What is wrong with a snokel I reckon they are great

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For
example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly
was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit out of me
and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the same applies to
penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

I carry a snorkle in my BC pocekt so no problems with snagging and can
pull it out slip under mask strap when needed. I have never lost it
since I have done this.

Lee Arnould
WebSlave ScubaZine
http://www.scubazine.com

Carl Nisarel

2007-08-26 09:29:07 UTC

Post by ScubaZine
I carry a snorkle in my BC pocekt so no problems with snagging and can
pull it out slip under mask strap when needed. I have never lost it
since I have done this.

I carry mine shoved up my butt. It reminds me of when I have little boy
dicks shoved up my butt. I have never lost it since carrying it this way
either. Clearing it initially is sometimes a bit difficult, but it helps
if you suck first and then chew and blow. Kind of like what I do with the
truckers at the glory holes.

Sheldon

2007-08-22 03:48:33 UTC

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For
example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel
supposedly was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the
shit out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

I'm just a novice, but it always gets in my way. I know a lot of divers who
don't use them, but I can see where they would come in handy if the ocean is
choppy or you spend a lot of time snorkeling as you look for a good place to
descend. That would save a lot of air.

dechucka

2007-08-22 05:11:15 UTC

Post by Sheldon

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For
example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel
supposedly was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the
shit out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

I'm just a novice, but it always gets in my way. I know a lot of divers
who don't use them, but I can see where they would come in handy if the
ocean is choppy or you spend a lot of time snorkeling as you look for a
good place to descend. That would save a lot of air.

each to their own. I have never found my snorkel a hindrance and find it
useful for surface swims ( the swim lift your head up breathe and repeat is
a wank afaik using a snorkel is so much easier) and on boat dives getting
around to the anchor line.

-hh

2007-08-22 10:32:26 UTC

[...]

Just commented on this on another thread.

Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they
didn't have one, you too might become more predisposed to ignore all
of the "no snorkel" comments in rec.scuba.

Only time that I'd consider leaving a snorkel behind is if I'm doing a
cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and
the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive.

-hh

Curtis

2007-08-22 11:32:40 UTC

Post by -hh
Only time that I'd consider leaving a snorkel behind is if I'm doing a
cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and
the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive.

Um, deployment of the long hose?

Curtis

Scott

2007-08-22 12:56:36 UTC

Post by -hh
[...]
Just commented on this on another thread.
Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they
didn't have one, you too might become more predisposed to ignore all
of the "no snorkel" comments in rec.scuba.
Only time that I'd consider leaving a snorkel behind is if I'm doing a
cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and
the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive.

I cant remember the last time I owned one, let alone dove with one slapping
around on the side of my head...

2007-08-22 17:10:09 UTC

Post by -hh
Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they
didn't have one

How did that happen? Am curious.

V.

-hh

2007-08-28 18:03:48 UTC

Post by VK

Post by -hh
Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they
didn't have one

How did that happen? Am curious.

Long story short, the current carried us south, but our chase boat
went north. We ended up with a 30+ minute float before they picked us
up.

The surface conditions were fairly non-benign: we were in a short
rough & breaking chop that had been aggrivated by near-shore
reflections off of some cliffs & rocks. We couldn't do a shore exit
because of these cliffs/rocks, so we were obligated to stay off and
drift float.

The diver in question was in a Wing with a rental AL80 didn't have
problem for the first ~15 minutes, as they merely stayed on their
regulator and sucked their tank dry instead of breathing surface air.
When they went to change over to surface air, the breaking waves and
such prevented a minimal inflation level (which would have normally
caused only a slight 'face down'), so because of the rough seas, they
had inflate a bit more, to literally keep their nose above water more
than half the time. The same erratic and rough waters prevented the
approach of rolling up onto one's back, plus I found that this also
reduced one's situational awareness as to where the cliffs and
submerged rocks were - - the group as a whole subconciously stayed too
close to the rocks than they should have (I probably lead 4 or 5 "okay
everyone swim back offshore" exercises).

The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that
a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but
as the float duration increases, this can lead to rapid fatigue. For
this diver, they "weren't in trouble" until they had sucked their tank
dry and had to rely on 'surface supply', which because of the surface
conditions, wasn't particularly easy, as the weight of the gear caused
a significant lag in the short wave period, so we were literally
dunking to the point of 'mask underwater' on nearly every wave pass.
It might not be the types of surface conditions that one encounters
every day, but when it happens, it can quickly get to the point where
the diver needs to ditch his gear in order to have a viable surface
float orientation that does not cause a high exertion level.

-hh

dazed and confuzzed

2007-08-29 00:46:32 UTC

Post by -hh

Post by VK

Post by -hh
Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they
didn't have one

How did that happen? Am curious.

Long story short, the current carried us south, but our chase boat
went north. We ended up with a 30+ minute float before they picked us
up.
The surface conditions were fairly non-benign: we were in a short
rough & breaking chop that had been aggrivated by near-shore
reflections off of some cliffs & rocks. We couldn't do a shore exit
because of these cliffs/rocks, so we were obligated to stay off and
drift float.
The diver in question was in a Wing with a rental AL80 didn't have
problem for the first ~15 minutes, as they merely stayed on their
regulator and sucked their tank dry instead of breathing surface air.
When they went to change over to surface air, the breaking waves and
such prevented a minimal inflation level (which would have normally
caused only a slight 'face down'), so because of the rough seas, they
had inflate a bit more, to literally keep their nose above water more
than half the time. The same erratic and rough waters prevented the
approach of rolling up onto one's back, plus I found that this also
reduced one's situational awareness as to where the cliffs and
submerged rocks were - - the group as a whole subconciously stayed too
close to the rocks than they should have (I probably lead 4 or 5 "okay
everyone swim back offshore" exercises).
The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that
a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but
as the float duration increases, this can lead to rapid fatigue. For
this diver, they "weren't in trouble" until they had sucked their tank
dry and had to rely on 'surface supply', which because of the surface
conditions, wasn't particularly easy, as the weight of the gear caused
a significant lag in the short wave period, so we were literally
dunking to the point of 'mask underwater' on nearly every wave pass.
It might not be the types of surface conditions that one encounters
every day, but when it happens, it can quickly get to the point where
the diver needs to ditch his gear in order to have a viable surface
float orientation that does not cause a high exertion level.
-hh

You are wrong here.
THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest).

Try it.

--
“TANSTAAFL”

____________________________________________________________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
____________________________________________________________________________

-hh

2007-08-29 09:40:09 UTC

Post by dazed and confuzzed
You are wrong here.
THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest).
Try it.

To play Devil's Advocate, if a Wing "can't" rotate one face-down as
per all of the claims that are heard here, then putting on your chest
instead of your back "can't" cause one to rotate face-up.

In this case, the diver would have been just as well off simply
getting out of their gear and letting the natural bouyancy of
themselves & wetsuit keep them at the surface ... the lower total mass
would have let them ride over the waves more so than 'through' them.
IIRC, this was suggested, but refused.

Alternatively, they could have held their rig to their chest, fully
inflated it, and put their arms through to hold webbing straps, not
unlike how one would hold onto one of those floating cushions.
However, this probably would have been a 'heavy' ride in the
conditions too, but would have also required the diver to let go of
their safety blanket to get the BC turned around.

As such, a significant contributing factor was that the diver in
question didn't recognize that they were getting fatigued, and because
of that, started to make bad decisions regarding their own welfare.
Since this started virtually immediately with them staying on their
tank and draining it dry, it points towards either a training
shortcoming, a bad habit that they got away with for a long time, or a
combination of both.

-hh

dazed and confuzzed

2007-08-29 11:30:00 UTC

Post by -hh

Post by dazed and confuzzed
You are wrong here.
THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest).
Try it.

That is what I suggested above.

Post by -hh
As such, a significant contributing factor was that the diver in
question didn't recognize that they were getting fatigued, and because
of that, started to make bad decisions regarding their own welfare.
Since this started virtually immediately with them staying on their
tank and draining it dry, it points towards either a training
shortcoming, a bad habit that they got away with for a long time, or a
combination of both.
-hh

Greg Mossman

2007-08-29 06:21:06 UTC

Post by -hh
The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that
a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but
as the float duration increases, this can lead to rapid fatigue. For
this diver, they "weren't in trouble" until they had sucked their tank
dry and had to rely on 'surface supply', which because of the surface
conditions, wasn't particularly easy, as the weight of the gear caused
a significant lag in the short wave period, so we were literally
dunking to the point of 'mask underwater' on nearly every wave pass.

I've comfortably been in conditions where swells break over my head
plenty of times. The trick is to not breathe when the swell is over
your head and instead breathe when your nose and/or mouth are out of
the water.

With a normal old-fashioned snorkel, waves breaking over my head would
likely tend to flood the snorkel as well, causing me to surely inhale
water, choke, and drown. Do you recommend one of the new-fangled "dry
snorkels" for such extreme activity?

dechucka

2007-08-29 07:45:18 UTC

Post by Greg Mossman

I've comfortably been in conditions where swells break over my head
plenty of times. The trick is to not breathe when the swell is over
your head and instead breathe when your nose and/or mouth are out of
the water.
With a normal old-fashioned snorkel, waves breaking over my head would
likely tend to flood the snorkel as well, causing me to surely inhale
water, choke, and drown. Do you recommend one of the new-fangled "dry
snorkels" for such extreme activity?

same skill different gear

Adam Helberg

2007-08-22 19:32:33 UTC

I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For example I
have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly was a catch
hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit out of me and if you want to do
this for fun good on you ) and the same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

I found a snorkel useful in San Diego shore dive to the canyon with a long swim out.
Even though I swam out on my back the snorkel helped keep water out when the waves
were high enough to go over my head. Other than that I stopped carrying the snorkel
as it gets tangled up in the gear, and causes more harm than good. I normally swim on
my back with the regulator in my right hand ready to put into mouth if needed.

Adam

Anonymous Loser

2007-08-22 23:57:45 UTC

Nothing wrong with them! I prefer not to have it
attached to my mask when diving, but always have
one with me...

I have always thought about getting one of those roll-up
ones, to stick in a pocket but mine sits nicely alongside
the backplate of my bc ready to pull out 'ninja style' when
I'm bobbing around on the surface waiting for the boat...

A.L.

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For
example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly

dechucka

2007-08-23 00:12:18 UTC

Post by Anonymous Loser
Nothing wrong with them! I prefer not to have it
attached to my mask when diving, but always have
one with me...
I have always thought about getting one of those roll-up
ones, to stick in a pocket but mine sits nicely alongside
the backplate of my bc ready to pull out 'ninja style' when
I'm bobbing around on the surface waiting for the boat...

you're inane and insane

Anonymous Loser

2007-08-24 10:08:23 UTC

you're inane and insane

more often than not...

A.L.

Tazz

2007-08-23 01:02:10 UTC

When I bought my gear I got a snorkel with all the bells and whistles.
After all, it worked great in the pool and during the OW cert dives.

All the diving I'm going to be doing is in salt water. For me, salt
water dries my skin out very much bad(I dive dry). I already knew this.
What I didn't know was that breathing the salt air a few inches above
the surface was enough to dry my throat out in about ten breaths.

I couldn't keep my nose canal separated from my throat and every time I
inhaled my mask would suck to my face. I'll stick to compressed air in
salt water and save the snorkel for the pool or swimming at a lake.

--
</TAZZ>

Matthias Voss

2007-08-23 20:14:36 UTC

Post by Tazz

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For
example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel
supposedly was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared
the shit out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you )
and the same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

When I bought my gear I got a snorkel with all the bells and whistles.
After all, it worked great in the pool and during the OW cert dives.
All the diving I'm going to be doing is in salt water. For me, salt
water dries my skin out very much bad(I dive dry). I already knew this.
What I didn't know was that breathing the salt air a few inches above
the surface was enough to dry my throat out in about ten breaths.
I couldn't keep my nose canal separated from my throat and every time I
inhaled my mask would suck to my face. I'll stick to compressed air in
salt water and save the snorkel for the pool or swimming at a lake.

Which planet are you from?

Matthias

Don Gingrich

2007-08-23 02:58:11 UTC

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance.
For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a
snorkel supposedly
was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit
out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

It depends on your definition of *normal*

I'm doing several types of diving at the moment. Some days
I'm diving with a single cylinder as a DM either guiding
relatively new OW divers or as an assistant to an instructor
with OW or AOW divers. I use a snorkel on those dives so I
don't give the wrong message to students. Remember, they
*are* students, and learning to use a snorkel is yet another
useful skill. In Melbourne, we have a fair few shore dive
sites that may involve up to 500M surface swims to get
to "the good bit". Being able to use a snorkel comfortably
is a significant advantage on these dives.

I personally use a snorkel on single cylinder dives where
I expect a reasonably long surface swim. It is easier to
use the snorkel and keep my head in the water. And I don't
use half of my air getting to the real dive.

- - - BUT - - -

When I start diving deep with twin cylinders (or twins plus
slings) the snorkel stays at home. In the worst case I might
have three second stages in the vicinity of my mouth. One more
mouthpiece would only be adding to the potential confusion.
A snorkel is best left out of this equation.

I'd just suggest that this is a case of "horses for courses"
and leave it at that. I certainly don't feel a need for
heated discussion one way or the other.

-Don

dechucka

2007-08-23 03:20:59 UTC

Post by Don Gingrich

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance.
For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a
snorkel supposedly
was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit
out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

It depends on your definition of *normal*
I'm doing several types of diving at the moment. Some days
I'm diving with a single cylinder as a DM either guiding
relatively new OW divers or as an assistant to an instructor
with OW or AOW divers. I use a snorkel on those dives so I
don't give the wrong message to students. Remember, they
*are* students, and learning to use a snorkel is yet another
useful skill. In Melbourne, we have a fair few shore dive
sites that may involve up to 500M surface swims to get
to "the good bit". Being able to use a snorkel comfortably
is a significant advantage on these dives.
I personally use a snorkel on single cylinder dives where
I expect a reasonably long surface swim. It is easier to
use the snorkel and keep my head in the water. And I don't
use half of my air getting to the real dive.
- - - BUT - - -
When I start diving deep with twin cylinders (or twins plus
slings) the snorkel stays at home. In the worst case I might
have three second stages in the vicinity of my mouth. One more
mouthpiece would only be adding to the potential confusion.
A snorkel is best left out of this equation.
I'd just suggest that this is a case of "horses for courses"
and leave it at that. I certainly don't feel a need for
heated discussion one way or the other.
-Don

you must be an Aussie I agree with you.

My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes
in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving

dechucka

2007-08-23 03:25:47 UTC

Post by Don Gingrich

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance.
For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a
snorkel supposedly
was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit
out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

It depends on your definition of *normal*
I'm doing several types of diving at the moment. Some days
I'm diving with a single cylinder as a DM either guiding
relatively new OW divers or as an assistant to an instructor
with OW or AOW divers. I use a snorkel on those dives so I
don't give the wrong message to students. Remember, they
*are* students, and learning to use a snorkel is yet another
useful skill. In Melbourne, we have a fair few shore dive
sites that may involve up to 500M surface swims to get
to "the good bit". Being able to use a snorkel comfortably
is a significant advantage on these dives.
I personally use a snorkel on single cylinder dives where
I expect a reasonably long surface swim. It is easier to
use the snorkel and keep my head in the water. And I don't
use half of my air getting to the real dive.
- - - BUT - - -
When I start diving deep with twin cylinders (or twins plus
slings) the snorkel stays at home. In the worst case I might
have three second stages in the vicinity of my mouth. One more
mouthpiece would only be adding to the potential confusion.
A snorkel is best left out of this equation.
I'd just suggest that this is a case of "horses for courses"
and leave it at that. I certainly don't feel a need for
heated discussion one way or the other.
-Don

you must be an Aussie I agree with you.

My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes
in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick

2007-08-23 08:12:29 UTC

Post by Don Gingrich

Post by dechucka
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance.
For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a
snorkel supposedly
was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the shit
out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the
same applies to penetrating wrecks.
However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

It depends on your definition of *normal*
I'm doing several types of diving at the moment. Some days
I'm diving with a single cylinder as a DM either guiding
relatively new OW divers or as an assistant to an instructor
with OW or AOW divers. I use a snorkel on those dives so I
don't give the wrong message to students. Remember, they
*are* students, and learning to use a snorkel is yet another
useful skill. In Melbourne, we have a fair few shore dive
sites that may involve up to 500M surface swims to get
to "the good bit". Being able to use a snorkel comfortably
is a significant advantage on these dives.
I personally use a snorkel on single cylinder dives where
I expect a reasonably long surface swim. It is easier to
use the snorkel and keep my head in the water. And I don't
use half of my air getting to the real dive.
- - - BUT - - -
When I start diving deep with twin cylinders (or twins plus
slings) the snorkel stays at home. In the worst case I might
have three second stages in the vicinity of my mouth. One more
mouthpiece would only be adding to the potential confusion.
A snorkel is best left out of this equation.
I'd just suggest that this is a case of "horses for courses"
and leave it at that. I certainly don't feel a need for
heated discussion one way or the other.
-Don

you must be an Aussie I agree with you.

<cough>

Post by dechucka
My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes
in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving

Matthias Voss

2007-08-23 20:19:16 UTC

Post by dechucka
you must be an Aussie I agree with you.
My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes
in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving

My definition of rec diving is multifold.
One is: Water is either warm or solid.
second: My divetime ends when I decide it to.
Not when the DM starts to worry.
It is his worry, and the reason for it lies in his
education. Not in my style of diving.

Matthias

Scott

2007-08-24 01:50:57 UTC

Post by Matthias Voss
My definition of rec diving is multifold.
One is: Water is either warm or solid.
second: My divetime ends when I decide it to.
Not when the DM starts to worry.
It is his worry, and the reason for it lies in his
education. Not in my style of diving.

*****

Dan Bracuk

2007-08-23 04:05:27 UTC

"dechucka" <***@vomithotmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing

Not for me. If there is any sort of current, it causes a bit of
tugging, just enough to increase mask flooding. Plus, it's
uncomfortable.

Dan Bracuk
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-27 21:11:30 UTC

Here is a simple test to validate the efficaciousness of your snorkel
for diving.

Submerge to 15' of water. Replace your regulator with your snorkel.
Take a deep breath.

I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that
is better than my Spare Air twins.

Snorkels are dangerous contraptions.

dechucka

2007-08-27 23:03:19 UTC

Here is a simple test to validate the efficaciousness of your snorkel
for diving.
Submerge to 15' of water. Replace your regulator with your snorkel.
Take a deep breath.

why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that
is better than my Spare Air twins.

they are used for difference purposes

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Snorkels are dangerous contraptions.

that's a new one

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-27 23:30:50 UTC

Post by dechucka
why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w

Your fin is not a mechanism to deliver air, and is useful for scuba.
A snorkel is not.

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that
is better than my Spare Air twins.

they are used for difference purposes

No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a
diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my
15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ
every time.

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Snorkels are dangerous contraptions.

that's a new one

That's an old one. You're the new one.

Scott

2007-08-27 23:35:44 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
That's an old one. You're the new one.

Wasted words.

Not to worry, he'll give you reason to toss him in the bin soon eneough.

dechucka

2007-08-27 23:54:07 UTC

Post by Scott

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
That's an old one. You're the new one.

Wasted words.
Not to worry, he'll give you reason to toss him in the bin soon eneough.

just like you Scott,

dechucka

2007-08-27 23:53:36 UTC

Post by dechucka
why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w

Your fin is not a mechanism to deliver air, and is useful for scuba.
A snorkel is not.

a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that
is better than my Spare Air twins.

they are used for difference purposes

one is designed for use underwater one on the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Snorkels are dangerous contraptions.

that's a new one

That's an old one. You're the new one.

no been diving for 25 odd years.

Isuppose each to their own I wouldn't touch a spare air but hey so what.

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-27 23:58:20 UTC

Post by dechucka
a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater
one is designed for use underwater one on the surface

Well, I'm a SCUBA diver. I don't rig my kit for use on the surface.
I think you want rec.skindiving.

Post by dechucka
no been diving for 25 odd years.
Isuppose each to their own I wouldn't touch a spare air but hey so what.

* cough *

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 00:02:21 UTC

Post by dechucka
a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater
one is designed for use underwater one on the surface

Yes, and sometimes being able to swim for a while on the surface is an
important to a scuba diving. When it is, it's nice to have a snorkel. Other
times, it's nice not to have one. There's no such thing as the best
equipment for every dive.

Lee

dechucka

2007-08-28 00:13:25 UTC

Post by dechucka
a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater
one is designed for use underwater one on the surface

Yes, and sometimes being able to swim for a while on the surface is an
important to a scuba diving. When it is, it's nice to have a snorkel.
Other times, it's nice not to have one. There's no such thing as the best
equipment for every dive.

and that I suppose is my whole point, yes it is horses for courses in my
situation/diving type I find the advantages of a snorkel totally outweigh
the disadvantages of wearing one U/W.

Obviously for other people it is different

dechucka

2007-08-28 00:11:02 UTC

Post by dechucka
a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater
one is designed for use underwater one on the surface

Well, I'm a SCUBA diver. I don't rig my kit for use on the surface.
I think you want rec.skindiving.

fair enough I have outlined the reasons I use a snorkel because IMHO the
surface is an important part of the scuba diving experience.

Lee Bell

2007-08-27 23:59:51 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a
diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my
15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ
every time.

You're right, a snorkel is much better than a Spare Air.

Lee

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 00:01:18 UTC

You're right, a snorkel is much better than a Spare Air.

At 15'?! You must have one long snorkel, Lee!

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 09:49:06 UTC

You're right, a snorkel is much better than a Spare Air.

At 15'?! You must have one long snorkel, Lee!

One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet
is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us would use
a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to get to
the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then.

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 16:19:50 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet
is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us would use
a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to get to
the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then.

Half mile swims should be done on your back.

Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good
it does you, Mr. Smartypants!

dechucka

2007-08-28 16:33:55 UTC

Half mile swims should be done on your back.

why

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good
it does you, Mr. Smartypants!

about as useful as spare air?

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 16:46:26 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Half mile swims should be done on your back.

why

Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good
it does you, Mr. Smartypants!

about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful. Dangerous contraption, in fact.

dechucka

2007-08-28 17:00:30 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Half mile swims should be done on your back.

why

Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good
it does you, Mr. Smartypants!

about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 17:36:11 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

On your face on the surface, your fins are less efficient than they
are if they are submerged like they would be if you were on your
back. You will expend more energy that way, and tired divers are a
hazzard. On your back, you never have to wonder if your snorkel is
about to get flooded.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It
will become self evident in short order.

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking
and flooding. They can cause confusion when you're looking for your
oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator. They prevent
deployment of the long hose. They are inneficient at the surface
(where you should be on your back). And, as you note, they are a snag
hazzard. In short, they are dangerous contraptions.

dechucka

2007-08-28 20:20:30 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

never have worried about a flooding snorkel, if it gets water in just clear
it.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It
will become self evident in short order.

I wanted to know how useful you consider spare air

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking
and flooding

never had a problem but in a swift flowing river if could understand this

.> They can cause confusion when you're looking for your

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator.

what crap

They prevent

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
deployment of the long hose.

crap

They are inneficient at the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
(where you should be on your back).

extremely effecient on the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
And, as you note, they are a snag
hazzard.

depends on your diving and probably no more than spare air bottles

In short, they are dangerous contraptions.

crap

dechucka

2007-08-28 22:18:03 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

never have worried about a flooding snorkel, if it gets water in just
clear it.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It
will become self evident in short order.

I wanted to know how useful you consider spare air

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking
and flooding

never had a problem but in a swift flowing river if could understand this
.> They can cause confusion when you're looking for your

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator.

what crap
They prevent

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
deployment of the long hose.

crap

maybe one crap to many

Post by dechucka
They are inneficient at the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
(where you should be on your back).

extremely effecient on the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
And, as you note, they are a snag
hazzard.

depends on your diving and probably no more than spare air bottles
In short, they are dangerous contraptions.
crap

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick

2007-08-29 08:55:33 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

never have worried about a flooding snorkel, if it gets water in just
clear it.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It
will become self evident in short order.

I wanted to know how useful you consider spare air

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking
and flooding

never had a problem but in a swift flowing river if could understand this
.> They can cause confusion when you're looking for your

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator.

what crap
They prevent

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
deployment of the long hose.

crap

maybe one crap to many

No truck pictures?

Sounds like pie porking to me.

As usual.

Post by dechucka
They are inneficient at the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
(where you should be on your back).

extremely effecient on the surface

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
And, as you note, they are a snag
hazzard.

depends on your diving and probably no more than spare air bottles
In short, they are dangerous contraptions.
crap

dechucka

2007-08-29 20:41:38 UTC

Post by Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access

never have worried about a flooding snorkel, if it gets water in just
clear it.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful.

Please explain how spare air is useful

Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It
will become self evident in short order.

I wanted to know how useful you consider spare air

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Dangerous contraption, in fact.

I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation
where they aren't a snag hazard

They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking
and flooding

never had a problem but in a swift flowing river if could understand this
.> They can cause confusion when you're looking for your

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator.

what crap
They prevent

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
deployment of the long hose.

crap

maybe one crap to many

No truck pictures?

actually took a few of the Cat 7 last night will try and post them over the
w/e. Have forgotten my Pica? a/c details so will make a new one

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 17:34:38 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Half mile swims should be done on your back.

why

Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have
access to the big air supply in the sky.

My Mares fins work just fine either way and, wait for it, my snorkel gives
me access to the big air supply in tky sky without having to squint because
the sun is in my eyes, without having splashing water interfere with my
breathing and with the ability to pick up my head and look where I'm going
more easily. Of course if I get tired of watching the pretty fish on the
swim or want to breath splashing water, or even need some sun on my face, I
can always turn over.

Post by dechucka
about as useful as spare air?

Not nearly as useful. Dangerous contraption, in fact.

How many times has that been said about Spare Air. Sounds about the same to
me.

Lee

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 17:30:33 UTC

Half mile swims should be done on your back.

Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the
bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just
don't want to see Jaws coming?

When swimming on the surface with a mask on, facing down is the best way.

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good
it does you, Mr. Smartypants!

About as much good as a Spare Air would, I think.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2007-08-28 18:09:00 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet
is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us

would

Post by Lee Bell
use
a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to

get

Post by Lee Bell
to
the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then.

Half mile swims should be done on your back.

Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the
bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just
don't want to see Jaws coming?

Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes.

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 18:51:29 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the
bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just
don't want to see Jaws coming?

Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes.

Me too, but I really hate it when Jaws is coming.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2007-08-28 18:50:10 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the
bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just
don't want to see Jaws coming?

Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes.

Me too, but I really hate it when Jaws is coming.
Lee

Perhaps you could find a way to make the run shine in his eyes too...

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 23:50:57 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes.

Me too, but I really hate it when Jaws is coming.
Lee

Perhaps you could find a way to make the run shine in his eyes too...

The black run?

Chris Guynn

2007-08-29 16:11:33 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes.

Me too, but I really hate it when Jaws is coming.
Lee

Perhaps you could find a way to make the run shine in his eyes too...

The black run?

Whichever run is causing you the problems while he's chasing you.

Chris Guynn

2007-08-28 18:06:53 UTC

Half mile swims should be done on your back.

Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat.

YMMV.

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 18:40:14 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat.

That's downright ingenious.

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 18:50:37 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat.

Good idea, usually. The instance that comes to mind is when Limey Dave,
Curtis and I swam out to the buoys off Lauderdale by the Sea. The half mile
part is just a guess. Curtis or Dave may have a different opinion on the
distance. It was not the easiest of swims thanks to north bound (as I
recall) currents, but it wasn't all that hard either. We picked up three
lobster on the dive.

A boat would have been easier, except for a few issues. First, there was no
boat ramp nearby and second, there was no boat nearby either . . . well,
Dave's was nearby, but I think he was still working on it at the time. The
nearest boat was mine, probably 10 miles as the crow flies. Boats do go as
the crow files. Figure 15 miles each way, 5 miles of which is no wake zone.
So, that's about 3 hours travel time. We swam out and back faster than that.
Did I mention that my boat gets one mile to the gallon on high test? At
$4.50 a gallon, which is about what high test costs at the marine pumps
these days, that's about $135 in fuel alone. Kind of expensive for a dive we
could swim to.

We swam.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2007-08-28 18:51:44 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat.

Good idea, usually. The instance that comes to mind is when Limey Dave,
Curtis and I swam out to the buoys off Lauderdale by the Sea. The half mile
part is just a guess. Curtis or Dave may have a different opinion on the
distance. It was not the easiest of swims thanks to north bound (as I
recall) currents, but it wasn't all that hard either. We picked up three
lobster on the dive.
A boat would have been easier, except for a few issues. First, there was no
boat ramp nearby and second, there was no boat nearby either . . . well,
Dave's was nearby, but I think he was still working on it at the time. The
nearest boat was mine, probably 10 miles as the crow flies. Boats do go as
the crow files. Figure 15 miles each way, 5 miles of which is no wake zone.
So, that's about 3 hours travel time. We swam out and back faster than that.
Did I mention that my boat gets one mile to the gallon on high test? At
$4.50 a gallon, which is about what high test costs at the marine pumps
these days, that's about $135 in fuel alone. Kind of expensive for a dive we
could swim to.
We swam.
Lee

That's where the YMMV part kicks in.

Lee Bell

2007-08-28 23:52:23 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat.

Good idea, usually. The instance that comes to mind is when Limey Dave,
Curtis and I swam out to the buoys off Lauderdale by the Sea. The half

mile

Post by Lee Bell
part is just a guess. Curtis or Dave may have a different opinion on the
distance. It was not the easiest of swims thanks to north bound (as I
recall) currents, but it wasn't all that hard either. We picked up three
lobster on the dive.
A boat would have been easier, except for a few issues. First, there was

Post by Lee Bell
boat ramp nearby and second, there was no boat nearby either . . . well,
Dave's was nearby, but I think he was still working on it at the time. The
nearest boat was mine, probably 10 miles as the crow flies. Boats do go as
the crow files. Figure 15 miles each way, 5 miles of which is no wake

zone.

Post by Lee Bell
So, that's about 3 hours travel time. We swam out and back faster than

that.

Post by Lee Bell
Did I mention that my boat gets one mile to the gallon on high test? At
$4.50 a gallon, which is about what high test costs at the marine pumps
these days, that's about $135 in fuel alone. Kind of expensive for a dive

Post by Lee Bell
could swim to.
We swam.
Lee

That's where the YMMV part kicks in.

I wish my mileage would vary.

Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick

2007-08-27 23:57:42 UTC

Here is a simple test to validate the efficaciousness of your snorkel
for diving.
Submerge to 15' of water. Replace your regulator with your snorkel.
Take a deep breath.

why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w

Your last line clearly states that snorkels are good for diving.

"Normal diving" if fact.

Check out my new bluetooth stereo, hey:

http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762/20070826Dashboard

The hands-free phone is a riot, and it hardwires to my laptop, and the
iPod.

Were you ever going to post a -real- picture of your truck?

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that
is better than my Spare Air twins.

they are used for difference purposes

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
Snorkels are dangerous contraptions.

that's a new one

Not hardly.

Jerome's Sock Puppet

2007-08-28 00:00:23 UTC

On Aug 27, 4:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"

Post by Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
Not hardly.

The best part is I got to use the word "efficaciousness" in a
sentence.

Scott

2007-08-28 02:12:32 UTC

Post by Jerome's Sock Puppet
On Aug 27, 4:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"

Post by Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
Not hardly.

The best part is I got to use the word "efficaciousness" in a
sentence.

Yeah?

Try palimpsestuous.

Throws into a gran mal.

dechucka

2007-08-28 00:15:02 UTC

Post by Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick