Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again

["samdatl" <samdatl@avana.net>]

Amen brother. dont have my own boat but served on a nuke fast attack. and
redundancy is the name of the game. the perascope had main seals and a back
up inflatable seal that got some use on my boat . So i'm with you all the
way down.

Walker
Woodstock, Ga.
samdatl@mindspring.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Captain Nemo" <vulcania@interpac.net>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again


>
> ----- 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
>
>
>
>