Physics Rant: The Truth to Buoyancy in Diving

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!

b1gcountry

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
88
Location
Middle
First off, let me admit that, as Scott Adams put it, I have 'The Knack'. I'm an aerospace software engineer, and I was always the kid in science class that would mess up the curve for everybody else. What's worse, I'm always "that guy" who spoils the movie by always pointing out the plot flaws and physical impossibilities in every film I watch with my wife (lucky her). I know we can be a pain to be around, but just remember that is it wasn't for us (and her), you wouldn't even have computers right now.

So if you know anyone like me (maybe a step-brother you keep locked in the basement), you know the best way to get under our skin is to use technical terms, in randomly incorrect ways, or even better: apply the laws of physics in a way that, while not apparent to the more attractive of our species, will bug the bee-jesus out of us more than the platypus annoyed taxonomists.

So, with this in mind, let me say that I am really tired of hearing the term Negative Buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force. Being a force, it has both Magnitude, and Direction. By definition, a force cannot have a negative magnitude, although its magnitude can be in direct opposition to another force.

Furthermore, Forces are additive, but discrete. That is to say that, if two forces act in opposing directions in equal amounts, they will counter-balance one another (ie, no work will be performed), but they will both continue to exist in their own right. This is fairly obvious, as when you lay down in bed, you still weigh the same amount even though the mattress is now supporting (counter balancing) that weight.

So now for those who haven't added me to their ignore list for mentioning physics, lets get back to diving...
There are pretty much two forces at play while we are diving that contribute to what we refer to as 'buoyancy': Gravity, and Buoyancy. For simplicity, we will define Gravity as the 'downward' magnetic pull of the Earth on any object with Mass (ie, how much something weighs). Buoyancy we will define as the 'upward' force imparted by water to a submerged object (Air also provides a buoyant force, but we won't get into that for now.)

As any aging woman can attest, Gravity is at work on us at all times. We cannot even escape it's clutches underwater (it may actually increase the farther we get below sea level.) Disappointing as it is to me, if I'm 10lbs overweight on the surface, I'm still 10lbs overweight underwater. When we submerge our bodies, however, the buoyant forces increase, and, if managed correctly, can be used to counter-balance the gravitational forces, and achieve equilibrium. However, even if managed incorrectly, divers will always have some amount of buoyancy underwater, and that that buoyancy will ALWAYS be directed "up". So terms like "Positively Buoyant", "Neutral Buoyancy" and "Negative Buoyancy" are either misnomers, redundant, or just plain wrong.

Positive Buoyancy was a term invented by the diving community meant to describe an object capable of floating on the surface. In other words, the magnitude of the buoyant force is greater than the magnitude of the gravitational force. To the physicist, "Positive Buoyancy" is redundant way of describing the upward buoyant force of an object, and in no way expresses whether an object will sink or float. Why the diving community adopted this silly phrase eludes me, especially, when a term already existed for what they were trying to describe: Buoyant. Another proper term would be to say an object Floats.

Neutral Buoyancy describes a situation where the buoyancy of an object is equally counter-balanced by the weight of an object. For the most part, divers adjust their buoyancy to achieve equilibrium underwater, so perhaps this term is appropriate, although I use the term Neutral instead, as it is shorter. Neutral Weighting would also be acceptable, as would saying an object Hovers.

Negative Buoyancy is just wrong. It is never buoyancy that causes something to sink, it is gravity. Buoyant forces can never be 'downward'. Negative Buoyancy is used to describe an object that Sinks. The term Heavy is more appropriate, and I have sound it readily understood by other students/divers.

So long story short, if you want to impress a diving nerd, don't use the made up terms even the textbooks repeat, use more correct terms like Buoyant, Neutral, and Heavy. Or say an object Floats, Hovers, or Sinks.

Okay, rant over. I hope I educated at least one of you. Begin the ridicule!

Tom
 
You say "potato" and I say... umm... "potato"... YOU say "tomato" and I say... drat... doesn't work in print does it?

... as they used to say on "Laugh In" (... for those old enough to remember it), "It may be *rice wine* to YOU... but it's SAKE-TO-ME!!"
 
Well, I have a different term for my mother in law, but my wife still doesn't like me using it ;)

Tom
 
Buoyancy is a SCALAR quantity, not a VECTOR.

I've never heard of a sideways buoyancy.

In other words, rather than being a vector force that exerts in any direction at all, it a scalar quantity that has magnitude only, with the direction being limited to one direction .... upward. Of course, if the magnitude is negative, then that one direction is now downward.
 
Neutral Buoyancy was a much better book title than Floats.:eyebrow:

I also have an engineering background having spent almost 30 years around fluid power. Boyles Law is not a law, it's common sense to me. I like precise terminology as much as the next person such as using cylinder in place of tank or alternate second stage in place of octopus.

In this case I think we need to consider the audience as the non technical being introduced to diving without the physics background. The very concept of buoyancy as it relates to a diver's configuration is a lot for a student to get their head around. For instance, an AL80 is heavier but it more buoyant, what the heck is that all about?

By starting with the concept of being neutral in buoyancy it's natural to consider positive and negative deviations. This expresses the state without using dissimilar terms. The idiom or jargon of an activity is usually adapted to streamline communications.

Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway? :confused:

Pete
 
Since the term "negative bouyancy" is so descriptive (if not technically correct) it probably makes no difference to most people.
I used to teach firefighting and would get my hackles up when other instructors, and our own text claimed the components to create fire were fuel, oxygen and heat. "Well let's see. Heat is measured in calories or BTU so how many BTUs will it take to ignite this can of gasoline" I would ask . This would result in a puzzled look and the instructor would go off talking about heat starting fires. (sigh)
 

Back
Top Bottom