Breathing from a 30ft. snorkel

[2degrees]

i JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS SUCKING THE $$$$ out of my pocket. I think it has something to do with the amount of gas in the my gas tank and the amount of fumes I put into the atmosphere. Or it might be the void in Washington that is sucking my scuba money.

 

[costi]

I hope you are not beating yourself up over this (and I don't think you are).

The gas laws as needed for scuba and as taught for scuba do not mention the precise details of your question, and it would frankly take a pretty good deal of thought to reason it through. As a life long educator, I would have been surprised if the average person would have figured it out on his or her own. The more expected response would be to ask a question like this on a forum such as this--which is what you did.

As for the slap-on-the-head "duh"-moments we all have had, this one barely makes that category, if it does at all. It was a good question.

Congratulations for asking the question, and kudos to those who gave such well stated answers.

Boulderjohn:
Thanks for that post, and to all who have participated positively in this discussion!
No, I am not beating myself up over needing help to think it through. That's one method of learning...asking, listening, and sifting/sorting info until you understand it.
Frankly, it is good to read posts where people are actually using their problem solving skills. It is also good practice.
Obviously, you have picked up on the fact that I am "bothered".
I didn't do the numbers, but the majority of the posts were intended to be helpful or humorous. That's good stuff to relax to at the end of the day!
The part that bothers me as always, is the minority of people who find it necessary to "rain on the parade" so to speak.
I understand that at least in one case, a person thought I wasn't asking a serious question, so I understand...Game on! And things degenerated from there.
But in a couple of cases, peoples comments were simply unnecessary, rude,
and degradative.
SB as a site has such positive information available, it is a shame that it gets ruined by a few.
There......I feel better.
Bob Costigan

 

[Jax]

But in a couple of cases, peoples comments were simply unnecessary, rude,
and degradative.
SB as a site has such positive information available, it is a shame that it gets ruined by a few.
There......I feel better.
Bob Costigan

Eh, but's that's life Some people just cannot stand to let others do something without feeling entitled to denigrate it.

This has been an enormously entertaining thread, given the answer was posted right off the bat! Makes one want to run a controlled psi test . . .

 

[Guba]

And it provided a good excuse to let my students test some hypotheses and observational skills. Lots of fun. Good thread!

 

[TMHeimer]

The part that bothers me as always, is the minority of people who find it necessary to "rain on the parade" so to speak.

costi, Yeah, I new you'd get some of those. There was a lot of good theory discussion though. I took it as a serious question from the start. But simply put, despite all the lung capacity and pressure figures---A giant snorkel must've been a obvious idea for spearfishers even hundreds of years ago. It would've been done back then if it were possible. Perhaps with enough money one could get some kind of water proof/high tech. machine on the snorkel that could make it work.

 

[Atomic_Diver]

Jax It goes back to Cave Divers post at the beginning of the discussion. On post number 2, he explained that without the lungs receiving air at ambient pressure at depth, they would collapse. With the pressure being so intense/unequal, the human body is not strong enough to reinflate the lungs at this point. Since no one should try this at home, the balloon is being substituted. Yes, the balloon is being blown up rather than a breath being drawn in, but the principle is the same. In essence, the original post wasn't whether or not one could "suck air through a 33' snorkel", rather it was," How to explain Why one couldn't Breathe at 33' through a snorkel." Hope this helps, BC

Because No Snorkel in this world is 33' long... How bout that?

 

[costi]

The part that bothers me as always, is the minority of people who find it necessary to "rain on the parade" so to speak.

costi, Yeah, I new you'd get some of those. There was a lot of good theory discussion though. I took it as a serious question from the start. But simply put, despite all the lung capacity and pressure figures---A giant snorkel must've been a obvious idea for spearfishers even hundreds of years ago. It would've been done back then if it were possible. Perhaps with enough money one could get some kind of water proof/high tech. machine on the snorkel that could make it work.

I'm certain people have tried this in the past ....but the problem posed was Why it wouldn't work not does it work as you know.
I've been around SB long enough (usually outside lookinng in) to have expected that their were going to be flamers on associated wit this type of post.
Working in the field of construction has calloused my "sensitivity lobe" so I'm not going to take my hammer and go home.
It just irritates the heck out of me when it occurs and is one of the reasons I'm certain that others more sensitive have either left or do not post their thoughts.
Thanks for the input....off to the real world!
BC

 

[Jax]

The part that bothers me as always, is the minority of people who find it necessary to "rain on the parade" so to speak.

costi, Yeah, I new you'd get some of those. There was a lot of good theory discussion though. I took it as a serious question from the start. But simply put, despite all the lung capacity and pressure figures---A giant snorkel must've been a obvious idea for spearfishers even hundreds of years ago. It would've been done back then if it were possible. Perhaps with enough money one could get some kind of water proof/high tech. machine on the snorkel that could make it work.

And don't forget it's been tried by any kid with a garden hose and a body of water! That's one that's tested over and over and over . . . . ranks up there with jumping off something with an umbrella as a parachute . . .

 

[Cave Diver]

So, I thought the question was "could we suck in air at depth . . . How did this become . . . um, blowing up a balloon?

I thought the discussion was the lungs inflating, not exhaling.

Here's how:

*Disclaimer* This is an idea that came to mind while reading the thread. I don't know that it will properly illustrate the point.

Bring a water bottle down to 33 feet, open it squeeze out all of the water then bring it to your lips and try to inflate it to re-expand it to it's normal shape. I believe this should be of similar difficulty to trying to inflate your lungs at that depth.

You should have no trouble expanding the bottle. The air in your lungs is at ambient having been delivered from the regulator.

A better analogy would be to blow up a balloon that has a resistive force of 28 psi on the surface.

If I recall correctly, most people can't blow more than about 5-6 psi of pressure.

It also looks as if about 5-6 psi is the max amount of pressure that can be overcome by blowing, with the average around 2-3 psi.

Think it's back to that "blow up a balloon with high resistance experiment."

Maybe we could put a balloon on a long tube and blow it up. Then put the balloon underwater and see how deep it has to be before we can no longer blow it up?

I might be able to try this later in my sisters pool.

 

[Cave Diver]

And don't forget it's been tried by any kid with a garden hose and a body of water! That's one that's tested over and over and over . . . . ranks up there with jumping off something with an umbrella as a parachute . . .