What factors determine the maximum length of a snorkel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yasar1967
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
AI Thread Summary
The length of a snorkel is primarily limited by dead air volume and the pressure exerted by water at depth. Strong chest muscles can help a diver manage breathing through a longer snorkel, but as snorkel length increases, the risk of lung collapse due to pressure differences also rises significantly. For instance, a 6m snorkel creates a pressure difference of about 60,000 Pa, which is dangerous. Scuba divers use regulators to deliver air at the surrounding water pressure, mitigating these risks. Ultimately, while muscle strength plays a role, the dangers associated with pressure and dead volume are critical factors in determining snorkel length.
yasar1967
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
What limits the length of a snorkel?
Our chest muscles strenth?
If they are strong enough will we be able to swim under 3m of water with a loong snorkel?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to take a dead volume into account - the longer the snorkel, the more air it contains and you breath this air only, there is no exchange.
 
How about the water pressure we have to deal? Wouldn'T be much more diffucult to expand your chest at deeper sea levels? Then how scuba divers breath? Do their tubes give much more pressurised air to chest to overcome water pressure?
 
For practical lengths of snorkel they are limited by the dead volume but deeper than this you would have a problem with pressure.
The 'clever' part of a scuba rig is the regulator (the plastic thing in your mouth) this delivers air at exactly the surrounding water pressure.
 
yasar1967 said:
What limits the length of a snorkel?
Our chest muscles strenth?
If they are strong enough will we be able to swim under 3m of water with a loong snorkel?
Yes. I think the muscles are the most important factor. It's just a question of pressure difference between the air in a diver's lungs (at atmospheric level until he breathes out) and that on the body (due to the water).
An example from one of my physics textbooks uses a simple model of a diver in still, fresh water (density 1000kg/m^3). A snorkel length of 6m would lead to a pressure difference of about 60,000 Pa - more than enough to collapse the lungs and force pressurised blood into them, i.e., extremely dangerous. In this model, the pressure difference is directly proportional to the depth, and so, under the same conditions, a 3m snorkel would give a pressure difference of half of this. I'm not sure how dangerous this would be. Obviously it will vary somewhat depending on the strength of the person.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top