Re: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Isn't 'Mini book review.' anymore--pressure test

[rjune@fuse.net]

why all the comotion about tank testing a sub.

I think it would be more wise to desighn/buld a sub
for 2 times the intended depth (say 200 meters).
and ony use it at the intended depth (100 meters).
isn't that what safty factors are all about.


> 
> From: William Alford <walford@dbtech.net>
> Date: 2002/04/11 Thu PM 12:53:40 EDT
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Isn't 'Mini book review.'
>   anymore--pressure test
> 
> At 10:24 PM 4/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >I'm less concerned with generating the pressure on a vessel filled with
> >water, actually, and more concerned with sealing a big tank with a door in it.
> 
> on the topic, Hyperbaric therapy chambers are often tested by filling with
> water and then pressurizing with air, however, the above concern of sealing
> a big tank with *big* door is paramount. Consider that a 30" door of a HBOT
> chamber pressurized to only 2 atmospheres has a cumulative pressure (add up
> all those PSI's on the entire area) on the door of around 5 tons! which is
> equivalent of a dive to only 33 feet of seawater. A testing tank failure at
> the pressures for modest psub depth and the required diameter of a door (or
> flange mechanism) for sub admittance could be catastrophic. There is a
> report in "Hyperbaric Facility Safety"- WT Wortman, of a 30" door failure
> blowing off the HBOT chamber and through the wall of the building and
> killing someone in the next room. Of course it was filled with O2, not water. 
> 
> The construction challenges of an enormous test chamber might rival that of
> the psub itself.
> 
> William Alford
> walford@dbtech.net
> 
> Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
>