Re: Fw: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Blowing ballast (was: question about general design?)

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

No, 96 lb/cu ft was a number quoted for broken stone.  Didn't say how
broken, but this was kinda the low average for a couple of different types
and forms.  Like Dave says, solid rock ranges up around 150 lb/cu ft.  - Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: Lew Clayman <lew_clayman@yahoo.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Blowing ballast (was: question about
general design?)


>
> --- Marsee Skidmore <heyred@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > > I've been considering using gravel ballast, out of
> > > granola-eatin'-Birkenstock-wearin'-tree-huggin' environmental
> > sensibilities.
> > > Besides, it's cheap.  But Vance speaks a mouthful.  Lead has a density
of
> > > 710 lb/cu ft, compared to stone (basalt, granite, gneiss) at 96 lb/cu
ft.
> > > Please excuse my English units, but this is bad news in any language.
>
> Ouch.  And that assumes, I suppose, an "ingot" of stone - not a bunch of
gravel with space between
> the chunks, which makes for more volume and (effectively) far lower
density.  Dang.
>
> > > how much volume it takes to equal a chunk of lead the size of a shoe
box.
>
> Roughly speaking, based on the above, a hunk of granite the size of a
small headstone... in effect
> it *is* a small headstone, come to think of it.  Bad mojo!
>
> -L
>
>
> =====
> "Yo no soy marinero / Soy capitan"
>           - Traditional Mexican Lyric (La Bamba)
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>