 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / August 2007Back Inflation and GO Diving
There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. Yesterday I used a wetsuit, BP/W, and 16# of lead. The dive plan was to swim a few hundred yards and sit on the bottom and pull weeds. Sixteen pounds of lead puts me in the grossly overweighted (GO) category. The first thing I noticed - besides that it takes a whole crapper full of air to lift the extra 10 to 12 pounds of weight - is that it was not possible to sit upright on the bottom of the lake with the bladder capacity at neutral buoyancy. The wing pushed my head down so as to be parallel with the earth. On the surface it was the same. All this leads me to conclude that one could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the right circumstances. > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types > of buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that one could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the > right circumstances. If you want a lifejacket, get one. The BC or BP/W that holds you, correctly, horizontal, while diving, is the superior design. Are you really -that- far behind on trim paradigms? Next time, try a steel tank, and the correct amount of weight. That makes your surface time more manageable. Why you can't sit down, while "GO", with no air in your flotation device (or why that would be a question anyway), is anybody's guess. And I hate to give you this Page 1 flash, Einstein, but one can -always- drown rather easily when on, or under, water. > If you want a lifejacket, get one. > > The BC or BP/W that holds you, correctly, horizontal, while diving, is the > superior design. Right idea, poorly stated. A plate does not "hold" you horizontal, it merely allows you to remain that way with little or no effort. Correctly trimmed, it does not push you face down while underwater or on the surface. Lee > > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types > > of buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The BC or BP/W that holds you, correctly, horizontal, while diving, is the > superior design. I tell ya, even fully inflated, my wing has NEVER "pushed my head down" while I was at the surface. > Are you really -that- far behind on trim paradigms? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why you can't sit down, while "GO", with no air in your flotation device > (or why that would be a question anyway), is anybody's guess. I take it he had some air in the BC. which may be why he had to be overweighted? But if your goal is to pull weeds...wouldn;t being horizontal, floating hst a bit above the bottom..make that easier? > And I hate to give you this Page 1 flash, Einstein, but one can -always- > drown rather easily when on, or under, water. Dennis "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > If you want a lifejacket, get one. Thats what the old horsecollars were :-) > The BC or BP/W that holds you, correctly, horizontal, while diving, is the > superior design. This assumes that one's definition of "correct" is that it equals horizontal. Particularly for UW photo, my definition of correct is that the BC does not impede me from attaining any orientation while diving. Plus, it would be nice if it could do double duty on the surface as a 'life jacket' for those instances where the surface float doesn't go according to plan (see the current month's issue of Alert Diver for an example), or at least not be a bad face-dunker. Particuarly when using rental AL80's at some remote resort because they don't have any Steels. -hh > Plus, it would be nice if it could do double duty on the surface as a > 'life jacket' for those instances where the surface float doesn't go > according to plan (see the current month's issue of Alert Diver for an > example), or at least not be a bad face-dunker. Particuarly when > using rental AL80's at some remote resort because they don't have any > Steels. The bad "face dunkers" are "tech" back inflation BC's that have a ridiculous amount of lift in a wing design that mimics the classic cave diving wing. The classic cave diving wing is narrow at the top and wide at the bottom and is perfect with double steel tanks. It provides 45-55 lbs of lift. It allows a diver to be balanced in any position. Some of the tech BC's have 60, 80 or even 100 lbs of lift - ridiculous with any tanks, and a design which puts too much of the lift in the wrong place. Most of the time the face down problem comes from having too much weight and putting too much gas into a poorly designed wing. The diver feels like he's being pushed forward on the surface and starts adding weight to try to compensate, but then has to put more gas in the wing, making the problem worse. I've helped more than a few people through this by removing weight and showing them that they don't need to fill the wing. I use a backplate, and have 4 different wings (Halcyon and Oxycheq) that are designed specifically for the tank configurations I use. I don't remember who makes them, but I have seen back inflation BC's that are designed well for single tank diving (the one that ESG used comes to mind), and there are other types that are designed specifically and work well for the diving that most people do. It simply boils down to using the right tool for the job. Compromises are compromises. al >> Plus, it would be nice if it could do double duty on the surface as a >> 'life jacket' for those instances where the surface float doesn't go [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the tech BC's have 60, 80 or even 100 lbs of lift - ridiculous with any >tanks, and a design which puts too much of the lift in the wrong place. Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started diving and it was probably with that BC. But, I was grossly overweighted back then and now never experience that feeling. >Most of the time the face down problem comes from having too much weight >and putting too much gas into a poorly designed wing. The diver feels >like he's being pushed forward on the surface and starts adding weight >to try to compensate, but then has to put more gas in the wing, making >the problem worse. I've helped more than a few people through this by >removing weight and showing them that they don't need to fill the wing. Yes. I avoid filling my BC whenever possible. >I use a backplate, and have 4 different wings (Halcyon and Oxycheq) that >are designed specifically for the tank configurations I use. I don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >well for the diving that most people do. It simply boils down to using >the right tool for the job. Compromises are compromises. I've never used my Ranger for doubles but I'm sure it wouldn't compare to a back plate and wing. But, I think it works wonderfully for single tanks, especially the larger steel tanks. > Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember > having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started > diving and it was probably with that BC. But, I was grossly > overweighted back then and now never experience that feeling. We'll have to hook up soon and get you to try a BP&W. ;-) I still have an old ALBP, STA and 27# Pioneer. Curtis > > Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember > > having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I still have an old ALBP, STA and 27# Pioneer. Hanson seems like wonderful brainwash material. You might not even have to break out the spinning pocket watch. > We'll have to hook up soon and get you to try a BP&W. ;-) > I still have an old ALBP, STA and 27# Pioneer. That's what my other wing is. My 27 lb Pioneer is attached to a stainless backplate and STA. You guys are welcome to give it a try if you "hook up" down here. Lee >> Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember >> having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I still have an old ALBP, STA and 27# Pioneer. Okay. Flight and trip booked as of yesterday afternoon. I'll be flying in at the usual time and leaving Monday evening at about 1800. > Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember > having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started > diving and it was probably with that BC. But, I was grossly > overweighted back then and now never experience that feeling. snip > I've never used my Ranger for doubles but I'm sure it wouldn't compare > to a back plate and wing. But, I think it works wonderfully for > single tanks, especially the larger steel tanks. I've seen Rangers, but not used one. It looked like a reasonably good BC to me. On the other hand, 55 lbs. of lift is quite a bit more than most people would need for a single tank. I have a 55 lb Oxycheq for my twinset, but use a much smaller wing for my single tank diving. Most often, I use an 18 lb lift Halcyon wing that's no longer made. I forget what the bigger one I have is except that it's bigger than the 18, and a lot smaller than the 55. Lee >> Hmmm, I have a Ranger with 55 pounds of lift. I seem to remember >> having that "pushing my face forward" feeling when I first started [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lift Halcyon wing that's no longer made. I forget what the bigger one I have >is except that it's bigger than the 18, and a lot smaller than the 55. I bought it used. It was owed by a big guy who dove dry, which might be why it has the bigger bladder. I'll be purchasing a drysuit within the next year also and would like to switch to a BP&W. I even have a buyer lined up for my Ranger. I plan on doing an Isle Royale Charter next year that is being set up by my LDS. It's limited to 5 "advanced divers" and one of the requirements is a drysuit. > I bought it used. It was owed by a big guy who dove dry, which might > be why it has the bigger bladder. I'll be purchasing a drysuit within > the next year also and would like to switch to a BP&W. I even have a > buyer lined up for my Ranger. I'm not a drysuit diver and doubt I ever will be. It makes sense to me to use a larger wing for that kind of diving, but I'll leave judgment on that issue to those with some experience. Let me know if you want to borrow my stainless plate and 27 lb wing next time you're down this way. Lee >> I bought it used. It was owed by a big guy who dove dry, which might >> be why it has the bigger bladder. I'll be purchasing a drysuit within [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Let me know if you want to borrow my stainless plate and 27 lb wing next >time you're down this way. I just might. I'll be down there in 3 weeks. > "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Particularly for UW photo, my definition of correct is that the BC > does not impede me from attaining any orientation while diving. So it's your BC that does that? And not your skill as a diver? Interesting. > Plus, it would be nice if it could do double duty on the surface as a > 'life jacket' for those instances where the surface float doesn't go > according to plan (see the current month's issue of Alert Diver for an > example), or at least not be a bad face-dunker. Particuarly when > using rental AL80's at some remote resort because they don't have any > Steels. Or you could stick with a horse collar set-up. I use diving gear to dive. > -hh > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types > of buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that one could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the > right circumstances. You don't suppose the location of the 16 lbs might have had something to do with it? > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of > buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the right > circumstances. How patently obsurd. > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of > buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. > > Yesterday I used a wetsuit, BP/W, and 16# of lead. The dive plan was to > swim a few hundred yards and sit on the bottom and pull weeds. Sixteen > pounds of lead puts me in the grossly overweighted (GO) category. You are grossly overweighted in a wet suit with 16 lbs ? You don't mention if this is salt or fresh water but since you are "pulling weeds', I'm assuming it's fresh water. > The first > thing I noticed - besides that it takes a whole crapper full of air to lift > the extra 10 to 12 pounds of weight - is that it was not possible to sit > upright on the bottom of the lake with the bladder capacity at neutral > buoyancy. The extra 10 to 12 pounds of weight ? Are you saying that you normally would use 4 to 6 lbs of weight with a wetsuit ? > The wing pushed my head down so as to be parallel with the earth. > On the surface it was the same. All this leads me to conclude that one > could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the right > circumstances. I'm really confused on this : "The wing pushed my head down so as to be parallel with the earth." If you had all of the air out your back floatation BC, it would not push you anywhere. >> There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types >> of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mention if this is salt or fresh water but since you are "pulling > weeds', I'm assuming it's fresh water. He was overweighting himself to work on the bottom. He's a skinny little runt. >> The first >> thing I noticed - besides that it takes a whole crapper full of air to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > be parallel with the earth." If you had all of the air out your > back floatation BC, it would not push you anywhere. On Aug 27, 7:03 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > <hierophantf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > You are grossly overweighted in a wet suit with 16 lbs ? You don't > > mention if this is salt or fresh water but since you are "pulling > > weeds', I'm assuming it's fresh water. > He was overweighting himself to work on the bottom. > He's a skinny little runt. Yea, I guess he is. I'm jealous. > You are grossly overweighted in a wet suit with 16 lbs ? You don't > mention if this is salt or fresh water but since you are "pulling > weeds', I'm assuming it's fresh water. I would be grossly overweighted with 16 lbs of lead when wearing my wetsuit too, and I'm not even close to being a skinny runt. I'm quite buoyant. Under normal conditions, my body's positive buoyancy is offset by my neutral to slightly negative (when empty) tanks, other equipment and my 6 lb stainless steel plate. With my 16 mil wetsuit, I add 4 lbs of lead for near perfect trim and weighting. With 16 lbs, I'd be 12 lbs overweight, which is pretty gross in my opinion. Lee hierophantfish@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :The extra 10 to 12 pounds of weight ? Are you saying that you :normally would use 4 to 6 lbs of weight with a wetsuit ? What's wrong with that? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. > hierophantf...@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > :The extra 10 to 12 pounds of weight ? Are you saying that you > :normally would use 4 to 6 lbs of weight with a wetsuit ? > What's wrong with that? What's wrong with it is that I can no longer do that since I gained weight. Pisses me off to no end. hierophantfish@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :What's wrong with it is that I can no longer do that since I gained :weight. Pisses me off to no end. If it's that important to you, lose the weight. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. > hierophantf...@hotmail.com pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > > :What's wrong with it is that I can no longer do that since I gained > :weight. Pisses me off to no end. > > If it's that important to you, lose the weight. If she were anorexic to begin with, you could be killing her with that sentiment. Shame on you. > :What's wrong with it is that I can no longer do that since I gained > :weight. Pisses me off to no end. > > If it's that important to you, lose the weight. He didn't say it was important, he said it pissed him off. Life's full of unimportant things that piss people off. > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of > buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > conclude that one could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the > right circumstances. Sounds like you were overweighted. If you did this to work on the bottom then you should just deflate the BC and you can walk around the bottom. You can also adjust trim by moving the weight farther back toward the wing. Adam > > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of > > buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > conclude that one could drown rather easily with this type of equipment given the > > right circumstances. > Sounds like you were overweighted. If you did this to work on the bottom then you > should just deflate the BC and you can walk around the bottom. You can also adjust > trim by moving the weight farther back toward the wing. > Adam He doesn't mention the type of BC he is using, so I'm not sure how you are arriving at your conclusion that he was overweighted and needed to move the weight farther back. There are back-inflation BC's (like the one I have) that have pockets for weights. You don't move the weights anywhere in that case. They stay put in the pocket. I suppose if you wanted to, you could add a weightbelt or a tank weight if you felt that might help adjust your trim. I've never had to do that. Furthermore, if he felt he couldn't sit upright at "neutral", and he was overweighted, then why not just let some more air out ? I mean if you let all the air out and you're that much overweighted, then eventually your butt is gonna be firmly planted on the bottom. With no air in the wings, there should be no reason why you couldn't sit upright. >> > There was a discussion a while back on wing type and back inflation types of >> > buoyancy compensators. Here is something new. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > With no air in the wings, there should be no reason why you couldn't > sit upright. Hi, I agree with you he should have just released more air from the wing and taken less weight. He mentioned he's using a back plate and wing and in this system you can move the weight around. Moving weight to the back, either by sliding main weights to the back or using weights behind the plate would also help him with his trim. He does not state what kind of wet suit he's using but mentions himself that he was overweighted. If most of the weight is in front that would pull him face down with a wing inflated. Adam |
Reply to this Message |
 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.