RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again

[Duncan Milne <milned@teckcorp.ca>]

Jeez, Nemo, check your O2 monitor.  I think you're adding too much gas.
	Duncan

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Captain Nemo [SMTP:vulcania@interpac.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 05, 2000 7:25 PM
> To:	personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Subject:	Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again
> 
> 
> ----- 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