Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub

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

Craig,
I know you said you burn the propane in the ballast, and you can keep your
buoyancy as long you feed the ballast with propane, true.
But will not there be a time when you are surfaced and stop running your
engine? meaning your ballasts are completely filled with propane and if they
are opened at the bottom, with some oxygen with it, very little I agree but
some anyway since Sea water releases oxygen all the time (didn t you know
that?), along other gases. That small amount of oxygen is enough to trigger
a chain reaction, that s exactly what to happened to me but with Hydrogen.
What do you do then with your sub and its ballast filled with propane and
small O2. Your cylinders are DOT approved for propane, not your hull nor the
ballast' s tanks!
Now if you tell me that a ballast, vented or opened, filled with propane
under gas form is not a threat I better be off your conversation.
>From the beginning this is all my concern and nothing else, not only the
ballast itself filled with propane is dangerous, but to me it looks like,
tell me if I am right, that you might release outside at least 50CuFt  of
propane when you pull your sub out of the water.
Or do you storage your sub ballasts filled with propane?
If it is the case, although I am a risk taker, I do not want to be any close
to your sub.When my mini sub blew away, the ballast hatch flew 20 Ft away
fortunately nobody was there to meet with it.
You can do whatever you want with yourself Craig, my concern is the people
around you when you operate the sub, and you know how attractive a sub is to
the public.
Not only you are the only one on this forum to call people names, but it
looks like you have little concern for others as far to operate your sub.
Herve


----- Original Message -----
From: <CWall@swri.edu>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:06 PM
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Propane sub


> 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.
>
>   Because I don't want to.
>
> 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.
>
>
****************************************************************************
8
>  Look, dumbass- I've said it before- you can BURN the propane you vent.
> Is that clear enough for you? And you don't have to vent it in the first
place
> if you use your head.
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> **********
>  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.
>
>
****************************************************************************
>
> And your point is?   I see nothing here that is insurmountable.  That
isn't
> evasion, it's recognition that I know what to do with propane and you
> apparently don't.
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
>
>
> 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.
> **********************************************************************
>
> Are you having problems reading?   I already said I'd include checkvalves
and
> flashback protection.  That's just redundancy in case the propane is
> contaminated with air, and that is an operational issue, meaning it can be
> dealt with by proper protocols.  If you do that, there IS no need for the
> flashback protection....but I want it anyway, as a backup. Are you
suggesting
> that I not take the precaution out of some macho bet ?   Don't expect me
to be
> stupid just because you are.  And I anticipate less than $15 per day in
the
> type of operations I want to carry out.
>
****************************************************************************
***
> ************
>
> 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.
> *********************************************************************
>
> "Breakdown" is not combustion.  Nor is it even exothermic without an
oxidizer.
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> I do know how to turn "on" my computer and should not you make fun of
people
> you don t know nor their background.
> ************************************************************************
>
> So what the hell are YOU doing?
> ***********************************************************************
> 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
>
****************************************************************************
*
>
>  What a waste of time!   And if I want to make a "hazardous" machine that
puts
> only me at risk, what's the problem?   Do you really think it's
appropriate to
> try to "save me from myself'?
>
>   You might be a great sub builder, Herve, but you're an idiot as near as
I can
>  tell.  If I haven't gotten through to you yet on these technical points,
I can
>  only conclude that you are either stupid or can't read- or you are just
> intellectually dishonest and are trying to talk me out of this despite
knowing
> that my points are valid.   I'm not going to repeat myself for you again,
but I
>  can tell you that you have demonstrated to me that you haven't got a clue
> where chemistry is concerned.  If you really had good technical
objections, I'd
>  address those- but so far you've been incredibly lame.
>
> Craig Wall
>
>