Talk:Maximum operating depth

Question
"This makes one to ask the question: So what is the average maximum depth a human can/is allowed to swim without body damage?"

Assuming you mean free diving (diving without SCUBA gear, using a single lungfull of air from the surface), check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-diving Ryan (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean on scuba, then see Deep diving, particularly the section Ultra-deep diving. There's also an article on Atmospheric diving suit that may be of interest. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tables
I don't think that those tables are helpful. Axl ¤  [Talk]  08:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; they are useful, and I tried finding this information for a few minutes on Google without much luck (for meter tables; plenty of foot tables, or tables for Air, EAN32, EAN36 only). I've got full tables in my dive books and software, but nothing googleable. I came here based on google.

As they are, the tables are kind of useless due to going up in steps of 3; you really want to hit EAN32 and EAN36 (by a wide margin, the most widespread mixes; EAN32 is basically standard nitrox for most divers), so it should be a step of 1, 2, or 4. I'll probably calculate the tables and update it myself, although I want to double-check everything since incorrect PO2 is potentially lethal. Ryan (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an overprecise table giving MOD in metres against FO2 in 1% increments from 21% to 40% The values are close enough for linear interpolation. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect/inadequate reference for the NOAA recommendation
The reference (Lang, M.A. (2001). DAN Nitrox Workshop Proceedings. Durham, NC: Divers Alert Network. p. 197. Retrieved 2008-06-24) given for the statement, "The maximum single exposure limits recommended in the NOAA Diving Manual are 45 minutes at 1.6 bar, 120 minutes at 1.5 bar, 150 minutes at 1.4 bar, 180 minutes at 1.3 bar and 210 minutes at 1.2 bar" seems to be inadequate. The specific recommendation was not found on the specified page or in the entire document for the matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktp.kti (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The NOAA single exposure limits are on page 52 of DAN Nitrox Workshop Proceedings. I've amended the page parameter to indicate the correct page. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No 32%??
Really? It's only the most widely used gas mix after air... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.189.52 (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point is that the tables should include 32%? What is your suggested solution? At present the table increments by 3%. A 2% increment would make the tables 50% wider. One can interpolate to get intermediate values, or calculate any MOD using the formulae. Wikipedia is not a training or operating manual, and should not be used as such. Do you consider that 32% MOD should be specified for any reason other than that 32% is the most commonly used mix? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if I were designing those tables, I'd use 4% increments to 40% and 10% increments after that (which would be kinder to mobile users as well). I'd also round the depths in metres to whole numbers. In reality, the accuracy of neither an oxygen analyser nor a depth gauge are good enough to warrant that degree of precision in the displayed depths. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if I were designing those tables, I'd use 4% increments to 40% and 10% increments after that (which would be kinder to mobile users as well). I'd also round the depths in metres to whole numbers. In reality, the accuracy of neither an oxygen analyser nor a depth gauge are good enough to warrant that degree of precision in the displayed depths. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rounded to nearest fsw

Rounded to nearest msw

Perhaps something like that? --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Is there any advantage to the fancy table format (double frame borders)? I find them slightly distracting. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no advantage at all. In fact, using class="wikitable" is preferable for consistency across the project - it also automatically centres the headings, so markup is even simpler. I merely left as much of the original formatting in place for expediency. Below are the tables revised to use "wikitable" for comparison:
 * There's no advantage at all. In fact, using class="wikitable" is preferable for consistency across the project - it also automatically centres the headings, so markup is even simpler. I merely left as much of the original formatting in place for expediency. Below are the tables revised to use "wikitable" for comparison:

Rounded to nearest fsw

Rounded to nearest msw
 * I'd be more than happy to see that style used instead. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maximum operating depth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531084518/http://ehs.ucsb.edu/units/diving/dsp/forms/articles/physics.pdf to http://ehs.ucsb.edu/units/diving/dsp/forms/articles/physics.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210095431/http://www.supsalv.org/pdf/Dive%20Manual%20Rev%206%20with%20Chg%20A.pdf to http://supsalv.org/pdf/Dive%20Manual%20Rev%206%20with%20Chg%20A.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)