[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUB OSS Modular design.
Yes for fiberglass fairing.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Warrend
Greenway
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:11 PM
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUB OSS Modular design.
Great! This is serious food for thought. I was hoping that the
fairings could be entirely optional, but that may not be the
best way to approach this. I will certainly have fiberglass fairings.
What's the vote on fiberglass fairings? If everyone wants them,
then flanges on the outside might become usefull as fairing anchor
points. The ballast tanks could be welded around the hull between
the flanges, leaving enough room for bolts. You can reference a hull
design similar to this in Concepts of Submarine Design. So, fairings?
Warren.
>
> 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&i
tem=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 >>
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze