Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Mike Zimmerman wrote: > > They assume an improper position. In the water, a traditional wing > > when inflated will press itself > > upward, wrapping around the divers tanks and, in fact, act to > > continuously maintain a thin profile. > > The retainer cords on the OMS wing keep the bladder > > constricted (round in cross-section) and > > present a greater forward profile and more drag. > > Not to try to claim bondage wings are GOOD, but on this point > I think there may be some (valid) alternate views. > I should hope not! > Ok, so bondage would keep wings close to body, even when inflated, > more along the plane of the body, and you claim present a larger > forward swimming profile, equalling more resistance.... > Don't be fooled by the fact that they are closer to the body, this does not always mean better hydrodynamic properties. > Other wings will wrap up around the tank, providing (as you > claim) less of a forward swimming profile. That is correct. > > > first I must say I am not convinced about the profile. > As long as the air is disrtibuted within the wings, and > doesn't tend to collect at the top (defined as closer to > the diver's head) in one style more than the other I can't > see how wrapping around a tank accomplishes the magic trick > of providing the same bouyancy in less space. This is not about providing the same buoyancy with less space or volume, this is impossible. It's about what shape causes the least amount of drag. One seems to automatically assume that if it is tighter to the body, it will induce less drag, at equal volume. This is not true. Look at cars. If you take two cars occupying the same surface area, based on your argument, both should induce the same drag. It is how the surface area is configured in relation to the flow medium that determines the drag coefficient( along with material makeup). > > > Second, it would seem to me that as your wings wrap around your tank > it moves the bouyancy moment (I use the term loosely) farther > away from your own center... ie it would seem to me that the > circumference of the diver as a resistive force in the way has now > increased. Just as you want your weights close to your body > I would think you'd want your bouyancy close to your body. > We wouldn't put weights on the back of our tanks as they > tend to want to flip us over... if we put bouyancy closer to > the back of our tanks, it seems like that makes it harder > to flip over when we want to, or to even turn sideways when > going thru a restriction. > Much of what you say here is correct, however, it is this very property of wings that makes them a superior form of buoyancy control. This inherent stability of a wing over a jacket ( which has a much sharper roll rate), allows much greater control of ones body position. This stability however, does not make it difficult to maneuver, as you suggest. > Again, leave out the other arguments about bondage wings, > if you want to disagree, just lets discuss this one point? > > Thanks, > Mike > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]