Pro Ear Mask

[elan]

vlad...A subjective test. Obtain a 5cc syringe, squirt 2cc of cool water into your ear with it. Then try shooting 5cc of cool air from that syringe into your ear. Report back on which substance had caused the greater perceptible response in your ear. My physics courses never covered this either, but I can still perceive a difference.

We were talking about the mask making the equalizing easier not about cold effects. If you do not want cold water to shoot into the ears just wear appropriate exposure protection...

 

[vladimir]

For details of the fraud just read post 19.

I am open to any scientific explanation of how these might make equalization easier.

vlad...A subjective test. Obtain a 5cc syringe, squirt 2cc of cool water into your ear with it. Then try shooting 5cc of cool air from that syringe into your ear. Report back on which substance had caused the greater perceptible response in your ear.

A subjective test sounds close to the opposite of a scientific explanation. How does this test explain the forces on my eardrum while under pressure?

 

[Thalassamania]

Not only is that a subjective test, it is not even a test of any of the claims, you might as well be squirting the fluids between your toes.

 

[gert7to3]

elan... you're way too late to the thread.

vlad..your snarkey meter is malfunctioning, my response was snarkey. And I stated directly that the procedure was subjective. However, you didn't answer the question. Can you perceive a difference between water squirted in your ear versus air? If you could perceive this can you prove it scientifically?

Thala....I am well acquainted with the physics of sound propagation and reason we perceive direction of sound in air. Whilst sound does indeed travel faster in water, can you scientifically prove that if an underwater sound were heard in two isolated chambers, it would not be perceptible to a human being listening to that sound?

Science project:
An apparatus to test the theory whether a membrane could respond faster against a measured column of water versus air, pressurized to the same equivalent pressure of the measured quantity of water.

The membrane would need transducers to measure deformation and the rates of deformation.

The membrane should be the same size and elasticity as a human tymphanic membrane.

The opposite side of the test membrane would consist of an air chamber which could be pressurized to equal the pressures of the water or the pressurized air.

Rates of deflection response of the membrane could possibly answer the question whether the membrane responds faster (infer easier equalization) to counter pressure against air versus water.

At this point I'm hoping that water between your toes isn't in a dry suit.

Build, test report back.

 

[vladimir]

I see now. Equalization is easier if the rate of deflection response of the tympanic membrane is faster. All along I've just been forcing air through my eustachian tube to equalize. What was I thinking? Thanks for your help, Gert.

 

[Stu S.]

Looks like it should work. In a building, there is often a little air and water tank in the plumbing system. That keeps the pipes from "hammering" if you turn off a tap quickly. The air in the tank is like a shock absorber. With this mask, instead of the water pressure change being immediately on the ear drum, the air will absorb, maybe just a little, the pressure change.

The end result is a diver at depth wil have the outside pressure on the ear. That extra volume of compressable air may make the transition to depth easier.

 

[Thalassamania]

elan... you're way too late to the thread.

Thala....I am well acquainted with the physics of sound propagation and reason we perceive direction of sound in air. Whilst sound does indeed travel faster in water, can you scientifically prove that if an underwater sound were heard in two isolated chambers, it would not be perceptible to a human being listening to that sound?

Science project:
...

Build, test report back.

Evidently you are not, "well acquainted with the physics of sound propagation and reason we perceive direction of sound in air". It is the distance over which the sound travels that results in the time differential. When that time differential is based on travel through water it will be quite different than when it is based in travel through air, the last few inches being in air really doesn't matter, that's the physics, it really doesn't need any special testing, though the testing has been done, check the Rubicon Foundation archive (I'm rather sure that Bacharach and Egstrom published on the question).

Looks like it should work. In a building, there is often a little air and water tank in the plumbing system. That keeps the pipes from "hammering" if you turn off a tap quickly. The air in the tank is like a shock absorber. With this mask, instead of the water pressure change being immediately on the ear drum, the air will absorb, maybe just a little, the pressure change.

The end result is a diver at depth wil have the outside pressure on the ear. That extra volume of compressable air may make the transition to depth easier.

Different questions entirely. In the plumbing case the air tank is a buffer that absorbs a sudden shock wave produced by an almost instantaneous spike from zero (gauge) to between 40 and 90 PSI (gauge), something that your ears are never exposed to.

 

[gert7to3]

Thala... If you've got the reference, show us the research.

vlad.. A difference in the rate of deflection between a water column and an air column, set to an equivalent pressure, might provide some insight. And a model is a much easier way to test the theory than trying it out on a cadaver.

Now you appear to be mostly interested in just passing gas through your eustachian tubes (and several other orifices).

 

[Thalassamania]

You don't need research to know that a dropped object is going to fall, it's just physics, same with sound. We've already wasted far too much time on something this trivial.

 

[vladimir]

vlad.. A difference in the rate of deflection between a water column and an air column, set to an equivalent pressure, might provide some insight. And a model is a much easier way to test the theory than trying it out on a cadaver.

Now you appear to be mostly interested in just passing gas through your eustachian tubes (and several other orifices).

Ah, wit.