Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub risks

["Herve Jaubert" <caribsub@coqui.net>]

Craig
I was just trying to help, there is nothing to  prove in working on a design
that uses propane as a mean of ballasting, it is extrememly hazardous for
the operator but also for others being next to your vehicle. There are so
many other succesfull means. risk free. Why don t you focus on something
else like propulsion, to use propane for propulsion is fine though.
Once your sub is complete you will not have to "foist" it off some poor
soldier or unprepared operator, should I remind you that   these very
soldiers are highly trained with an experience it seems you cannot fathom
which gives  them a slight advantage to get "away" of some extreme
situations.
Besides, scuba diving apparatus, rebreathers and submarines were all
designed by.........soldiers, engineers but soldiers.
Herve Jaubert
----- Original Message -----
From: <CWall@swri.edu>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 6:13 PM
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub risks


> Herve, first of all, saleability isn't a factor for me- I don't pretend to
be
> able to convince anyone else that the sub would be "safe".   Just like my
> experimental aircraft, anyone who hadn't been fully involved at the outset
> would be a poor candidate for avoiding all the attendant pitfalls.
>
> Second, "risk" is EXACTLY what my efforts are aimed at reducing to an
> acceptable level- acceptable to ME, that is.  I don't intend to take
> passengers, but that doesn't mean I would allow myself to take chances
beyond
> what I think can be managed successfully 100% of the time. I don't buy
lottery
> tickets; I see no reason to play the odds with submarines either.
>
> In short- the obvious (and not-so-obvious) dangers are what a design
exercise
> like this is all about.  The benefits of propane are substantial, IF the
risks
> can be managed, and I won't kid you- designing those risks out is not a
trivial
>  task.   I do not recommend that others emulate me should I choose to
construct
>  such a vehicle.
>
> But having said that, and being no stranger to such perverse activities,
I'm
> not ready yet to give up.  I have satisifed myself that  the basic concept
is
> sound, and now the details remain to be distilled to a balance of
reliability
> and redundancy.  And at this stage I see more risk in operational issues
than
> plumbing- in other words, I believe I can execute the design in such a way
that
>  it would take operator error to generate a problem.
>
> Not being perfect myself, more work remains to be done.  You can be sure I
> won't foist the completed system off on some poor soldier or any other
> unprepared operator, either for money or on a bet.   But then- you got
away
> with it, didn't you?
>
> Craig Wall
>
>