[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ambient vs. 1 ATM: the historical perspective
----- Original Message -----
From: <VBra676539@aol.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ambient vs. 1 ATM: the historical perspective
" The Nautilus job has the submarine hidden inside a fantasy shell, but the
submarine is there, first and foremost."
If you're speaking of my NAUTILUS MINISUB: true about there being a
submarine there; but the outer shell is more than just a "fantasy"; for
example, it includes a better ballast system than that found in the K-sub.
"My submarine is more pragmatic,"
Actually, "pragmatic" means "the ends justify the means"; I believe you mean
"practical", don't you? And really, shouldn't you be saying "Captain
Kitteredge's submarine"?
"as I will trade function for form more often than not."
More often than not, so will I; but it depends on the mission. My intent
was to replicate the Disney NAUTILUS; I was, therefore, forced to work
within unavoidable visual design constraints. I might point out that the
superior complexity of this configuration required greater engineering
abilities, design skill, and inventive creativity than is required to simply
emulate "tank subs" that have been done ad infinitum for decades. To
debate form versus functionality between two subs (of which one is
aesthetically-oriented, while the other is not) is like comparing apples to
oranges; and I would not have thought to compare my sub to anyone elses; but
since you insist...
You want to compare functionality? My NAUTILUS MINISUB has greater speed
performance and lower drag coefficients than the K-sub, and is therefore
better able to resist those adverse currents you mentioned might pull it
into dangerous conditions.
My ballast system is more versatile as well: enabling me to operate at, and
recover from, attitudes the K-sub cannot achieve.
My four seperate ballast tanks also provide safety via system redundancy;
(that's more, I believe, than the K-sub has).
I can remotely pressurize all of my ballast tanks to directly withstand
depth pressure; I don't believe the same can be done with the internal tank
of the K-sub.
And if my ballast tanks rupture, the pressure hull of my sub will not take
in a single drop of water; but until (and unless) the pilot closes the
cutoff valve to the internal tank, the K-sub will flood.
Due to the heavy steel ram-buttress of my "fantasy" design, I can be
cruising at a depth of, say, 6-inches, and endure a collision with, say, a
power boat, with a far greater degree of survivability than the
acrylic-domed K-sub affords.
The K-sub is "rated" to a depth of, say, 350 feet; but people who make
acrylic domes and windows admit they have been known to fail at much
shallower than expected depths. Since "a chain is no stronger than its
weakest link", the wisdom of advising the builders of "garage subs" working
from plans that their creations are safe at that depth is questionable.
Though the vessel upon which my pressure hull is based was actually taken
much deeper without imploding, I limit myself to safe recreational diving
depths. Given a choice of whether I'd rather have a structural failure at
less than 100 feet or greater than fifty fathoms; I'll take shallow water
every time.
The least "practical" aspect of my NAUTILUS MINISUB is it's shallow
freeboard; a consequence of the Disney design which has never been a problem
in actual use.
"I will trade form for function more often than not. That's a matter of
personal choice, based on experience and preference, and made AFTER the
submarine part is done. Not as an afterthought."
Clearly, my NAUTILUS MINISUB is more visually appealing and, in many ways,
more functional than the K-sub. Nevertheless, your statement is dismissive,
condescending, and both inaccurately and adversely characterizes the process
by which my submarine was devised and constructed. Thank you! I take that
as a compliment!
Very best regards,
Pat Regan
vulcania@interpac.net