Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ambient vs. 1 ATM: the historical perspective

["Karl & Shirin Fuller" <fullerk@voyager.co.nz>]

Hi Captain Nemo,

I can't help smiling a bit at your response to Vance's comparison of the
Kitterdege and your Nautilus replica. I  got the impression that the
comparison, was not intended to depth charge the merits of your sub, but I
note your sub to sub wire guided torpedos are launched and tracking ! Will
there be decoys and evasive manouvers Captain Vance ?
However, you have both made some passionate and valuable points that are
educational for those of us who are still on a big learning curb in the
understanding of how a sub works and the many compromises involved in order
to achieve ones goal.
Personally, I would love to find the design or design the sub I may build
one day, but so far, I'm still looking, learning and contemplating. Because
of the distances involved in getting from site to site in New Zealand, I
would like  to build either a small electric sub and a catamaran to
transport it, or an ' autonomous ' diesel electric sub like Carsten wants.
So I am one of the ' 1 atmosphere ' fans obviously.
If anyone is aware of a design that could fit one of the two vague
parameters mentioned above, please let me know.
I think I have sold the 60 ft. steel yacht I have designed, built and lived
on for the last few years, but if anyone knows of anyone interested in
buying her, please let me know !
Do any of you guys follow the America's Cup sailing that is being sailed a
few miles away from me at present ? It looks like we will keep it :-) Your
can watch the 3rd race live on the internet but it would be very late at
night for you I guess.
Does a dehumidifier work to stop condensation in a sub ?

>From Down Under,
Karl.

> " 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
>
>