having an Alzheimer's Moment...

Probably my mistake.  It turns out that there is a Ponce De Leon Springs in
NW Florida and a De Leon Springs near Deland, Florida.  De Leon Springs is
the spring I was familiar with back in the 1960s.  It was commercialized
even back then and, from what I found, still is.  You used to be able to
dive there, but I see nothing in the current information indicating divers
are still welcome.

Lee
Scott - 03 May 2007 01:40 GMT
> Probably my mistake.  It turns out that there is a Ponce De Leon Springs in
> NW Florida and a De Leon Springs near Deland, Florida.  De Leon Springs is
> the spring I was familiar with back in the 1960s.  It was commercialized
> even back then and, from what I found, still is.  You used to be able to
> dive there, but I see nothing in the current information indicating divers
> are still welcome.

May have something to do with why ole Ponce didn't find the fountain of
youth...

He was looking in the wrong place all along.
Grumman-581 - 03 May 2007 02:39 GMT
> Probably my mistake.  It turns out that there is a Ponce De Leon Springs in
> NW Florida and a De Leon Springs near Deland, Florida.  De Leon Springs is
> the spring I was familiar with back in the 1960s.  It was commercialized
> even back then and, from what I found, still is.  You used to be able to
> dive there, but I see nothing in the current information indicating divers
> are still welcome.

When I was at there a couple of years ago, it looked entirely different
from what I remember from back in 1981... The way that I remember it,
there was a pretty good swim from the shore to the hole in the bottom of
the lake that was the entrance to the cave system... That is definitely
not what I saw when I visited there a couple of years ago... Considering
the fact that I was based out of Orlando at the time, I seriously doubt
that we drove all the way up to NW Florida for the dive... That would
lead me to believe that we dove De Leon Springs, not Ponce de Leon
Springs, although I knew it by the name of Ponce de Leon Springs back
then... Basically, it's probably an Alzheimer's Moment...

On the other hand, if there is a way into the cave system from out in
the middle of the lake that is NW of there, it might match with what
still remains in the few brain cells that I have that have survived from
that time...
 
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



©2009 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.