Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again

["Captain Nemo" <vulcania@interpac.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Lindblom" <s_lindblom@conknet.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again


"Why is the KISS principle so suspect on this list?"

Steve,
Unless you're talking about some esoteric principle devised by Gene Simmons,
I take that term to mean "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

Sounds like you're saying system redundancy in submarines is not only
unnecessary, but also more dangerous than beneficial; and everyone who's
been using it should now do without it because people are too stupid to
design, build, or operate anything more complex than the most rudimentary
machines.  That is contrary to everything I've ever read about submarine
design.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion; but I doubt you'll convince
automobile manufacturers to do away with emergency brakes simply because
multi-chamber master cylinders reduce the possibility of failure; or
convince us that pressure compensation does not safely improve functionality
and reliably in the submersible motors we propel our submarines with, when
for years it's been proven that it does.

In your message to Ken Martindale three weeks ago, you didn't even know that
applying direct power to the motor could zap the magnets; now, all of a
sudden, you're an authority.  Amazing!

And regarding the reliability of DPV's: in my 36 years of diving I've known
a lot of dive shop owners who stopped messing with them because of all the
problems they had; and a lot of seasoned divers who say they are "junk".  To
tell people that such motors are reliable enough to make proven support
systems undesirable and unnecessary in submarine applications is
irresponsible, at best.

 I wonder if you practice what you preach.  Do you have a submarine of your
own which employs your revolutionary double-seal system, and which you've
done much actual operational testing with?  I'm not talking about a model, a
CAD program, something you read about, or your buddies' DPV: I'm talking
about an actual boat you spent years, bucks, blood-sweat-and-tears to build.
I don't think you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about
getting by with "good enough"; you'd want to protect that baby with all the
best backups you could get.

Pat