Udo, the physics do not change with depth.  The only thing that would make it
more difficult to inflate at depth are the flow dynamics due to increased
density.  While it is possible to inflate these 
things, you are fighting the tension in the bungees to do so, introducing a
lung loading which is probably not smart.  You know the feeling you get when
you blow up a balloon?  While probably not 
as strong, the bungeed wing presents the same problem.  Besides, these things
have so many other problems that this conversation is "mute"... ;-)

-Sean


On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:00:12 -0500, Udo wrote:

>Hello Friends;
>
>I have a question regarding the controversial bondage wing issue.
>
>Common sense tells us that if you are at depth, because of the
>watercolumn, it would be very difficult, even impossible to orally
>inflate such a wing.
>
>It is, AFAIK widely accepted knowledge. However, OMS promotes, of course
>their bungee wing and has test-results that you can read up on
>http://www.omsdive.com/faq-bc.html#faq-bc
>
>The following is from their website:
>_____________________________________________________
>Tests were conducted in Avalon Harbor on Santa Catalina Island,
>California.
>All tests, other than the drag tests, were done in 24 feet of water. The
>test
>diver and/or the BC's were attached to a mooring weight to allow for
>control.
>
>Oral Inflation*1
>Both BCs were inflated orally without undue difficulty.
>The BC with bands took an average of 16.5 seconds to dump the air put in
>orally.
>The BC without band took an average of 15.0 seconds to dump the air put
>in orally.
>(Conclusion) This test indicated no significant difference between the
>two BCs,
>yet it did confirm that either BC could be inflated orally.
>______________________________________________________
>
>Now, my question is (disregarding the other very funny test results and
>"comparisons" to the "other" company from Florida), they had NO problem
>inflating the bungeed "technical" wing at a depth of 24fsw. A range
>where the water pressure is slightly below 2 ATM's.
>
>I would like to know what the "test-results" are for depths at 5, 7, 10
>and more ATM's, meaning depths where a technical configuration would be
>rather used than in a shallow environment of 24fsw?
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Udo
>
>P.S.: As you can imagine... I am back from Tokyo.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: quest-unsubscribe@gu*.co*
>For additional commands, e-mail: quest-help@gu*.co*
>



--
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]