[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUB OSS Modular design.
http://www.howell.ca/howhome.htm
http://www.cefranklin.com/indexserv4.html
http://www.texmet.com/
http://www.what-flange.demon.co.uk/customflanges.htm
http://www.texasflange.com/catalog.pdf
Warren: External flanges come pre machined ready to weld to pipe. Bolt
corrosion is no more of a problem than the hull corrosion, so it shouldn't
matter where the bolts are. Paint after assembly. Before outer skin
(shell) is attached to reduce drag. Also I wouldn't think one would want
to take it apart very often. I still think inside is nicer, but outside is
far cheaper and easier.
Dale: Also Line pipe is pressure tested at mill (Every section), and
shorts (ie less than 40' long pieces) can be had surplus at very much
reduced cost. If often comes with factory applied coating against
corrosion, so only joints would need to be coated (paint??) The coating is
usually very good.
I can't find links to larger flanges just now on web, but I known they are
available. 36" , 42", 48", & 56" are common. 36" is very common. Other
sizes are less common but still available. In fact if someone found a
piece of 38" Line pipe it might be very cheap, but then the fittings,
flanges etc, would be expensive.
On a tangent, If you wanted a conning tower, you could weld tee in the
centre, giving a nice round place to put a hatch, and a strong well known
transition.
I myself like the idea of a nice streamlined external shape of fibreglass
or some such that could be a ballast tank. Bolted onto the top and bottom
along the sides. I may try a jpg tonite if I have time.
Jay.
What we would want is those flanges in the machined state
before they are attached to anything, so we could weld them
to the inside of the pressure hull. They really need to be
on the inside, so it will be easier to assemble/disassemble,
reduce drag, and prevent corrosion of the bolts.
Warren.
"Dale A. Raby"
<publisher@thegreenbayweb. To: "PSUBS.org mailing list" <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS spec sheet
owner-personal_submersible
s@psubs.org
15/01/2003 12:37 PM
Please respond to
personal_submersibles
For what it's worth... I like the modular concept idea... and I like the
external flange idea. It would be much easier to unbolt something from the
outside... easier to bolt together too as a matter of fact. Also, high
pressure pipe must be available commercially... a further cost reduction...
and commercial flanges must be available in the sizes that pipes come in.
The advantages of the internal flange are more than offset by the sheer
pain in the nether regions required by crawling into a 1.5 meter cylinder
and working around interior contents. Ever try to change the spark plugs
in some of these modern automobiles? I got enough busted knuckles, thank
you very much.
The flanges could be "guppied" later on with something as simple as a
fastened on "skin" or shroud that wouldn't even need to be pressurized.
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 13:00, jbarlow@bjservices.ca wrote:
Exactly what I meant.!! If the hull is encased with ballast tank, to
streamline the shape (like German VII for example) then one could
purchase
a pipe flange (bolts on the outside) rather than making one. An
external
stiffener is just as valid as an internal one. But it would be more
difficult to take apart (due to the ballast tank in the way). Also
more
difficult to inspect the bolts. However it would be far cheaper. I
am
trying to find links. The inside bolts is far nicer, but impossible
to
find commercialy (I think anyway) , due to the fact that people
rarely want
to un-bolt pressure vessels from inside. In fact rare;y do they want
to
climb inside one. LOL. Pipe Flanges would be far cheaper than making
one.
For the diameter debate, I vote in for 36" - 48" line pipe for
pressure
hull. I want to be able to sit upright, but also able to pull with
my
truck. Maybe the batteries would be a seperate load to keep the
weight down
and add batteries at launch site. Safety drop weight as well??
Comments?
Jay.
MerlinSub@t-online.de
(Carsten Standfuss) To:
personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Sent by: cc:
owner-personal_submersible Subject: Re:
[PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS spec sheet
s@psubs.org
15/01/2003 11:25 AM
Please respond to
personal_submersibles
Hi Warrend
A cylinder with a diameter of 1 meter and with a length of 1 meter
means
a displacement of 0,805 ts in saltwater..
A diameter of 2 meter with a length of 1 meter means
a displacement of 3,22 ts in saltwater..
Each person needs about 1 meter length - so a double seater needs
2 meters between the endcaps.. = 6,44 ts the overall sub will be
more in the area of 8-9 ts.. keep most homebuilders off..
I think 0,9 - 1 meter diameter - or the weight will be a
problem for the most cars and even pickups.
I put a picture of a bolted frame and a explain
how to make it to :
http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/subfiles
or direct:
http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/20030115.120916/113-1333a.JPG
and here :
http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/20030115.120916/113-1333a.desc
Bolted midgets:
Seahorse, all X-crafts, Aluminaut, all japanese midget, Seehund,
some italian modern midget - technical no problem, just a price
issue..
regards Carsten
Warrend Greenway schrieb:
>
> The issue of beam seems to be causing a lot of concern. I want to
> be able to sit upright in the hull. I'm not interested in crouching
> or being balled-up in any way. Furthermore, 1.5-2.5 meters was the
> unanimous response. It would seem, however, that there are a lot of
> second thoughts on this. I am going to try laying out some stuff in
> my living room to get a better idea of scale. I think this is the
> first order of buisiness at this time. Please, all, make a mock up
> with sticks, cardboard, or whatever, and get a solid understanding
of
> a realistic size. It is starting to sound like the 1.5 meters may
have
> been closer to the target. Remember, though, that the modularity
will
> allow the basic sub to be quite short, eliminating some cost/weight
> concerns.
>
> Warren.
>
> >
> > Any special tools that we need should be factored in
> > to the overall cost. This would include the method of
> > transporting it to and from the dive site. If 'we' are
> > planning to build a submarine of the size people are talking
> > about then you will probably need either a crane or strong
> > forklift truck for lifting parts and section into place.
> >
> > Although, it might be more econimical to get a vehicle
> > such as a flat bed truck with a built on crane:
> >
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6729&item=2400013033
> >
> > The specs being kicked around sounds more like the size of
> > a 4 to 6+ person sub, with room to stand up. I've got
> > say I would love to have a sub like that, but I'm not
> > sure how relistic it is to solve all the logistical problems
> > for constructing such a vessel by a private individual.
> > In fact I think hardly any one would beable to finance
> > and construct such a vessel, more so since this is intended
> > as a 'first submarine'. 1 meter is a more realistic hull
> > diameter... your second sub could be 2 meters....
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:08:05 +0800
> > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> > > If this bolt together systems works out then Carsten's idea of
> > > uneven lengths becomes perfect. We would have around a 4 meter
> > > "main" section with the conning tower. Then you could either
bolt
> > > on end-cap sections or extensions to the hull, either way you
get
> > > exactly the length you want. It would be nice if towing behind
an
> > > SUV wasn't a concern, but it is. I would get a Dodge and have
> > > 10,000lbs towing capacity, but that is not going to be a
popular
> > > solution. "By a real truck for your PSUB!" Right.
> > >
> > > Warren.
> > >
> > > > The wish list looks like it's coming along well. I like the
"Required "
> > > > list especially, but I think the size is getting a little
large for
> > > > something that will actually get built?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe one of the first things that should be considered is,
are we
looking
> > > > to design a sub that can be trailered behind a standard sized
SUV
or pickup
> > > > truck, or one that requires more to move it. Establish the
displacement
> > > > constraints rather then the details.
> > > >
> > > > Establishing a realistic budget may do well early on too.
It's
probably the
> > > > main reason there aren't a flood of Psubs in the water
already.
> > > > Keep in mind, every square center meter of volume adds to
both cost
and
> > > > weight.
> > > >
> > > > My hat is off to Carstan for the project he has taken on, but
reality is, I
> > > > know he's way out of my league.
> > > >
> > > > Dan H.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Coalbunny" <coalbunny@vcn.com>
> > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS spec sheet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know what value this would be to the PSUB project,
but
this is
> > > > > what I have so far-
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Length: "Around" 10 meters
> > > > > 2. Beam: 2-2.5 meters
> > > > > 3. Speed: unknown
> > > > > 4. Depth: 50 meters
> > > > > 5. Duration: 24 hours
> > > > > 6. Cost: unknown
> > > > > 7. Capacity: 3-4 passengers
> > > > > 8. Other: Optional electronics package
> > > > > Life support system
> > > > > Optional bow view port
> > > > > Optional fiberglass fairings
> > > > > Required analog/mechanical gauges
> > > > > Required auxillary electrical
> > > > > Required steel pressure hull
> > > > > Required drop ballast
> > > > > Required "trimable" ballast
> > > > > Required PWM speed control(?)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not really certain what the specs would be for speed.
> > > > > Carl
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "You delight not in a city's seven or seventy wonders, but
in an
answer
> > > > > it gives to a question of yours, or the question it asks
you,
forcing
> > > > > you to answer, like Thebes through the mouth of the
Sphinx." --
Kublai
> > > > > Khan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
> > >
> > > Powered by Outblaze
>
> --
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.linuxmail.org/
> Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
>
> Powered by Outblaze
(Embedded image moved to file: pic15561.gif)
Dale A. Raby
Editor/Publisher
The Green Bay Web
http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
pic15561.gif
