Diving Performance - Beyond Drag (article Series And Discussion)

[John C. Ratliff]

We get back to your requirements, @REVAN, that simply don't match what most people do while diving. They're great requirements for you, but they have no bearing on my diving or most people I have dived with so far. Or most people I've talked to about diving. There's a reason people say "slow down" to all of us newbies.

Sometimes, you must swim fairly fast to see what's right in front of you. Such is the case for me in the Clackamas River at High Rocks. If you'll look at the photo below, you'll see me entering into a current, and that current is greater than two knots, probably at least three knots as you can see the ripples on the surface from the fast-moving water. The rapids are at the top of the photo, and the water is coming downstream and moving to the right at the top, but it also collides with the river bank, and forms an upstream current that I must pass through to get to the other side, and start going downstream. I swim against this current to stay in one place. When I get to the bottom, I can hold onto rocks, but in order to move I must swim against this current to the other side of the river, where there's an island, and the current switches to going to my right. Being fairly streamlined, this swimming is not difficult. But with other configurations, it becomes impossible.

A few years ago, I swam against the current into a deeper part of the river. I was using twin 45s, and a double hose regulator. Here are some exerpts from my dive log:

Date: 6-18-2011

Dive Site: High Rocks, Clackamas River

Dive Plan:

This dive was planned as the first of the season at High Rocks. I’ve been diving this site for years, but usually start on Memorial Day. This year’s extremely high water and snow melt kept me from even thinking about it until today. But the weather was rainy today, and upon looking at the water I almost decided not to dive. Then the Fire Department showed up with their divers, and I decided that if they could get wet, so could I.

Water Conditions (Temperature, Visibility, etc.)

The water was cold, and normally I ask the lifeguards about the temperature. But today the lifeguards were not there yet, so I estimate the temperature in the low 40s. Visibility was about 4 feet, and the lighting was not good because of the heavy cloud cover with rain. Current was strong, but the river was not as high as I expected. It was maybe three feet higher than normal, which meant it was dive-able.

Observations:

I took my time getting geared up. This was a full wetsuit day, and my first dive since late January. I also decided to dive my twin 45s, with my Healthways SCUBA regulator hybrid, and my Scubapro AIR I as an octopus (it had a LP inflator and gauge too). I used my regular mask, with the SeawiscopeEY attached. I also dived the yellow bike helmet with a snorkel attached...

...Normally, at this site, I go to the bottom here and make my way downstream and across the current to an eddy just up from the High Rocks narrows channel. But today, because of the current, I stayed on the surface until I was past the fire department personnel, I still wanted to get into the eddy, but needed to do that underwater at this point because the surface current was very strong. I went to the bottom, and was swimming upstream toward the shallower areas of the eddie. The bottom here is rocky with gravel on the bottom. As I started up, I noticed a brown Pacific lamprey. It was going my direction, so I decided to stop for a moment and watch it. The lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) was brown rather than grey, indicating to me that it had not been in the river too long.

I swam up the gravel bank from about 15 feet depth to about 10 feet depth, nearing the bottom portion of this eddy but where there was still a downstream current. There I saw two more lampreys, which were joined by this third one, on the bottom holding onto stones in their mouths. Then they curled around each other, and began mating. I reached up to my mask and brought the SeawiscopeEY down in position on my mask. This is a double-lens device that allows very close focusing and observations. With it down, and the two lampreys in a mating position (one male attached itself to the female’s head, and circled her body with his), I watched in amazement as they convulsed in a mating orgasm, and eggs and sperm came out. After a moment, the male released his grip on her head, and the three lampreys began moving stones over the site. At first. It was small stones being moved out, then large stones were moved on top. They kept moving the stones in the river, and the large ones were bigger than my fist. One lamprey would cling to the stone with his/her mouth, then with body undulations try to displace it from the bottom. The larger stones were moved over the area of the eggs, which were sticking to the rocks on the bottom. Some had drifted back in the current too.

This process was repeated at least five times while I watched during the next 20 minutes. The male would grab the head of the female, wrap his body around the female and they would release sperm and eggs in what could only be described as a body convulsion, a fast-frequency twitching of the whole lower bodies of the two fish. This would be followed by several minutes of moving stones on the bottom. This was a cooperative effort by three lampreys. At one point, the dominant male tried mating with the female, and because the other male was along-side could only wrap his body around the both of them. That did not work, so he would change his body position slightly and try again. Finally, and only after he had successfully wrapped his body only around her, the mating commenced again.

This mating activity of the lampreys was fascinating to watch. Toward the end of my observations, the other male tried to mate with this female, and a fight ensued. The dominant male attached to the other male with his mouth, and swam him away. He returned, and the fight ensued again. Eventually, only the female and the dominant male were there.

By this time, I was getting cold, so I reluctantly pushed off into the downstream current, when across the High Rocks narrows, and surfaced to see whether the fire department was there. I could not see them, nor the lifeguards, so I submerged again and continued downstream. By this time I had only about 600 psig (500 psig reserve still in one cylinder’s J-valve). As I came downsteam, I found myself climbing over boulders, so I briefly surfaced again to gain my bearings, then submerged and got into the main stream.

As I came under the footbridge, and into the more lighted area, I drifted into a face-to-face with a fish I had never seen underwater before, a sturgeon. This is the fabled Columbia River White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus Richardson), and it was the biggest fish by far that I have seen in the Clackamas River. My reaction was a hooted expletive through the Healthways Hope-Page mouthpiece. I saw it only for a half a second, and then it turned tail and in one motion was gone. Its head was a full foot across in front of me, and I estimate its length at about six feet.

After my breathing got back down to normal, I continued downstream. I had found a golf ball at High Rocks, but now was downstream and had found a fishing lure. I put it into my BC front pocket, but noted that I had lost the golf all. Oh well, not a big loss. A minute later I drifted by a rock which contained a salmon about 18 inches long, and it couldn’t see me as the right side of its face was damaged by something. It had a long, white laceration where its eye should have been. I decided to try to grab it, by didn’t even get my hard around its tail before it was gone. It was a nice, bright fish, and it is probably good that I did not catch it.

As I neared my exit point, I knew it would be different from last year because the river was 3 feet higher. This actually made the exit easier, as I found some rocks to get out on and sit down to take my fins off. As I swam to the exit, I noted a fisherman, and as I was standing up he came over to me to say how surprised he was to see me exit the water. It was raining, and he was wearing a cotton sweatshirt. I told him that I had enjoyed an interesting dive, and told him about the mating lampreys and the sturgeon. He was trying to release his line, which he had caught in the rocks. I had to do some rock climbing to get out (tricky with twin 45s on your back), and when I got to stable ground, motioned for him to come to me. I told him that with the tanks, it was easier for him to come to me, rather than me walk to him. I gave him the lure that I had found, and he said it was a salmon lure that he could use.

I know this is a long post, but it contains some valuable information. I tried to get back to that spot a few days later with my old Canon F-1N in an Ikelite housing, but with the bulk of the housing and the current, I was unable to attain the spot. The drag of this camera housing made fighting the current impossible, and I was not able to obtain photos of the lampreys spawning in this location. I wrote it up in such detail because I think I'm about the only one who's ever seen this mating behavior with lamprey eels.

SeaRat

 

[Reku]

speaking of currents - if you're interested, the next time I go up to Michigan I can record some footage of me doing a drift dive on the St. Clair River - current ranges from 3 - 7 knots. It works well in sidemount. You jump in and drift for about a mile and then exit. You honestly can't really even swim across (you'll get detained by Canadian mounties) or upstream it's just way way too strong. It'll literally drag you and all your stuff down the river. This is definitely the place to test some streamlining and drag physics. Warning - there is a serious undertow so good luck - this is an extremely advanced dive at some parts.

This isn't me but - basically as you get closer to that big bridge the current gets stronger - also watch out for the 1000ft freighters , just hold on to the bottom if the undertow drags you into the shipping lane - they will pass right over you ... just uh ... watch out for the big propellers...


and uh here's a smaller freighter passing over some dude - it's quite nerve wracking the first time it happens to you.


Yea so uh ... do these dives at your own risk. I take no responsibility if you get crushed on the bottom by a loaded down freighter.

 

[fjpatrum]

"most people"? When it comes to scuba diving, the requirements don't match what anybody does! That's because nobody can do it. Nobody has bothered to make it possible. No one has bothered to engineer systems that can do what the environment requires of an independently operating ocean system; to do what even the slowest nektons in the ocean can do. How sad is it to not even be able to keep up with a turtle?

I think you may be having trouble wrapping your head around the concept that a diver who is even remotely close to being efficient in the water would not require large energy expenditures to swim at the modest speeds of a turtle. If you get much slower than a turtle, you are no longer a nekton. You become planktonic, like a jellyfish, and are at the mercy of the ocean rather than your own intentions.

I'm having no trouble wrapping my head around anything other than your confusion about how other people want to dive. Again, you're confusing what you want to do with what other people want to do. Your desire to be a "nekton" has no impact on what anyone else wants to be.

Would more efficiency be better? Sure. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, certainly not me. The difference is you seem to think it's a requirement and no one else does. That's the only issue I've ever had with your whole premise. You make "requirements" based on something that simply isn't a requirement and then base your whole argument on that, despite what everyone else is saying. You also keep saying this "independently operating ocean system" but, to my eyes (and it's possible I missed it somewhere) haven't defined that. What does that mean to you? I recall somewhere in this thread someone mentioned getting rid of a boat and that, my friend, is simply ridiculous except for a very small number of dives in the world. Again, a very niche subset of people that will be interested in this mindset.

Is "nekton" efficiency possible? Sure. So is climbing Mt Everest but the majority of climbers don't want to do it. Both will come at significantly higher cost and effort than most people are interested in putting out there. You see my point?

Let me ask you, how much time did you spend on this project and how much cost? Your article says you believe someone could sell them for ~$700, if I remember correctly. How much do you think my entire kit cost me? (I'll give you a hint, it's nowhere near what your article suggests people pay for their gear.) How much efficiency am I really gaining? (You still haven't shown me any improvement over my current kit, just a comparison of your kit to freediving.)

Show me a valid reason why this will make any difference in my diving if you want to convince me (and people like me). Again, most people don't seem to want to "keep up with a turtle" for longer than a minute or so. After that they look for other things because they recognize there are other things to see. Would they harass a turtle longer if they could? Some would, some wouldn't.

Like I've said, I like what you're doing. I just disagree with your basic premise.

 

[REVAN]

Would more efficiency be better? Sure. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that, certainly not me. The difference is you seem to think it's a requirement and no one else does. That's the only issue I've ever had with your whole premise.

This, I can work with. The reason no one else thinks it is a requirement is because this is what they have been taught and gets to the issue of 'normalization of deviance'. How can you be a scuba diver, especially a fairly new diver like in your case, and believe that you don't meet basic requirements, that there is something inherently wrong with what you are doing? If you thought this, you wouldn't dive. If everyone thought this, there would be no divers, or at least no divers that weren't working on solutions.

I'm in the group that recognizes there is something wrong and I have been actively trying to do something about it. Aside from the obvious engineering and equipment development, a big part of doing something about this is trying to educate other divers that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that it is okay to know of this issue, and continue to dive. Think of the requirement as an industry gauge, as opposed to a bullet point on a pre-dive checklist for conducting "this dive". It doesn't mean that you have to stop diving, but you recognize that divers operate with a slim margin for error on statistically rare "good conditions" when it comes to swimming performance. It would be good to have more robustness, but with careful planning there are still nice dives that can be enjoyed. When better equipment is available, there will be many more dives that can be enjoyed.

It's a little like the difference between zeppelins and aeroplanes. The big drawback to zeppelins was their dependence on good conditions for safe operation. They still managed to circumnavigate the globe with them, but only when the weather was ideal. It could only be attempted once or twice a year, and on the weather's schedule, not on a human's schedule. Airplanes can do it better, faster, cheaper, and just about any time the pilot wants to go. Once airplanes became available, the zeppelins basically went extinct. Airplanes made more sense than lighter-than-air craft. There are still niche uses the lighter-than-air craft, but there are only a few in operation worldwide.

Do you want to be a metaphorical airplane pilot, or a zeppelin pilot? I'd think many may say, "I'll continue to fly zeppelins until the airplane becomes available, and then transition to flying airplanes because they work better and are more consistent".

 

[fjpatrum]

This, I can work with. The reason no one else thinks it is a requirement is because this is what they have been taught and gets to the issue of 'normalization of deviance'. How can you be a scuba diver, especially a fairly new diver like in your case, and believe that you don't meet basic requirements, that there is something inherently wrong with what you are doing? If you thought this, you wouldn't dive. If everyone thought this, there would be no divers, or at least no divers that weren't working on solutions.

Please define the deviance you speak of because speed isn't it. You keep saying "normalization of deviance" like any of this hobby is not deviant. People were not designed to swim under water for extended periods of time. We were not designed to be "nektons" as you seem to want. Merpeople, to my knowledge, have never been real.

If you believe for an instant that I think there's no risk in diving, you are wrong. By virtue of the fact that we have successfully dived on commercial scuba units for 60+ years now shows that we DO meet the basic requirements. Could we extend our range? Certainly. Is that a requirement? Not in the slightest.

I'm in the group that recognizes there is something wrong and I have been actively trying to do something about it. Aside from the obvious engineering and equipment development, a big part of doing something about this is trying to educate other divers that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that it is okay to know this, and continue to dive. Think of the requirement as an industry gauge, as opposed to a bullet point on a pre-dive checklist for conducting "this dive". It doesn't mean that you have to stop diving, but you recognize that divers operate with a slim margin for error on statistically rare "good conditions" when it comes to swimming performance. It would be good to have more robustness, but with careful planning there are still nice dives that can be enjoyed. When better equipment is available, there will be many more dives that can be enjoyed.

Exactly what problem are you addressing? I don't need to swim at 3 knots and certainly not 5. Would it be a nice addition? Sure, but there's a big difference between something nice to have and a requirement. If the statistics for good conditions were "rare" there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of dives successfully completed every year. You're overselling your argument with hyperbole, to your detriment.

I'll ignore your aircraft analogy because it's further hyperbole. There were far more issues at hand than just weather for lighter than air transportation. Modern aircraft took over from zeppelins long before modern aircraft became all-weather capable.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Reku,

Interesting dive video. Thanks for posting it. I noted several things while watching the dive. First, the buddy diver only turned into the current once, and at all other times was presenting the greatest cross-sectional area to the current possible. He was using his feet to try to slow down by skiing on the bottom, rather than swimming. You apparently were picking up skipping stones, from what I would tell. The box of rocks was a huge factor in not being able to fight the current, as the buoy and line as well as the box provided drag in the current. I've been torn off a tree underwater by my dive float when it hit the rapids going above me.

Now, think about that wreck you went over. Had you seen something interesting, it would have been impossible once over it to get back to the wreck even if you wanted to. Let's say a diver's body was hooked up on the wreck, or you see a diamond neckless as you pass over it and you want to retrieve it, but have to swim about fifteen feet to get back to the wreck, where you could hold onto things. That's where the acceleration to 5 knots swimming speed Revan talks about could come in handy. But, with a buddy team, you would have instant separation between your buddy and you, so both would need to be able to make that turn into the current, and with that buoy-line-box full of rocks, that would not be possible either. Maybe this example, though, would give you an idea of where we are coming from about needing to be streamlined, and swim at up to 5 knots. And yes, I could get back to that wreck from behind it by swimming twenty to thirty feet. I've done it many times.

The short video of the freighter going over the divers was chilling. Having the ability to swim fast at a 45 degree angle away from the freighter (which in that current would be a 90 degree away from the freighter) could be life-saving in similar circumstances. FJPatrum, that is the "need" you talk about above.

SeaRat

 

[REVAN]

I don't need to swim at 3 knots and certainly not 5.

In all fairness, you have never told us where you dive or what equipment you use, even though @ronscuba had asked repeatedly. Obviously, speed requirements are dependent upon where you dive. For example, a quarry diver has different requirements than someone who dives in the ocean.

I want to dive unsheltered waters of the ocean, and not be restricted in only diving during a 1 hour window around some slack tide. Sometimes that hour is not the hour I have available.

Specific examples:

When I'm on the island of Hawaii, I want to be able to dive outside of the sheltered bays, out where the kayaks and paddleboards go and come back with amazing stories of mantas and sharks. I want to be able to actually dive the south point (both sides) without getting swept away on a long drift towards Fiji. I want to be able to dive off the coast of Florida without it being a drift dive or having to use a scooter. These things are not extreme.

I'm basically just saying that I don't want to be constrained to the kitty pool. I want to go where the big fishes go. I'm sure that I'm not alone on this.

 

[fjpatrum]

I don't find it particularly relevant to the discussion (hence why I didn't bother to answer) but I dive where there's water. If the current is "too swift" for my comfort, I don't dive. It's a simple solution. So far I've been on dive boats in Hawaii (big island), Florida, Mexico, California, Thailand, and the Bahamas, and done 5 or 6 quarry dives in Virginia, with a handful of shore dives in Florida and Hawaii. (I don't recall any other locations at the moment.) I always had boat support and/or a shore close by. All of these were benign dives without any real expectation of significant current (other than the drift dives) or significant risk of surprise currents.

Most people that dive in currents, though, don't mind doing them as a drift dive. It's trivially easy to do so, reef hooks are cheap (and common) if you want to "fight the current" for a bit. The (admittedly small sample) half dozen or so drift dives I've done so far didn't have any problem with not seeing fish, sharks, or turtles. They were, for the most part, going with the flow as well. When they weren't, they ducked behind the same shelters we did and we watched them, protected from the currents the same way they were. (I don't have a reef hook.)

I know there are some wrecks (such as Spiegel Grove) that get significant currents but, as I understand it, they are generally manageable with some planning, even for relative newbs like me. I'm sure there are a lot of examples that shouldn't be managed/attempted by newbs like me for all sorts of reasons. Most of those don't have to do with the currents, though I'm sure there are examples that do.

The entire ocean isn't the "kiddy pool". I understand you wanting to open the envelope, that's great. I am just saying that I believe you are the niche diver, not the "norm". If you want the "norm" to change, you have to give them reasons why that appeal to them. The information you're providing is good stuff but most people aren't going to listen to it because it doesn't apply to them. If you want to affect the changes you're talking about you have to make other people want them too.

 

[Storker]

a quarry diver has different requirements than someone who dives in the ocean.

They do? I guess you know more about that than I do; I've never dived in a quarry.

OTOH, I prefer to go slow and - in the virtual sense - smell the roses. I see more cool stuff that way. Colorful nudis or well-camouflaged monkfish are pretty hard to spot when you're making three to five knots.

 

[REVAN]

I understand you wanting to open the envelope, that's great. I am just saying that I believe you are the niche diver, not the "norm".

It goes without saying that I am presently a niche diver. I'm using custom built experimental equipment that no one else has, that's designed to do things that no other equipment can do. But, today's niche can become tomorrow's norm.

Most people that dive in currents, though, don't mind doing them as a drift dive.

Hawaii's south point has a confluence of currents and upwellings that attract all manner of pelagics, but it can be very dangerous if a 'normal' diver gets into the wrong places (meaning the places where the stuff you want to see is hanging out). If you drift, you pass right through it and then it's over. Reef hooks are a no-go as the bottom drops off too fast. Depending on where you are, you may have to drop down to 200+ feet to set a hook. The current goes out and away from land and doesn't return, so you'd need a tended boat to do this, but the nearest launch is, I think, Honaunau bay, 45 miles of rough ocean away and the nearest marina another 20 miles beyond that. It would have to be a private charter, as no cattle boats operate there.

As you can see, without the ability to swim effectively in those local conditions, the logistics quickly get out of hand to the point where you just decide to do something else instead. I've freedove there still being wary of the where I am relative to the point and what the currents are doing, but in all my time at south point, I've never seen a scuba diver. The point is a treasure that is presently pretty much off limits to them. Isn't it annoying how all the marine live we want to see tends to hang out where the currents flow and we can't go?

A drift dive can be a lot of fun, but it has a lot of limitations as well, not the least of which is that you need to have a boat and a crew that you are paying to tend to you while you are diving. It's like adding a limo service on top of going out to dinner for a meal. It's not worth doing unless its going to be a spectacular experience, and you probably aren't going to do it more than about once a year. So, maybe I'm not most people, but I do mind, and I'd like good dives on a more frequent basis than that. I'm in it for the dive, not the drive.