Pete, I took watergal's statement of Again, this has NOTHING to do with water column pressure gradient... as saying that her post does not address our vertical/horizontal discussion, but as refuting your statement that "taken to it's logical conclusion, sanding on your head would be more efficient."
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your jubilation, but it appears you interpreted Watergals pulmonologist buddy as supporting your position. I took it as not addressing either of our positions except to say, standing on your head would be a bad idea because your guts would be sitting on top of your diagphram.
Watergal, perhaps you could clarify since I think that Pete and I saw two completely different posts in your one.
I don't think danger has ever entered into the discussion. It's simply more efficient, so it pads your safety margin just a little bit more.
Pete, where did the 5% number come from and to what are you referring to?
I still don't understand what the 3% or 2% is supposed to mean, that's the delta in pressure, but given that supposedly you can embolize in 6 feet of water, that means you can cause major lung damage at mere 18%, so these small numbers can mean something. I also don't understand why you're basing your percentages on 1 ATM. If I'm vertical at the safety stop (assuming average lung depth is 1 foot lower than my mouth) that's a .5 psi difference, and if I'm at 100 feet that's still a .5 psi difference. Are you saying that depth is an additional variable?
If we were talking a closed system and Boyles Law I could see where the % would be pertinent, but we're talking about an open system, and drawing gas into your lungs against a 1 foot/.5 psi deficit is the same no matter what the depth.
Roak
