We're not debating the buoyancy characteristics of the tanks.  Whatever it
is, for a given tank, it is.  And that part doesn't change during the dive.
What DOES change during the dive is the gas in the tank.  Therefore, that's
what constitutes the CHANGE in buoyancy.

This started (for me, at least) with my saying that one of the earlier
quoted tanks stats had to be incorrect because it was impossible for 104
cuft of gas to weigh less than 80.  Period.  It makes no difference what
volume x pressure figures one wants to use come up with 104 and 80.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack [mailto:omegasac@ei*.ne*]
Sent: 24.Feb.2001 2:11 PM
To: rfuller@te*.ne*; 'David M. Thiesfeld'
Cc: 'techdiver'
Subject: Re: DIHUL, was: Fins question


OK Rob, sorry, read it wrong. An 80 = 11 ltr roughly, 104 = 13 ltr  roughly.
13 x 1 kg = 13 kg = 28 lbs
11 x 1 kg =11 kg = 23 lbs
so weight of 104 - 28 lbs =?
weight of 80 - 23 lbs=?
So which is more/less buoyant?Its not the weight of the tank but the volume
in water it displaces which is important.
These figures are approx.
Jack
www.dis-uk.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Fuller" <rfuller@te*.ne*>
To: "'Jack'" <omegasac@ei*.ne*>; "'David M. Thiesfeld'"
<dthiesfeld@su*.ne*>
Cc: "'techdiver'" <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: DIHUL, was: Fins question


> This thread has suffered because we keep bouncing back and forth between
> talking about a fixed amount of gas and a fixed volume cylinder.  Of
course,
> more gas weighs more.  So, Jack, your point is obvious but that wasn't
what
> I've been arguing.
>
> David was stating that sucking 104 cuft of gas out of a PST 104 would
change
> his buoyancy less than sucking 80 (or 77) cuft of the same gas out of a
> Luxfer 80.  We've established (I hope) that the buoyancy characteristics
of
> a cylinder aren't changing, so all we're talking about is the weight of
the
> gas.  There are more molecules in 104 cuft of gas than in 80.  So tell me
> how it can possibly weigh less.
>
> --Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack [mailto:omegasac@ei*.ne*]
> Sent: 24.Feb.2001 12:18 PM
> To: Rob Fuller; David M. Thiesfeld
> Cc: techdiver
> Subject: Re: DIHUL, was: Fins question
>
>
> If a cu ft of gas  weighs .0001 @ 1 atm it will weigh .0100 @ 100atms.
> Simple maths.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Fuller" <rfuller@te*.ne*>
> To: "David M. Thiesfeld" <dthiesfeld@su*.ne*>
> Cc: "techdiver" <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 10:14 PM
> Subject: RE: DIHUL, was: Fins question
>
>
> > David,
> >
> > The physical size of the containers, for all intents and purposes, is
> > constant.  I.e. they don't become significantly smaller as the pressure
> > decreases.
> >
> > Therefore, all we're really talking about is the change in the weight of
> the
> > gas.  So, if you're telling me that a cubic foot of gas is significantly
> > heavier at 3000 psi than it is at 2600, perhaps you can explain the
> physics
> > of this.
> >
> >
> > --Rob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David M. Thiesfeld [mailto:dthiesfeld@su*.ne*]
> > Sent: 23-Feb-2001 4:42 PM
> > To: Rob Fuller
> > Cc: techdiver
> > Subject: Re: DIHUL, was: Fins question
> >
> >
> > Rob,
> > No, and neither does the tank charts.
> >
> >  The tank charts are not telling you the physical weight of the air
inside
> > them, only what the buoyancy characteristics are. When you start
> > pressurizing air in different sized fixed containers at different
> pressures
> > things do not remain linear.
> >
> > Remember the 104 contains it air in a different sized container and at a
> > lower pressure than the 80 does. You have to look at Archimedes's
> Principal:
> > " Any object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a
force
> > equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."  The key is
how
> > much water the tank physically displaces because of its physical size
and
> > weight, with and without the air.
> >
> > A cubic ft. of air may weigh .08 lbs, but that's at atmospheric pressure
> > (sea level). You change the pressure (as in putting the air in a tank)
and
> > the weight of that cubic ft. of air is going to change. The change is
> > governed by the physical size of the container and what the pressure is.
> >
> > DT
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rob Fuller <rfuller@te*.ne*>
> > To: David M. Thiesfeld <dthiesfeld@su*.ne*>
> > Cc: techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 3:16 PM
> > Subject: RE: DIHUL, was: Fins question
> >
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > ????  Are you saying that 104 cu. ft. air in a PST weighs LESS than 80
> (or
> > > 77) cu. ft. in a Luxfer?  Some new laws of physics must be out that I
> > don't
> > > know about.  A cu.ft. of air weighs approx. 0.0736 lbs. so I would say
> the
> > > Luxfer spec looks about right but the PST one can't be.
> > >
> > > --Rob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David M. Thiesfeld [mailto:dthiesfeld@su*.ne*]
> > > Sent: 22-Feb-2001 8:58 PM
> > > To: Marv; Don Burke
> > > Cc: techdiver
> > > Subject: Re: DIHUL, was: Fins question
> > >
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > > One of the things I see missing from your discussion is how much the
> tanks
> > > buoyancy changes from full to empty. Look at the abyss tank chart and
> you
> > > will see the PST 104 has a change of 4.6 lbs vs. 5.9 lbs. for the
Luxfer
> > 80
> > > (77), now double those numbers and look at the weight difference
needed.
> > >
> > > http://www.abysmal.com/pages/features-cylinders.html
> > >
> > > Also from looking at this chart I'd say that the Luxfer 80's are going
> to
> > > start swinging positively buoyant closer to 2000 psi than 1100 psi. A
> > > doubles manifold may push it down some but not that much.
> > >
> > > DT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don Burke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Marv <ajmarve@ba*.ne*>
> > > > >
> > > > >> ok
> > > > >> first, if you read Pauls post you should have been able to infer
> that
> > > he
> > > > >> was discussing the weight of the tanks on dry land.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The _only_ place that is true is on dry land.
> > > >
> > > > um, ok?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >   For a given gas capacity, a
> > > > > diver wearing aluminum tanks is a bit heavier on the boat since
the
> > > > > displacement of the aluminum requires wearing more weight.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > only if you breathe the tanks below approx 1100psi, the point at
which
> > > > they swing positive.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> If you ever tried to lift a set of 104s and then right away move
a
> > set
> > > > >> of 80's, like i do when im filling in my garage, you would see
the
> > > > >> difference between the two,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's comparing apples and watermelons.
> > > >
> > > > Thats what i was saying, that the tanks were different. So much so
> that
> > > > if dry land weight was a consideration, as Paul indicated in his
> > > > original post, then the 80s "beat" the 104's. i never mentioned
steel
> > > > 80's and esp not hp 80s like the pst. There is no reason to bring
them
> > > > into the discussion in fact because they swim horribly. you guys can
> > > > talk numbers all you want, try diving the tanks and then tell me
about
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > > I made up a set of AL 80s and I'm wearing 11# of lead (with a
steel
> > > plate)
> > > > > with a wetsuit in fresh water.  I haven't hit the ocean with these
> > yet,
> > > so
> > > > > my calculation of 17# is approximate at best.  As soon as I go
dry,
> > > those
> > > > > tanks will become deco/stage/rec bottles.  If I didn't already own
> the
> >
> > > AL
> > > > > 80s, I certainly wouldn't have bought them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those 104s are a pretty heavy item as steel tanks go.  They weigh
> > about
> > > the
> > > > > same as an OMS 125.
> > > > >
> > > > > Capt JT wears a set of 104s and more power to him.  I haven't
asked
> > him
> > > what
> > > > > he like about them.
> > > > > I have a welder and a generator I can lift when I feel the need
for
> a
> > > > > hernia. :)
> > > > > I think I'll go for 112s when I get to that.
> > > >
> > > > the 104 is a  good choice for cave, where extra buoyancy is a minus.
> one
> > > > can manage to dive them in the ocean,but i dont see them as ideal in
> the
> > > > ocean.
> > > >
> > > > > The wall thickness on an aluminum tank is so much greater than
that
> of
> > a
> > > > > steel tank, the weight of the tank is more and the displacement is
> > more.
> > > >
> > > > and in the water you have the wt of the valve, the gas, the reg to
> > > > consider, along w/ all you other gear.
> > > >
> > > > Marv
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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'.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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]