[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS
Patience my friend. I have recieved nrealy all the input I need
to organize things. I do things very methodically, please don't
mistake this for stalling. I wanted to have a clear picture of
what I was organizing before I put my foot in the shoe with the
scorpion. Keep you eyes wide open, it will gel within a few days.
Warren.
> 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
> >
>
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze