[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUB OSS Modular design.




Line pipe is not usually round exactly, but it is reasonably close, (I will
check some samples I have access to.)  but I think that even rolled plate
(which is all line pipe is)  wouldn't be that close in 36" pipe sizes
(0.125" = 3 mm) but maybe it is.
      For the conning tower I was envisioning a forged tee that you weld
in, not cutting a hole in the pipe.
      Yes the WT would have to be much thicker to compensate for the
compressive vs tensile loading.  I was thinking the hull should be in the
range of 0.500" [12.7 mm] anyway (I haven't cal'c anything yet) not from a
pure math point of view but to compensate for the possibility of bumping
into something , denting the hull, etc.




                                                                                                                                                
                      "Dan H."                                                                                                                  
                      <JMachine@adelphia.net>           To:       <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>                                             
                      Sent by:                          cc:                                                                                     
                      owner-personal_submersible        Subject:  Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUB OSS Modular design.                                  
                      s@psubs.org                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                
                      15/01/2003 05:31 PM                                                                                                       
                      Please respond to                                                                                                         
                      personal_submersibles                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                




Jay,
I don't know and just asking, but is standard pipe true round enough?  A
.25
inch hull thickness needs to be true round to within .125 inch on the hull
diameter. Remember, a sub hull is in compression, not tension like a
typical
pipe application.

Also, adding in a conning tower is more then just using a T.  The hole you
cut in the hull for the conning tower would have  been carrying a
compressive load.  The forces are still there and have to be carried by
added reinforcement.  Typically an extra heavy fabricated collar.

Dan H.

----- Original Message -----
From: <jbarlow@bjservices.ca>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: [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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>