Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub

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

Craig,
If you plan your dives in the range of 15-30Ft why don t you design an
ambient pressure sub, it is much more economic, can be in fiberglass, with
any shapes, and there  is no bottom time limitations.
As far as your propane design you elude the questions, I am not talking
about the propulsion, but the ballasting, you offer little consideration for
the large amounts of gas that you WILL vent in the environment with the
risks of explosion for you and others. I seriously doubt that you will be
able to operate your subs in the US, unless you establish that propane canot
be vented outboard and ballast tanks are sealed and hard ballast type.
I don t know about the economic aspect of your sub, when i run my sub it
costs less than $100 per day  in compressed air refills and battery charge.
O2, ???, why do you think it is required to put an anti backfire system of
propane systems, if you were right that propane inside cannot ignite then
there would be no need for backfire system.
however, I ll get for you some abstracts and equations on my chemistry
engineer course to show you breakdowns of the propane molecule without O2
under specific circumstances.
I do know how to turn "on" my computer and should not you make fun of people
you don t know nor their background.
I don t know if you ever built a sub, I built 28 mini submarines , 2 of them
diesel with 100 mile range, this is my business, I am a USCG registered
submersible manufacturer, but you don t care of USCG anyway you just said
that you screw regulations.
by the way regulations are made to prevent people like you from making
hazardous machines.
regards
Herve
----- Original Message -----
From: <CWall@swri.edu>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:53 AM
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub


> Yes we can get back to a technical discussion. I might proffer
> that while a propane engine might provide an excellent means of generating
> both locomotion and/or power, it might be better used to power a
> compressor and use air as your deballast gas. That way you aren't using
> fuel to deballast your tanks, just readily available air. Subs using
> air-breathing or even air-independent engines to power compressors at the
> surface have a long and proven track records for increasing range at sea.
> If that's your goal, you might consider looking at that option rather than
> deballast with propane. People do this with diesel already, right?
> It is totally possible that I have missed the point on this one.
> If that's the case, don't take my response as a personal attack.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> The answer I'd offer to your comment is that this sub is not designed to
go
> deep- the propane will be useless below 150 ft or so, and I don't want to
go
> anywhere near that deep- and I will have the droppable ballast to prevent
that,
>  even if I run out of propane with all ballast flooded.
>
> With dives in the 15-30ft range, it doesn't take much to get back to the
> surface, and most dives will begin near neutral ballast and surface
without
> blowing- powered submergence, in other words, so it won't be propane
intensive-
>  and when I do blow ballast for more freeboard, I'll be burning most of it
off
> for power when I want to sink again.
>
> I really think it can be very economical, IF the operator wishes it to be.
It
> does mean than the style of operation will have to be adjusted- but crash
dives
>  are not something I put a premium on in the first place in any case.
>
> Craig Wall
>
>