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: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again


>" As so often happens on prolonged threads, I'm managed to back myself into
a
> position much more extreme than I actually hold."

Trip yourself up a lot, do you?  And what's this now: changing your tune?

 "I got nothing against
> pressure compensation."

Sure could have fooled us!

 "It's a useful, and when done right, even elegant
> solution to certain problems."

Elegant?  LOL!

"And I don't question that it works."

WHAT!?   You've been challenging the concept right from the start!!!

"It's just
> that when it's done before simpler and more cost effective methods are
> tried that it becomes a bit rube goldberg."

No it doesn't.  There's nothing "rube goldberg" about my pressure
compensation system, or those in I've seen in other subs.  You don't know
what you're talking about.
>
>" As to redundancy, we can trade analogies about brakes, parachutes and
> raincoats until hell freezes over,"

You started that.  You're just balking now because the analogies I've used
clearly illustrated how wrong you are!

"but redundancy is neither good nor bad
> in itself -"

WHAT!?  You've been saying redundancy is dangerous!!!  Now you change your
story?  Make up your mind!

"redundant systems are the foundation of safety in critical
> applications,"

They sure are!  But you've been crying that they KILL PEOPLE!!!

"but at the same time, unecessary or overly complex redundant
> systems can add more risks than they cure."

What are you trying to do, anyway, protect us from ourselves?  We don't need
it!   Maybe the systems you make are so "rube goldberg" that they are more
death trap than life preserver, but you need to understand that many of us
are more capable than you give us credit for.

"I think we can both agree on
> that?"

Think again.

"That's why each application and each component must be rigorously
> examinined to balance the benefits and the risks,"

We know that, and have been doing it for years.  That's why we use pressure
compensated motors!

"which is what I've been
> trying to do here, find out why the list - the vocal ones at least - seems
> to so overwhelmingly prefer compensation to good seals."

Who says we don't use good seals?  We just also use pressure compensation
because we know it affords benefits seals alone cannot provide.  How many
times do I have to say it before you understand?

>
> "The effort has already produced some results - we found that one of your
> main arguements for compensation was based on a faulty understanding of
the
> dynamics involved."

No you didn't and no it's not!  The particular motor/prop designs we were
describing were different, that's all.   I understand the physics involved a
lot better than you want to believe I do; and that's proven by the
successful submarine sitting in my shop right now.  (What kind of submarine
YOU got, Steve?)

>
> "BTW, since you are such a fan of redundancy, are you aware that your
> pressure compensation system, as you have described it, does not provide
> it.  As long as you are using the stock 1 ata seals, as you said you were,
then
> the compensation system the only thing keeping water out of the motors at
> depth. If you really wanted to "protect that baby with all the best
backups
> you could get" you could, by upgrading your seals, have true redundancy,
> and reduced task loading, for trivial cost. Which is why I find the lack
of
> interest in seals here so odd."

What's odd here is the fact that you don't know anything about my systems,
what backups I have, or how I operate my boat; yet you keep talking smack.

I'll tell you something, Lindblom.  There's a lot of guys at PSUBS who are
qualified to offer educated criticisms about my boat: guys who have built a
submarine, taken it under water, and faced the moment of truth wherein they
proved  their understanding of theories and technologies was correct.   But
you aint one of them!

>From what I've seen of you here, the crush depth of your credibility is ZERO
FSW, dude!  Feel free to continue taking cheap shots at myself and others
who went out of our way (when we didn't have to) to show you where you were
making a mistake.  I really enjoy proving you wrong!

Very best regards,

Pat