Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Unconventional UW Propulsion YIKES!

[TeslaTony@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/10/00 8:15:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
park_e_r@hiwaay.net writes:

> Hi,
>  
>  I almost feel audacious making a comment on this thread as I have neither
>  built or even attempted building a PSUB. However, I have been involved in
>  several "homebuilt" hobbies and subscribed to even more home building mail
>  lists. There appear to be two basic types of members on these lists
>  (especially when science is involved), these types are:
>  
>  
>  The Builder-
>  
>  The builder is a "get it done quickly, easily, and safely" kind of guy. He 
s
>  interested in using present technology and information to build the sub
>  which best suits his desires. While he may be willing to try new
>  combinations of building methods/apparatus, he is usually not interested in
>  revolutionizing the art. He just wants to be in the water with the sub he
>  likes.
>  
>  
>  The Experimenter-
>  
>  A very different ideology. Experimenters are people who aspire to apply new
>  techniques to the art of PSUB'ing. They may be former "builders" who have
>  become more interested in the underlying physical concepts of submarines 
and
>  begin building experimental subs, or  they may simply muse their ideas on
>  paper. Nonetheless, experimenters will be willing to go out of their way to
>  try new (and sometimes orthodox /"unsafe") methods for sub building and
>  operation. Will the sub of an experimenter may take longer to build, be 
more
>  difficult to operate, and perform less; the experimenter still gets his
>  edification because he is getting to apply his novel idea.
>  
>  Now, when these two types of builders meet their can often be some heated
>  debate to follow simply because of different forms of thinking. After all,
>  if someone asks, "How do I retrofit my sub w/ plasma burning dual intake
>  surface engines?" they don't want to hear a response of, "Why would you 
want
>  to?"
>  
>  I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes here, and mayb (just maybe) this
>  can shed a bit of light on these arguments where "the other guy just 
doesn't
>  get it."
>  
>  73's,
>  
>  Adam
>  
That sums it up pretty well, although the great thing about being an 
experimentor is that some of us wind up setting the "safe" standards for the 
builders (hopefully not posthumously).

Anthony