Saw this on Another Forum...Deep Deep Diving

[Atticus]

I don't buy it either. Rather than argue the scifi aspect which no one here claims to understand, let's look at it from a motive/mission perspective.

1. Submarines don't go cruising around within 100' of the ocean floor with their lights turned on - it's much easier to run silently when you don't have to ping the sea floor constantly to make you aren't about to run into something. Yes, we have great ocean maps, but when you can just as easily cruise with 1000' below your hull why wouldn't you? Anyone ever tried to see *anything* 100' away at significant depth? I dive in Tahoe which has pretty good visibility, and at 300' there just isn't enough light. You guys are talking about several thousand feet - how much ambient light do you expect?

2. The oceans are big. How many watchers are you going to put down there again? I'd guess 12 guys would have a hard time monitoring the entry into the San Francisco bay under the golden gate bridge. Oh, and it's not 8000' deep there...

3. If they are just watching strategic entry/exit points like harbors, then even if you wanted to put guys down there something like the Newt Suit would be far more practical (1000' at 1 ata, not destructive to your personnel).

4. If you're planting mines on ships keep in mind that ships are found on the surface.

5. If you're planting mines on submarines then how were you planning on getting them to hold still and settle to the bottom while you mine them?

6. Someone mentioned "deep docks" for submarines at several thousand feet? What's the point other than to make the sitting ducks for an attack? Surely you aren't suggesting a whole city of people breathing liquid that service submarines?

I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to this...

 

[jumbo]

1 million for training? where do I sign

the checks in the mail

JUMBO

 

[andydiver06]

Is this hush hush stuff.....Really crazy idea. perFluorocarbons have been tested as on humans and rats with severe consequences

 

[al1]

Yes the rat scene inthe movie was real. The rat in question was one of a group that was used during the animal testing process. This theoretical science is not new. in fact it was proposed and tested on small animal in the sixties. In the first few years of the experiment, every rat died of lung damage shortly after being drainned.

In the last few years (yes they've been experimenting with this stuff for over 40 years), they have managed to keep the rats alive, but human testing (dont know about the military they tend to do t'hings their own way, and in their own time) has not been undertaken as there is permanent damage done to the alvola, and broncheal tubes.

The public word, from the authors of the studies, is that, at this time, liquid breathing technology is potentially viable, but the after effects of prolonged, and repetitive exposre are fatal. (even in the rats....too many time down = death)

There has been some interesting work done using the medical applications of this technology, but it is still considered a risk treatment, and is not commonly used.

By the way for those who bought into the line from the movie (we all breathe liquid for nine months) that's another hollywood fantasy. Unborn children get their air supply from the umbillicp cord. The heart of the unborn cjhild has a valve that allows oxegenated blood to bassically by pass the lungs as they lungs are not functional. Just do a search on PFO and diving and you'll see where the nonclosing of that little valuve has been atributed to some cases of DCI.

All of this can be found with a simple evening surf of the web. It's not new, but it mae fr a good evening's read on a cold winter night a few months ago.[/QUOTE

Like Storm said, It was tried years ago, but everytime they drained the lungs the person ended up with pneumonia. I did see a mouse in an aquarium at a science show in the mid 70,s swimming in a oxygenated liquid on one side with a membrane which let the O2 through it. Never seen them put the mouse in the liquid. But did see it swimming around underwater since there was a piece of glass at the surface it couldn't surface. Not sure what happen to it after they took it out.

 

[RockPile]

I don't buy it either. Rather than argue the scifi aspect which no one here claims to understand, let's look at it from a motive/mission perspective.

1. Submarines don't go cruising around within 100' of the ocean floor with their lights turned on - it's much easier to run silently when you don't have to ping the sea floor constantly to make you aren't about to run into something. Yes, we have great ocean maps, but when you can just as easily cruise with 1000' below your hull why wouldn't you? Anyone ever tried to see *anything* 100' away at significant depth? I dive in Tahoe which has pretty good visibility, and at 300' there just isn't enough light. You guys are talking about several thousand feet - how much ambient light do you expect?

2. The oceans are big. How many watchers are you going to put down there again? I'd guess 12 guys would have a hard time monitoring the entry into the San Francisco bay under the golden gate bridge. Oh, and it's not 8000' deep there...

3. If they are just watching strategic entry/exit points like harbors, then even if you wanted to put guys down there something like the Newt Suit would be far more practical (1000' at 1 ata, not destructive to your personnel).

4. If you're planting mines on ships keep in mind that ships are found on the surface.

5. If you're planting mines on submarines then how were you planning on getting them to hold still and settle to the bottom while you mine them?

6. Someone mentioned "deep docks" for submarines at several thousand feet? What's the point other than to make the sitting ducks for an attack? Surely you aren't suggesting a whole city of people breathing liquid that service submarines?

I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to this...

Some of that makes sense. Some of it doesn't. The big problem is that you assume knowledge of what a Navy diver would be doing at that depth. You, unfortunately, don't have that knowledge. Speculation is all you can manage, same as me. This was mostly a fun topic. Too bad it's turned into an opportunity for people to explain why this hearsay is hearsay with more of their own hearsay.

Bottom line, not a single person here, myself included, has any idea what the Navy is capable of doing at depth and no amount of research is likely to uncover much. But it sure is fun to think about.

I don't know why you wasted your time either.

JB

 

[RockPile]

some pretty interesting stuff... do they only do 3 dives because after that it could kill them or is it a psych prob?

No details on that. If what I said is true (and there's a pretty good chance it's not, I've been carrying that info around for awhile), I imagine it could be both. We know the stuff is harmful (what we've see from Liquivent so far) and I can't see how diving that deep wouldn't be emotionally taxing too.

I was thinking about the explanation of the heating in the first post. It would take a tremendous amount of energy for a diver to stay warm for that long. I mean a lot. I wonder if the "14 days" is really feasible.

JB

 

[RockPile]

There is no combat diver mission that would require this kind of equipment or technology. Typically, military divers(combat divers-SEALS, SF, MCFR, not navy salvage divers) are inserted via scuba so that there is a lower footprint. It aids successful infiltration, not submarine counting. There are other ways besides HUMINT to find out where subs are.

Even hydrographical reconnaissance wouldn't require it; if the water were that deep to enter a port, we wouldn't need the men looking at the bottom to see if we could fit.

Just my .02

Again, if this technology does exist my guess is that the uses wouldn't be this obvious.

 

[Atticus]

Some of that makes sense. Some of it doesn't. The big problem is that you assume knowledge of what a Navy diver would be doing at that depth. You, unfortunately, don't have that knowledge. Speculation is all you can manage, same as me. This was mostly a fun topic. Too bad it's turned into an opportunity for people to explain why this hearsay is hearsay with more of their own hearsay.

Bottom line, not a single person here, myself included, has any idea what the Navy is capable of doing at depth and no amount of research is likely to uncover much. But it sure is fun to think about.

...
what do SEALs do down there? apparently they dig a hole, cover themselves up to their necks wtih mud and wait for submarines for a number of days then when it goes by....military secrets...
...
robots and such thing make "a lot" of noise and emmit all sorts of things, these divers are silent and their sonar image doesn`t look like something much to the sub (they`re covered with mud or something anyway) so they can`t be detected and they can do their job without many problems
...
apparently during the gulf war this technology has been tested in action as they say....they mined some Iraqi ships in a harbour without anyone noticing untill those things went up in smoke and sank....while they were already back in base having a beer
...

It was the above portions of the original post pertaining to the missions that I responded to.

The first and second parts of the quote above discusses waiting for a submarine to go by - this implies that a submarine would have to pass close enough by the diver for him be able to see or detect it.

The third part describes placing mines on a ship during the gulf war. This is where my statement about surface ships are found on the surface and don't require someone to be at 8000' came from.

Edit: for clarity and grammar

 

[neonstingray]

Hmm, last I knew the problems with the issue were that even though your lungs can easily get enough oxygen from the fluid, it's much harder for your lungs to get the CO2 back into the solution, and as someone else mentioned before pneumonia was one of the long term effects after breathing the fluid for an extended period of time.

Grrr, Rockpile you stole my sig quote. The scubagods punishment shall be swift....

Austin

 

[RockPile]

Fair enough. But I don't think an argument about a technology's useful application will produce much when the real question is whether or not it even exists in a form that can be applied. If it exists, it’s used for something we can't think of anyway (but I love the ideas of what it might be used for!).

It’s my opinion that if the Navy has done something to eliminate the heath hazards (or at least minimize them) they’ve used it in trial at the very least. They do just about anything and everything they can think of. And if they can get a diver down to 8000 ft., they’ll think of something for him to be doing while he's down there.

Not to take a tangent but I really don’t put, other than the physically impossible, much beyond the military. Here’s a list of the, at one time, fantastic: defensive dolphins, BLU-82s (replaced by the MOAB, and now apparently something even bigger is being tested in Vegas), electromagnetic bursts, really teenie-tiny nuks, vertical take-off, drones, and hemostatic bandages.