Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Which Through-Hull?

["Marsee Skidmore" <heyred@email.msn.com>]

Shin,

Electrical penetrations are generally considered the most reliable/safest,
just because failed mechanical and pneumatic penetrations present bigger
holes for water to squirt through.  This is a sweeping generalization,
however.  A well designed penetration of any form can be reliable and safe.
I'm designing for 1,000 fsw, and I have yet to find an electrical penetrator
that has a rating in that neighborhood.  They seem to jump from 3 feet to
10,000.  I eagerly await the responses to your query.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: Mad Pirate Shin <psub_only_temporary@hotmail.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Which Through-Hull?


>   Mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, that's what I want to know.  What are
> the advantages of each?  Which types would be the most reliable/safest at
> 700 feet down?
>   Electrical through hulls seem to be the easiest to maintain, so if they
> can be made to withstand the depths I'd like to operate at, I would
> considering making all my through-hulls electrical.  However, how does the
> sealing material hold up over time?  Is it easily replaced?  If not,
o-rings
> might be easier to maintain.
>   What I want are opinions as to the ease of maintenance and reliability
of
> the different types of though-hulls which will operate at the wanted
depth.
>
>           not wanting to poke holes in his boat,
>                            Shin
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>