Dale A. Raby
Editor/Publisher
The Green Bay Web
http://www.thegreenbayweb.com
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 > > >
|
Dale A. Raby Editor/Publisher The Green Bay Web http://www.thegreenbayweb.com |
