YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Imported post

<font color='#000F22'>This may be wacky but here goes anyway.

Whilst in the early stages of our development, i.e pre birth we receive oxygen and foods from the placenta and I believe through liquid in the lungs. In nearly new born babies they have the diving reflex as I'm sure most of you will have seen demonstrated, where they are happy bobbing about under the water.

So here's the question why can't we or can we breathe or remove the oxygen from a liquid. Would it eliminate some of the problems associated with breathing air or gasses at depth such as compression and uptake of inert gasses?

I'm sure this topic has been looked at before. Other than the choking reflex during which you have to take the liquid into the lungs are there anyother problems? I'm not suggesting for a moment that I or anyone else should try this, but I'm curious as too whether or not it's feasable.

thanks

gareth davies
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,736 Posts
Imported post

<font color='#32CD32'>Hi,

This has been done in the movies - The Abyss - and I've been told that it was based on fact - guess it'd be the military that tried it first.
 

·
Not as tall in real life
Joined
·
4,059 Posts
Imported post

There is a medical usage of a fluid called perflubron used for people who have lung injuries such as burns etc..

I think they half fill the lungs with it or some such to stop the lungs inner surfaces sticking together or something.

Check out the following link Fluid breathing

Daz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Imported post

The US Navy did some work on fluid diving, and it works.  The hard part is apparently regulating the CO2, the lungs can't regulate fluid to fluid, so just removing all the CO2 causes severe hypocapnia.  Anyway, try reading this book, it's mostly about Polaris etc. but it does include stuff on liquid breathing and is worth a read whatever.
 

·
wibble
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
Imported post

<font color='#000080'>i recall something that allows very premature babies to "breathe" from a fluid injected into the lungs.  It would have to have the same osmotic potential as plasma though.
Mary??? help us out on this one luv.
 

·
Not as tall in real life
Joined
·
4,059 Posts
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Porg @ Dec. 14 2003,21:27)]i recall something that allows very premature babies to "breathe" from a fluid injected into the lungs.  It would have to have the same osmotic potential as plasma though.
Mary??? help us out on this one luv.
Think they are experiementing with perflubron on premmies as well,  I think it is because the lungs are still developing.

Daz
 

·
"hardly ever here"
Joined
·
799 Posts
Imported post

another problem apart from CO2 is that the lungs have to work much harder to move fluid than to move air. i seem to remember they did on mice and although they survived their lifespan was shortened cos they were knackered!

in answer to the question though - the main reason why we can't breathe water is that there's not enough oxygen in it. fish are much more efficient at extracting o2 from water than we are at extracting it from air.

oh, and when the babies are swimming they're not actually breathing in water!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Reeve @ Dec. 14 2003,18:32)]Whilst in the early stages of our development, i.e pre birth we receive oxygen and foods from the placenta and I believe through liquid in the lungs.
Yeah, but the developing lungs go thorough further irreversible development/adaptation once the child exits the womb.  

In a similar way, during gestation the embryo has a phase where it has the gill structures of our fish ancestors  , but it passes through that into further stages of devopment and it too is irreversible.
Of course this is not the case for the offspring of those American Christian fundamentalists in Kansas and similar places, who obviously aren't descended from the bony finned sarcopterygian fishes (e.g. the coelocanth)  like the rest of us are...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Imported post

<font color='#000F22'>Shame about that one Steve, A set of gills behind the ears would save a lot of money on dive equipment.

Thanks for your thoughts

gareth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,240 Posts
Imported post

'Breathing Mediums' ?? What's that? Talking about your SAC whilst at a séance??



Err...I'll get mi coat.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Imported post

I read some journals on this ages ago. Doc's in america kept a dog alive for several hours on liquid breathing and it suffered no ill after effects. But the dog was unconcious throughout. Trials on adult humans were conducted - using one lung - but also when unconcious. The effort of respiring the liquid actually burned more oxygen than the lungs exchanged. So they used some sort of trembler inserted into the lung to set up currents to move the fluid around. So the breathing reflex had to be subdued with drugs. All in all not a very practical outlook. And probably cheaper to just use a robot. And to be useful, all the air spaces in the body would need to be flooded ie the middle ear and synuses to avoid compression.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top