Cool Pictures 11: If You're Cool And You Know It Clap Your Hands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it safe to assume that you're not a diver, and questions of neutral buoyancy are hence not as dear to your heart as they are to mine?

Because I am very much at the low end of the BMI scale (~1.83m, ~64 kg, BMI = ~19, calculated bodyfat% = ~9%), and I still nonetheless need ~2 kg (~4.5 lb) of lead just to offset my body's natural buoyancy in salt water.

The model is likely shorter/lighter than me, so might need less ballast based on her mass/volume ratio (although females' bodyfat% tends to be higher than males', so it probably wouldn't be much less), but even just a single kilo of lead still represents a fairly large chunk of metal. Lead density = 11.34 g/cm^3 (not going to convert that into Imperial, sorry!), and a typical square, 1-kilo lead dive-weight measures approx. 7.5 x 7.5 x 1.5 cm (3 x 3 x 2/3") — which is a lot of weight to hang off what is, you must admit, a fairly flimsy-looking bikini.

Point is, if her suit was weighted sufficiently to hold her down, it probably wouldn't stay up! ;) (That's why I use a weightbelt instead!)
People have negative bouyancy at the depth she is at, I saw it on a Dave Attenbourgh documentary. People below ~100 feet can walk on the bottom. The picture gives an illusion she is in shallow water but I bet she's a hundred feet deep.
 
People have negative bouyancy at the depth she is at, I saw it on a Dave Attenbourgh documentary. People below ~100 feet can walk on the bottom.
That's true, if she's doing a breath-hold -- the lungs compress as you dive deeper, so you lose volume/buyonacy. The effect is already marked at 10 m (double surface pressure => halved surface volume). But she'd still need a little ballast to neutralise her surface buoyancy, and make a free descent from the surface with minimal effort (giving her more time to strike her pose on the bottom).

Conversely, if she's descended to depth on a scuba set (and left it out of shot), her lungs would remain at/near their normal surface volume.
The picture gives an illusion she is in shallow water but I bet she's a hundred feet deep.
If I'm right (comments above) that the photo was taken under natural light (there are no strong cameraflash shadows/highlights), then no, she can't be that deep. The red end of the visible spectrum is almost totally scattered within the first 5 m (15 feet) or so: at 100 feet (30 m), the remaining light is almost entirely from the blue end. So she must still be relatively shallow.
 
Nice find! ^^^^
 
Nice fire opal!
 

"The beak of a swan, frozen over in a park in Bozhou, Xinjiang, China, on December 29, 2018, as temperatures dipped below -4 degrees Fahrenheit (-20 degrees Celsius) # Costfoto / Barcroft Media via Getty"


"A telecommunications tower is seen on the top of a snow-covered slope on Mount Parnitha, near Athens, Greece, on January 4, 2019. #
Giorgos Moutafis / Reuters"

decolonization.jpg

"The statue of Sir Stamford Raffles is painted to blend into the central business district as part of the bicentennial commemorations of Raffles's arrival, in Singapore on January 2, 2019. # Edgar Su / Reuters"
 
I don't suppose anyone tried to help the swan...
 
330b121.jpg
 
You've posted that lynx twice now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom