[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS

To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS
From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:34:37 +0800
Content-Disposition: inline
What's wrong with half baked ideas? Maybe someone else can cook the other half!

Warren.

> I think things are gelling rather well... but I won't be putting any
> more half-baked ideas out there.
> 
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:44, Warrend Greenway wrote:
> 
> > 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
<< dalesignature.gif >>

-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze
Prev by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS
Next by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS spec sheet
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread