Hi,

Whenever I need to work on my prop, etc. underwater, I've just slapped
on the mask and fins and held my breath. But I've always wondered: why not
rig up a hose arrangement to be able to breathe? We're not talking 50-ft
depths here, so I'd think it would be pretty safe. Perhaps some kind of
non-collapsable hose on the end of a snorkel?

Does anyone do this? Why or why not?

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through a
hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet under
water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of lung
surface.

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

Hi,

Whenever I need to work on my prop, etc. underwater, I've just slapped
on the mask and fins and held my breath. But I've always wondered: why not
rig up a hose arrangement to be able to breathe? We're not talking 50-ft
depths here, so I'd think it would be pretty safe. Perhaps some kind of
non-collapsable hose on the end of a snorkel?

Does anyone do this? Why or why not?

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36


--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

snip

--
Strange attractors stole my wife

Subject: Cheap And Nasty Snorkel extension
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through
a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet
under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of
lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

No, the real problem is just as Glenn has stated.

Capt. Bill

"L" == LaBomba182 writes:

Subject: Cheap And Nasty Snorkel extension
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through
a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet
under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of
lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

L No, the real problem is just as Glenn has stated.

L Capt. Bill

Maybe. People have tried longer snorkels before and died from it.
That's a real problem in my book.

--
Strange attractors stole my wife

"L" == LaBomba182 writes:

Subject: Cheap And Nasty Snorkel extension
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through
a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet
under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of
lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

L No, the real problem is just as Glenn has stated.

L Capt. Bill

Maybe. People have tried longer snorkels before and died from it.
That's a real problem in my book.

--
Strange attractors stole my wife

Subject: Cheap And Nasty Snorkel extension
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through
a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet
under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of
lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

No, the real problem is just as Glenn has stated.

Capt. Bill

"GA" == Glenn Ashmore writes:

GA It would be extremely dificult if not impossible to breath through a
GA hose at surface pressure if your lungs get more than 2 or 3 feet under
GA water. The difference at 3' is only about 1.5 pounds per square inch
GA but the water is pressing on a couple thousand square inches of lung
GA surface.

The real problem is the "dead volume" in your snorkel. You will be
inhaling your own breath over and over again.

snip

--
Strange attractors stole my wife

That is a very dangerous idea but the reason why isn't immediately obvious.

When you exhale you will fill the long tube with your expelled air and then
breathe it all back in. I believe this would result in hypoxia (oxygen
deficiency) in which case you could drown without realizing what's
happening.

Snorkel tubes are short so most of the exhausted air is expelled and there
is enough of an influx of fresh air to avoid this problem.



"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
Hi,

Whenever I need to work on my prop, etc. underwater, I've just slapped
on the mask and fins and held my breath. But I've always wondered: why not
rig up a hose arrangement to be able to breathe? We're not talking 50-ft
depths here, so I'd think it would be pretty safe. Perhaps some kind of
non-collapsable hose on the end of a snorkel?

Does anyone do this? Why or why not?

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Good point.

So you need to "in through the mouth out through the nose" or else get
a "proper" mouthpiece that expels the "out-breath" directly.

As for the pressure, that's a big question mark. At the prop, I'm only
under maybe a foot (depending on body position). I don't know if the
pressure would be too much for me to take a breath or not (it's easy for
me to create suction in my mouth at this depth, so...I donno.)

After all, look at all the Bad Movies that have Our Heros hiding
underwater with a reed in their mouths...

Lloyd


On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:37:27 +0000, Paul wrote:

That is a very dangerous idea but the reason why isn't immediately obvious.

When you exhale you will fill the long tube with your expelled air and then
breathe it all back in. I believe this would result in hypoxia (oxygen
deficiency) in which case you could drown without realizing what's
happening.

Snorkel tubes are short so most of the exhausted air is expelled and there
is enough of an influx of fresh air to avoid this problem.



"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news
Hi,

Whenever I need to work on my prop, etc. underwater, I've just slapped
on the mask and fins and held my breath. But I've always wondered: why not
rig up a hose arrangement to be able to breathe? We're not talking 50-ft
depths here, so I'd think it would be pretty safe. Perhaps some kind of
non-collapsable hose on the end of a snorkel?

Does anyone do this? Why or why not?

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36