[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS
Warren,
I think I agree with Carsten in that it is important that you
started delegating roles in a more assertive way. There are
too many people inputting ideas to the list and I think at
this point it is incoherent and confusing. Why dont you
recruit a few people a sub-committee (oh!, what a funny
joke!) who can themselves extract ideas from the community,
discuss them between themselves, then propose a few different
designs back to the community. Of course, there will have to
be a few different groups who will have to communicate, both
between themselves, and with the community.
I only say this because you seem to be doing the hard part by
yourself, rather than orchestrating the masses!!
EM.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 02:07:57 +0800
>From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
>Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS multi-ring-size hull
>To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
>Well, you're right about the flooding part. Well, you are
basically
>right altogether. I didn't say quite what I meant to. What I
wanted
>was the beam, more so then the height. I want the pilot to
sit side-by-
>side with one passenger and both have a clear view forward.
This requires
>elbo room, but no more then sitting height...But I am
cooling on the
>free flooding part, since it could become a structural
nightmare. In
>reality I was trying to minimize the volume of the 2 meter
hull to
>something more like a 1.2 meter hull, overall...Lemme ponder
the free-
>flooding a bit.
>
>Warren.
>
>>
>> Warren, putting a solid deck in you sub doesn't change
>> the displacement at all. If you where planning to flood
>> part of your large pressure-hull that would allow you
>> to reduce the dry weight, but why bother building such
>> a large hull just to flood half of it...
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:06:11 +0800
>> "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Uhhh. That would be too heavy, obviously. Are your
calculations
>> > assuming that the 2 meter section would be hollow? I
mean, I was
>> > assuming that the 2 meter section had a solid deck in
it, thereby
>> > reducing displacement. Also, I did take my own advise
and try the
>> > mock-up idea. 2 meters would be nice, but that sections
of the hull
>> > would be just fine at more like 1.25 meters long by 1.8
meters, with
>> > a corresponding drop in the size of the smaller section.
If this
>> > displacement problem were resolved, which I believe it
can be, do you
>> > see any other problems with the general layout? Like I
said, a deck
>> > would be used inside to reduce volume, since it is
really the width
>> > that is nice, the height can be reduced by .5 meters to
reduce volume
>> > and provide ballast.
>> >
>> > Warren.
>> >
>> > > Warrend Greenway schrieb:
>> > > >
>> > > > I would like input on the hull concept I have drawn
up. The link is:
>> > > >
>> > > > www.restorides.com/~dub/
>> > > >
>> > > > This is bouncing off the modular idea. The bow is a
minimal length endcap
>> > > > in this concept. The main hull with hatch is 1.5
long by 2 meters in diameter.
>> > >
>> > > Just 4,83 ts (10662 pd) (salt water)
>> > >
>> > > > The smaller section of hull is 2.5 meters long by 1
meter in diameter.
>> > >
>> > > Easy additional 2,01 ts (4437 pd) (sw)
>> > >
>> > > maybe some more 1,5 ts (3311 pd) for the rest.
>> > >
>> > > so just a 8,34 ts boat with a maybe (?) 1 ts trailer..
all together =
>> > > 20618 pd.
>> > >
>> > > 8,34 its the weight of about 5 Kittredge size subs.
>> > >
>> > > regards Carsten
>> > >
>> > > > The
>> > > > entire tail section would be a bolt on modular unit.
Ballast tanks, battery pods,
>> > > > HPA tanks, etc. would be arranged against the hull
at the thin section to "flesh"
>> > > > out the entire hull to approx same diameter. A
fiberglass fairing would then cover
>> > > > the aft section. Does this help?
>> > > >
>> > > > We need to get a pretty firm grasp of our basic
pressure hull, including weight
>> > > > and dimensions before we can finalize the
preliminary design. The refined hull
>> > > > design would then be undertaken in parallel with the
other major units. Note:
>> > > > I did not add flange seams, I am assuming that they
are inside. I talked to a
>> > > > highly respected mechanical engineer at work and he
had some compelling flange
>> > > > ideas that necessitated the flange being internal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Warren.
>> > > > --
>> > > > ______________________________________________
>> > > > 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
>
>--
>______________________________________________
>http://www.linuxmail.org/
>Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
>
>Powered by Outblaze
>