RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hull Calc Spreadsheet

[Ron Mills <quandryron@yahoo.com>]

Hiya Dewey,
I'll put my foot in my mouth for this.  I 'believe'
that most of the people here who are designing the
subs for actual use are playing it safe because the
price for one critical failure is most likely gonna be
death.  Most of the people here do not have machining
or welding skills and they 'know' this so they want to
play it safe.  Especially for the depths that most of
them are shooting for.  A lot of them are playing
around with 1000 ft or more.  A failure in a single
weld or line could most likely cause an immediate and
impressive amount of pain.  If one weld at even two
hundred feet were to crack the pressure on the steel
could cause the area cracked to bend and even tear. 
The pressure build up could build enourmously and
quickly. (read--before you could surface).  

These are only possibilties.  But the margin for error
isn't...nice?  That is why some here are obsessed with
the safety issues.  From the batteries producing
hydrogen or acid to the hull issues to drop weights to
Oxygen.  

In one of the archives there is a post about how
professional sub designers were drop testing one of
their subs.  Noone was in the sub thank goodness but
the sub collapsed way before its projected crush
depth.  It's sobering to think who you might leave
behind if you don't take the safety issue far enough. 
I for one do not want to leave my family and friends
mourning me.  Especially in light of what the
circumstances would be if it were in a psub of my own
design.  Could you imagine the headlines?  Not to
mention the damage that could be inflicted upon those
here who would like to build ultra safe subs?  The
government would come into play if enough of us were
to build our own high tech coffins.  

I for one am surprised to see that the government (US)
has not already intervened with their red tape and I
don't want them to.

Just my two cents worth.  I tend to whip a dead horse
before I lift a hand...as if they won't be obvious by
this post.


--- Dewey Mason <bayan_darkeyes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I am wondering why there seems to be such an VERY
> high
> level of excess in every calculation and spec ya'll
> build into your subs. The scientific arena does not
> use so high a factor for a error margin. With good
> QC,
> and high quality workmanship, a 100% margin should
> be
> well above the likely point of failure. The USSR
> used
> a much lower factor that this, and not one hull
> failure has occurred (that anyone heard of, anyway).
> It seems to me that an absurd error margin and
> excessive layers of redundancy only up the final
> cost,
> and slow the production of otherwise serviceable
> subs.
> I DO belive in being safe, but also being sane. A
> sub
> that has five layers of redundancy, and a safety
> factor of three times calculated peramiters, and
> then
> only sailed into waters no deeper than the
> operational
> max, is a toy, or is wasting a huge amount of
> potential.
> I would not say anyone is WRONG in their choice of
> safety features. I am simply asking, why SO MUCH
> usage
> is being given up in the name of safety? In our
> designs, we are currently looking at a one third
> reduction of calculated max depth as operational,
> with
> a test depth of ninety percent of max. We will need
> the capacity for the work we will be doing. Also,
> what
> factors do the various certification agencies use?
> The
> insurance companies?
> Just my thoughts on it, for what they are worth.
> Dewey
> T.D.P.F.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com