New SCUBA World Record

"Self-Certified Diver" <stand@attention.you.flabby.tub.of.guts> wrote in
message news:f1089c0b570f8729573b02b29758cb29@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:26 GMT, "Nick" <n@net.net> wrote:
>
> >According to Teletext, British Scuba diver Mark Ellyatt has set a new
world
> >record of 1026.9ft for the deepest SCUBA dive.
>
> >What's that in English???
>
> Darwin.

He only gets an award if he looses the ability to pass on his genes... did
he lose his balls to the bends?

rhys

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bs4hlj$ld7$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
> > I thought feet was an imperial measurement (ENGLISH)
>
> The Imperial system weas started in the UK in the 13th Century, then America
> adopted our system too. The metric system was started in France at around
> 1800, and we started to take bits of it from the mid 1800's, and was
> officially introduced in the Weights and Measures Act 1963.
> As far as I know, the only official purposes allowed to use imperial are
> miles / yards road signs for distance and speed, pints for beer and milk,
> and acres for land registry.

Hey, don't forget those troy ounces. Even through Great Britain
outlawed the pounds on which they are based back in the 19th century,
those weird units still enjoy a statutory exception to the metrication
laws in the U.K. today in the 21st century. How strange is that?

You can still legally sell bananas by the pound in the U.K. too. You
just can't refuse to sell them by the kilogram, or post the price per
pound in bigger numbers than the price per kilogram.

> So yes feet is imperial, and imperial is 'English', but we didn't like it,
> got rid, and don't use it anymore!
>
> David

Sure is strange that we still see people giving their weight in
stones, those ever-so-handy units equal to 1/8 of a hundredweight
designed for the fools who think hundred is written as "112" in
digits.

Gene Nygaard

"David Walker" wrote

> > measured in "real money" Atmospheric pressure = 14.7 lbs/inch squared.

> Ick! 1 is a much better number!

We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar.
Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you guys
do that?

Lee

Lee Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> writes:

>We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar.
>Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you guys
>do that?

Revenge for the US gallon and pint.

Pete


--
__________________________________________________ __________________
Pete Young pete@antipope.org Remove dot. to reply
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"

Lee Bell wrote:
> "David Walker" wrote
>
>>> measured in "real money" Atmospheric pressure = 14.7 lbs/inch
>>> squared.
>
>> Ick! 1 is a much better number!
>
> We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar.
> Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you
> guys do that?

Because only accountants care about 1.3%
Virtually none of my scuba instruments are
that accurate so am I going to worry?

1bar is 10m depth salt or fresh. We all
know it isn't but it's near enough.

nigelH

"Nigel Hewitt" wrote

> > We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar.
> > Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you
> > guys do that?

> Because only accountants care about 1.3%
> Virtually none of my scuba instruments are
> that accurate so am I going to worry?

It makes a whopping 3 bar/difference in the pressure of my tanks. Man, you
sure do know how to mess up a good rant.

> 1bar is 10m depth salt or fresh. We all
> know it isn't but it's near enough.

Bar work just fine for pretty much everything, but I'm afraid I'll never be
comfortable with them. I've been planning gas in psi for so long it's
become almost automatic. With bar, I'd spend the entire dive recalculating
my remaining air time. FWIW, I wouldn't do real well with ata either.

Lee

Lee Bell wrote:
> It makes a whopping 3 bar/difference in the pressure of my tanks.
> Man, you sure do know how to mess up a good rant.

<sigh>

There is nothing quite so sad, in the world of physics,
than watching a beautiful theory being beaten up by a
brutal gang of facts.

nigelH

Am I the only one to think this guy is a complete loon ?

He's been quoted after his record attempt as saying that he didn't do
it for the record, but to further (non-commecrcial OC) diving
knowledge and deco stuff. What a pile of ...... rubbish

He's been quoted loads of times before sayiong that he might die in
the attempt but will still try for the record - he got bent last time
and told not to try again but he did anyway.

He's an attention seeking idiot. If he really wanted to further
knowledge, he wouldn't have tried for a record breaking bounce dive
(which, by the way was only 10 or so metres past John Bennet and he
was there for 60 seconds), but for the more useful 200-230 metre dive
for say 20-30 minutes. But no, won't get headlines for himself like
that.

</rant>

"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<3fe64ead@news.iconz.co.nz>...
> "Self-Certified Diver" <stand@attention.you.flabby.tub.of.guts> wrote in
> message news:f1089c0b570f8729573b02b29758cb29@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:26 GMT, "Nick" <n@net.net> wrote:
> >
> > >According to Teletext, British Scuba diver Mark Ellyatt has set a new
> world
> > >record of 1026.9ft for the deepest SCUBA dive.
>
> > >What's that in English???
> >
> > Darwin.
>
> He only gets an award if he looses the ability to pass on his genes... did
> he lose his balls to the bends?
>
> rhys

ahar <aharries@hotmail.com> writes:

>He's been quoted loads of times before sayiong that he might die in
>the attempt but will still try for the record - he got bent last time
>and told not to try again but he did anyway.

You sure you're not getting your Marks mixed up? This was
Ellyatt, not Andrews.

Pete

--
__________________________________________________ __________________
Pete Young pete@antipope.org Remove dot. to reply
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"

Lee Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
> "David Walker" wrote
>> > measured in "real money" Atmospheric pressure = 14.7 lbs/inch squared.
>> Ick! 1 is a much better number!

> We both use 1. In my case, it's 1 ata. In your case, it's 1 bar.
> Unfortunately, your bar is about 1.3% smaller than my ata. Why'd you guys
> do that?

Since this is the Nth time you mentioned that, I will reply.

The point about the metric system is its internal consistency.
1 bar is 10 Newton/cm^2 = 100000 N/m^2 = 100000 pascals.
(The Pascal is not a very practical unit since it is very small,
so the HectaPascal (1 milibar) and MegaPascal (= 10 bar) may be
more useful.)

The metric units were defined so that several things were aproximately
1 or a power of ten (e.g. 10000km ~= 1/4 of Earth's perimeter *,
1 litre water ~= 1 kg **) and that is quite useful, but it is less
important than the internal consistency.

* The measure of Earth's perimeter was not very exact, but I cant't
find the exact values (polar and equatorial) now.
** the original definition of the kilo.
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/metro/aquoisert/metre.htm

Since the meter was defined based on the Earth's perimeter and the kilo
on the water's weight, it is just a fortunate coincidence that the
average athmospheric pressure is approximately 1 kgf/ cm^2 =~ 1 bar.

Defining the bar as anything else would break this internal consistency,
which is more important than the 1.325 % difference between 1 atm and 1 bar.

Anyway, the atmospheric pressure is seldom 1 atm. In a chart I have
just looked at it varies from 970 milibar (low-pressure over the north
tip of Norway?) to 1030 milibar (high-pressure over the northwest Atlantic).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94