Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Response to Captain Nemo's attack

["Dan J. Rice" <dan.j.rice@sherwin.com>]

I evidently have missed a couple of postings.  I looked back to see Nemo's
attack but I don't.  I also do not have a posting entitled "Response to Captain
Nemo's attack" to which this one was an "Re:"  Is there something screwy with
the listserv?

If someone could please e-mail me the items in question I would appreciate it.
Otherwise I don't know what Nemo is being defensive about.  (Don't tell me to
check the archives, I don't have access from here, or from home right now - my
monitor died.)

So if you please....

(And let's not forget that Nemo - and other's of us - have never made any claims
to sanity, or even been able to define it)

Dan




VBra676539@aol.com on 02/25/2000 05:39:13 AM

Please respond to personal_submersibles@psubs.org

To:   personal_submersibles@psubs.org
cc:    (bcc: Dan J. Rice/EST/Sherwin-Williams)

Subject:  [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Response to Captain Nemo's attack



Don't be so defensive. My comments were comparative and meant only to
illustrate. And my choice of wording deliberate. I am quite happy with the
definition of pragmatic, and was aware of it, although I appreciate your
concern for the condition of my dictionary. As to the subs, thanks for the
info. Howver, if you want to compare apples and oranges, then I'd invite you
to study the facts prior to doing so.

My K-boat has no internal trim tank, for instance. If you had checked, you
would note that the internal tank is reserved for the two shallowest of
George's designs. The system moves outside on the 600 and 350 foot designs.
And there is no need for an elaborate ballast system as the Metacentric
Height is sufficiently tall and the hull short enough to do without it. The
Ks themselves are built like tanks, just as you say .... as in Sherman or
Patton tanks, and are simple for a reason. Your references to acrylic
failures are puzzling, and collision resistance (?) and relative
survivability inadmissable as evidence without proof. None of us will be too
happy if a port fails or a tour boat runs us down. So what's the point?

As to Captain Kittredge's little submarines, I hate to see anyone sneer at
them like that, as they have served quite adequately for thirty plus years as
the foundations for lots of psubbers (and long before the phrase was coined).
No one puts the Model T down, even with a new Taurus in the garage. They are
both cars, but not the same. George built almost 50 subs himself, and has
sold over 400 sets of plans. That sounds pretty successful to me. He was one
of the original pragmatists in that results are the absolute best test, and
from that viewpoint, his Ks have been a huge success. By success I mean that
they have fulfilled precisely the designer's intentions. I hope that the same
is true for you and your Nautilus.

And no, I did not mean, "Captain Kittredge's submarine" when I spoke of my
K-350. Your intended sneer misses the mark. It is Captain Kittredge's DESIGN,
and MY submarine, and I suspect that we all knew the difference.

Your Nautilus is a marvel of ingenuity, and I've no doubt that you are as
clever as you say. I suppose that nearly all of us have mooned over Nemo and
dreamed of the Nautilus at one time or another, so to actually play the role
and have the submarine must be wonderful. Congratulations!

My problem is that I just don't much care for the inference that because you
are clever and inventive, that others are less so. Perhaps you misunderstood
my use of the word "fantasy" in the context of my email. I might have been
better served using "fanciful" instead, and only then in reference to the
appearance of your Nautilus. I meant, simply, to illustrate the two extremes
of a narrow definition. Captain Kittredge's design, on one end of the number
line, would represent the most basic and least complex example, and yours, on
the other, would represent something based on a VISUAL fantasy and much more
complex to carry out. Both serve the purpose but use and function vary
according to experience and desire, which is, I believe, what I said.

We have psubbers who want to recreate Sea View, American fast attack subs,
and drag boats in a pressure hull. These are fanciful, only in that they are
capacity restricted due to the constraints of task specific criteria. If you
want to build a 20 foot replica of a World War II Fleet Submarine, then fine.
But it is not going to be very useful in close surveillance of, say, a wreck
off Key Largo. Unless it becomes a Fleet Boat much modified. My only intent
was to illustrate the broad spectrum of interest in our little community, and
not, certainly, to attack the skills and imagination of one of our members,
let alone the product of those skills. So lighten up a little, will you?

Best Regards
Vance