Air consumption rates.

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

All this talk about SAC and RMV is interesting, but I'm not convinced it's all that helpful in gas planning. Keep in mind that the numbers are normalized for depth and altitude (by the computer). My SAC sitting on the sofa is 0.25 cf/min. My Icon usually reports a RMV about 0.6 to 0.7 for most dives. However, when I divide the tank volume by the dive length in minutes - which is the actual amount of gas used - the number is significantly higher. I put together a spreadsheet with dive length, max depth, average depth, computer calculated RMV, and actual gas used. I graphed every pair of data points and found there is no corellation with dive length, max or average depth. Even the computer reported RMV doesn't corelate perfectly. Here is a table of some Roatan dives with computed RMV (col 1)and actual gas used (col 2):
0.52, 0.83
0.58, 1.16
0.6, 1.2
0.6, 1.2
0.61, 1.2
0.61, 1.18
0.61, 1.41
0.61, 1.23
0.63, 1.31
0.64, 1.16
0.67, 1.12
0.69, 1.19
0.7, 1.18
0.7, 1.28
0.7, 1.44
0.71, 1.29
0.72, 1.39
0.74, 1.35
0.83, 1.76
1.21, 1.98

Mean 1.29, Median 1.215, mode 1.2 - for me actual gas used is far more useful in gas planning than a theoretical calculation.

Sorry, I don't understand this at all. RMV is in cubic feet per minute at the surface. The calculation takes into account the cylinder size and service pressure. RMV can be used to accurately predict gas use on a dive:

(avg depth in ft/33 ft +1) (RMV in cu ft/min) (dive time in min) = cu ft
 
I suspect those who are asking how to lower their sac/rmv may be led into unrealistic expectations of normal.

That is why it would be interesting to see consumption in a non diving environment where diving skill and comfort are taken out of the equation. If you breathe X in front of the telly it seems unlikely you can aim lower in the water without deliberately trying to breath less. I don't think we are supposed to be teaching people to deliberately breath less as that can lead to excessive co2 and the problems that go with it.

You rmv of actual dives isn't entirely the interesting bit, the difference between that and your resting, non diving rmv is.
I actually did this Ken but it was several years ago and I don't recall the results. It would be interesting to compare. I am in Cozumel right now. Will see if I can find where I wrote it down when I get home.
 
All this talk about SAC and RMV is interesting, but I'm not convinced it's all that helpful in gas planning. Keep in mind that the numbers are normalized for depth and altitude (by the computer). My SAC sitting on the sofa is 0.25 cf/min. My Icon usually reports a RMV about 0.6 to 0.7 for most dives. However, when I divide the tank volume by the dive length in minutes - which is the actual amount of gas used - the number is significantly higher. I put together a spreadsheet with dive length, max depth, average depth, computer calculated RMV, and actual gas used. I graphed every pair of data points and found there is no corellation with dive length, max or average depth. Even the computer reported RMV doesn't corelate perfectly. Here is a table of some Roatan dives with computed RMV (col 1)and actual gas used (col 2):
0.52, 0.83
0.58, 1.16
0.6, 1.2
0.6, 1.2
0.61, 1.2
0.61, 1.18
0.61, 1.41
0.61, 1.23
0.63, 1.31
0.64, 1.16
0.67, 1.12
0.69, 1.19
0.7, 1.18
0.7, 1.28
0.7, 1.44
0.71, 1.29
0.72, 1.39
0.74, 1.35
0.83, 1.76
1.21, 1.98

Mean 1.29, Median 1.215, mode 1.2 - for me actual gas used is far more useful in gas planning than a theoretical calculation.
No. . . This is how you figure and track actual gas used:

Given a RMV of 15 liters/min per ATA with a 15 liters/bar cylinder (steel HP119 tank), which translates to a 1 bar/min per ATA pressure Surface Consumption Rate, then all you need for monitoring multi-level gas usage are the depths in ATA, the time you spent at each multi-level depth, and then you can figure out your consumption for each particular depth, confirming it with an SPG or AI reading. ("AI" is an optional dive computer "Air Integration" electronic digital pressure data logger display function with either direct high pressure hose connection, or a wireless transducer/transmitter to a regulator's first stage HP port).

So you're at 30 meters depth; that's 4 ATA (30 divided-by 10 plus 1 equals 4 ATA); you stay 5 minutes. 1 bar/min per ATA multiplied by 4 ATA multiplied by 5 minutes equals 20 bar consumed. Confirm with SPG or AI, your delta remaining pressure reads 20 bar less --so if you start with a tank pressure of 200 bar, the SPG or AI should indicate "180 bar". (200 minus 20 is 180 bar).

You then ascend to 21 meters depth; that's 3.1 ATA (21 divided-by 10 plus 1 equals 3.1 ATA); you stay 10 minutes. 1 bar/min per ATA multiplied by 3.1 ATA multiplied by 10 minutes equals 31 bar consumed. Confirm with SPG or AI, your delta remaining pressure reads 31 bar less --SPG or AI should indicate "149 bar". (180 minus 31 is 149 bar).

You then ascend to 15 meters depth; that's 2.5 ATA (15 divided-by 10 plus 1 equals 2.5 ATA); you stay 30 minutes. 1 bar/min per ATA multiplied by 2.5 ATA multiplied by 30 minutes equals 75 bar consumed. Confirm with SPG or AI, your delta remaining pressure reads 75 bar less --SPG or AI should indicate "74 bar". (149 minus 75 is 74 bar).

Finally ascend to 6 meters depth; that's 1.6 ATA ( 6 divided-by 10 plus 1 equals 1.6 ATA); you stay 10 minutes. 1 bar/min per ATA multiplied by 1.6 ATA multiplied by 10 minutes equals 16 bar consumed. Confirm with SPG or AI, your delta remaining pressure reads 16 bar less --SPG or AI should indicate "58 bar". (74 minus 16 is 58 bar).

Do a slow ascent to the surface --on the surface inflate your BCD/Wing/Drysuit and you know even before looking at your SPG that you have 50 bar remaining in your tank.

With repetition, experience & persistent rote practice-- you will know what your SPG nominally reads at depth after an arbitrary time interval like five or ten minutes. Or, in the case of an AI, your total running gas remaining estimate over a five or ten minute interval should be similar to the algorithm's displayed value. The point is do not take for granted the calculations of AI --the features & functions of AI (like Air Time Remaining or real time SAC rate displays) are ancillary to what you already know how to do in your head. . .

(If the expected SPG or AI reading is 30% or more than you figured, then that indicates you are physically working & breathing harder than normal, or have a leak somewhere in your reg/gear set-up, and should consider aborting the dive).
 
Sounds like your rate is similar to mine, however when I'm filling lift bags my rate is considerably higher.

Other than gas planning, I wouldn't track my SAC rate at all. I don't pay a lot of attention to lowering my SAC rate, I just grab a bigger tank, or make two dives if I need more air for the time I'm diving.


Bob

Hahaha, me too. I'm looking for LP 108s right now. I have 4 LP 95s that are my primaries, some AL 80s as back ups.
 
However, when I divide the tank volume by the dive length in minutes - which is the actual amount of gas used - the number is significantly higher. I put together a spreadsheet with dive length, max depth, average depth, computer calculated RMV, and actual gas used.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you saying SAC and dive length by depth aren't related?

If you divide the total cuft of the tank by dive length you won't get a real or meaningful SAC, that doesn't take several things into account; boyle's law and gas you didn't actually breath (ie 500 psi left when surfacing).
 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you saying SAC and dive length by depth aren't related?

If you divide the total cuft of the tank by dive length you won't get a real or meaningful SAC, that doesn't take several things into account; boyle's law and gas you didn't actually breath (ie 500 psi left when surfacing).

Yep. I miswrote. What I do is to divide the actual CF used (not tank volume) by the dive time in minutes . The SAC and RMV are calculated AND normalized to surface. Total air used divided by minutes of dive gives the figure for actual gas usage on that dive.
 
Sorry, I don't understand this at all. RMV is in cubic feet per minute at the surface. The calculation takes into account the cylinder size and service pressure. RMV can be used to accurately predict gas use on a dive:

(avg depth in ft/33 ft +1) (RMV in cu ft/min) (dive time in min) = cu ft

Actually,SAC is a calculated figure normalized to surface pressure and doesn not (can not) take into account dive factors of workload, stress, physiological condition, temperature, and a myriad of other factors that affect gas consumption but are poorly understood. Unless all factors are very nearly the same it's predictive value degrades. Using actual data (objective, empirical data) here are two scattergrams of SAC vs max depth and vs average depth.
upload_2016-7-5_9-1-27.png

upload_2016-7-5_9-2-8.png

There is no correlation whatsoever.

Here is SAC vs actual gas used per minute.
upload_2016-7-5_9-8-43.png

You can see that the calculated SAC (Y-axis) for the range ≈0.5 through ≈0.8 has actual gas used (X-axis) from ≈0.8 through1.7+. That's a piss poor predictor.
 
I still don't think I follow the intent of your plots Kharon.

Why would you plot SAC vs depth?

The SAC is a value that is adjusted based upon depth. So if you plot a value that is adjusted for depth vs depth you are basically generating a 1 dimensional plot that is just showing how your SAC varies over different dives.

This variation can be due to so many things EXCEPT depth... ie current, temperature, workload, etc etc. Which means the plot is showing a combination of the consistency of your breathing and/or the variation in the types of diving you do.

The last plot y - calculated SAC vs x - actual SAC just seems like two different ways of making the same calculation. The calculated SAC is what your computer tells you? And the actual is what you figured by hand? That would seem to just show difference/error and the two ways it's being calculated by computer and by hand, where it appears when you calculate by hand you always get values ~30% higher than your computer?


I guess I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I believe over sufficient dives an established SAC should be a good number for gas planning... but of course you should build in a buffer as conditions, temp, current, etc will obviously effect your average SAC.

As an example, it looks like the median SAC based on the dive plots you've shown is around .75, that seems like a good starting point for gas planning and then if you know there will be lower temp or more workload you can add more buffer or if you know it's warm water no current you can add less buffer.
 
And actually, looking back at your two top plots again if you ignore the 2-3 outliers on each of the two graphs the tight grouping of all your other points looks like fairly consistent SAC over different dives so unless all of those dives were identical conditions (temp, current, finning) I'd say that's a fairly consistent SAC you have.
 
Hi Kharon,

Why would RMV correlate with maximum depth, average depth, or total gas used?

RMV may correlate with physical effort, psychological stress, thermal stress (cold)... My average RMV for 750 dives has a distribution of these variables contained within it. Though the average is 0.37, an effortless drift in warm water may give me a 0.30, whereas, a dive on a wreck with brisk current and colder water may give me a 0.44. This relatively narrow range is very useful in gas planning

Good diving,

Craig
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom