Building a Better BC

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!

Stuart, I realize that you don't have to decrease size of the pontoon much to decrease the lift. But as I gave an example, even a bladder that was improperly installed so that it was somewhat crumpled can result in air-trapping. How are you going to decrease this size smoothly and not allow any spaces that are slow to vent? It's just so much easier to buy a different wing, if you really need different sizing.

As far as inner tubes go -- remember the pressure an inner tube is containing (and requires to be inflated). It would be very difficult to orally inflate an inner tube to its stretched volume, and oral inflation is a critical safety thing with BCs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJP
I think the specifics of your hypothetical math are kind of a non-issue in the real world.

I'm guessing you've never actually seen the bladder inside a scuba wing.

I have taken my DSS wing apart to look at before. It's an LCD 30, so it does have zippered access to the bladder.

You are looking at it two-dimensionally and getting the impression that a wing with double the capacity would look twice as big, but it won't. Essentially, it only needs to be 40% bigger too hold twice as much volume.

It looks like that Oxycheq bladder might be bigger than it really needs to be.

Using 17 and 35 in my example was an attempt to represent a somewhat extreme case. I would be very happy if my current 30 # wing could be zipped down to 20 # of lift. For that, instead of needing a bladder that's 40% oversized, you'd only need one that's (total guess on the square root of 1.5) 20-25% oversized.

---------- Post added January 20th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ----------

Stuart, I realize that you don't have to decrease size of the pontoon much to decrease the lift. But as I gave an example, even a bladder that was improperly installed so that it was somewhat crumpled can result in air-trapping. How are you going to decrease this size smoothly and not allow any spaces that are slow to vent? It's just so much easier to buy a different wing, if you really need different sizing.

As far as inner tubes go -- remember the pressure an inner tube is containing (and requires to be inflated). It would be very difficult to orally inflate an inner tube to its stretched volume, and oral inflation is a critical safety thing with BCs.
I don't have all the answers. I was just throwing out ideas. But, I have to wonder if the improperly installed bladder was having a problem because of the way it was installed and that a properly installed oversized bladder (which is scrunched up evenly all the way around - and which is not TOO much oversized) would avoid having the same issues.

I keep thinking about installing inner tubes in motorcycle wheels. If you don't partially inflate the tube when you're putting it in, it can get folded around or pinched and have a problem. But, if you do put some air in it as you install it, then everything goes together correctly. And then if you ever do completely deflate it, it will reinflate just fine because it collapses evenly all around. At that point, it won't collapse into a fold that will get trapped or pinched or trap air.

I suspect that a bladder of extra thick/stiff material might be even less prone to fold and trap air.
 
I realize a larger bladder wouldn't need to be 100% larger, but even "40% too big" is big enough to trap air.

There's also the design axiom that anything designed to do two things... will do neither well.
 
The easiest way to fix the bladder problem is just to eliminate it. In the past DSS, Apeks, Oxycheq, and Halcyon all used single bladder wings. Currently, the UTD and the Zeagle Express Tec are single bladder as well as most jacket BCs.

---------- Post added January 20th, 2015 at 10:59 PM ----------

I suspect one of the biggest problems with the cowlings and rigid BCs was that they can’t take the abuse that tanks get. They also can make changing cylinders difficult. Too bad really, they do “look” cool.

Thanks for posting the photo, I agree it does look cool. Not sure how they exhausted though. I am not thinking about something like that. What I am thinking of is something like the Apeks WTX3 wing except the top and bottom panels of the wing are rigid like an Oxycheq mach 5 but the gussets in the center are flexible. So you could vary the displacement of the wing be restricting the expansion of the gussets. Because it is stiff it won't flop around like an Apeks wing does when deflated. But again I am not sure of the drag penalty.

---------- Post added January 20th, 2015 at 11:28 PM ----------

I have taken my DSS wing apart to look at before. It's an LCD 30, so it does have zippered access to the bladder.

The LCD 30 is a horse shoe wing. So the easiest way to reduce the displacement would be to fold the bottoms of the tubes up to restrict flow to the bottom of the tubes. Seems like if there is an extra piece of fabric sewed to the bottom of each tube with two button holes and buttons sewed to the outer shell you could just fold up the wing at the bottom. The only complication would be the dump may need to be moved up to clear the folds. There also may be some air traping at the bottom of the wing if the valve is moved up. However this could be alleviated by using the inflator to dump.
 
…Thanks for posting the photo, I agree it does look cool. Not sure how they exhausted though...

I can only remember the At Pac wing for sure, since I still have it in storage. There was no butt-dump. The over-pressure relief valve was built into the brass power inflator assembly and was probably too small.

… What I am thinking of is something like the Apeks WTX3 wing except the top and bottom panels of the wing are rigid like an Oxycheq mach 5 but the gussets in the center are flexible...

Do you mean like a rigid cap and a bellows-like bladder that gets compressed into the cap when empty? If correct, it could make trim kind of squirrely.
 
The discussion on zippers got me thinking. My primary wing - a home manufactured one - has too much volume in the top for sidemount diving. It has been otherwise tweaked to work well IMHO. So last night I added a constricting zipper to the top part and this is what I now have. Please excuse the lack of top stitching and the lower OPV valve not installed through the casing. Note the shoulder, waist, and side tie points to keep the wing from tacoing. In retrospect this is very similar to how the SMS75 SM system works. I am thinking about adding support to the back of the wing, but haven't found (Rec OW environments) it needed.

P1010047.jpgP1010048.jpgP1010049.jpgP1010051.jpgP1010052.jpgP1010054.jpgP1010055.jpgP1010056.jpgP1010057.jpgP1010059.jpg

FYI, the inflated bladder main tube circumference is 24" and the assembled wing is 20". I have not found any air trapping problem with that size difference. The bladder is made from a medium weight heat sealable nylon and that may help.
 
Do you mean like a rigid cap and a bellows-like bladder that gets compressed into the cap when empty? If correct, it could make trim kind of squirrely.

No. The Apeks WTX wing is a single bladder wing of conventional shape. It has side gussets or folds so when you inflate it expands outward. I would post a photo but I don't have it with me and the Aqualung website is doesn't show it clearly.
 
No. The Apeks WTX wing is a single bladder wing of conventional shape. It has side gussets or folds so when you inflate it expands outward. I would post a photo but I don't have it with me and the Aqualung website is doesn't show it clearly.
I just saw one of these Apeks wings at the Force E in Riviera Beach, Fl..... Nice backplate, harness is well made.,,maybe a few more doodads on it than needed, but still lightyears beyond a stab jacket...the Wing itself looked really great...I would not mind trying one just to see how it feels....it looks very streamlined.
 
I just saw one of these Apeks wings at the Force E in Riviera Beach, Fl..... Nice backplate, harness is well made.,,maybe a few more doodads on it than needed, but still lightyears beyond a stab jacket...the Wing itself looked really great...I would not mind trying one just to see how it feels....it looks very streamlined.

You must have seen the new wing which looks (I only seen the photos) like an Oxycheq. The older wing was a bit too large and not streamlined at all. I agree the plate is nice as good as an Halcyon and the harness I my opinion is better than Halcyons and others that I have seen. I really like the size of the D-rings.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom