[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
Submadmans, Ians "OSS-back to back" is a amazing compact hull for a
doubleseater, and it is really nice that both guys sitting together.
But it can not be lengthend with a sectionmodul
for a diesel or diver section..
And you can not looking forward to the bottom..
Regards Carsten
-----------------------------------------------------
Warrend Greenway schrieb:
>
> http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/20030123.223500/back-to-back.jpg
>
> That one. Disregard the fairing for now, and just focus on the pressure
> hull itself. I'm running the design through FEA right now to get an idea
> of how stout it will be.
>
> Warren.
>
> > Hi Warren-
> > Which design exactly?
> > Thanks-
> > Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > [mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Warrend
> > Greenway
> > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:49 PM
> > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
> >
> > I built the sub as you described it in SolidWorks, and calculated the
> > displacement
> > of every part, including the battery pods, and came in at 1360kg-3000lbs
> > trailer
> > weight. You could also make the acrylic cylinder optional with classic
> > round
> > viewports optional. This is incredible. My brother and I made a mock-up
> > of the
> > main cylinder, and it felt down-right roomy! Unless anyone has some
> > logical
> > objection, I'd say we should focus on this hull design. I was also
> > playing with
> > the ballast tanks and center of bouyancy, it all worked out great. This
> > baby
> > would be rock stable and manueverable. Rock on, Ian!
> >
> > Warren.
> >
> > > In the diagram:
> > > The main cylinder is 1 m in diameter and 1.4 m long.
> > > The foot wells are 0.5 m and 0.725 m long.
> > >
> > > The total displacement would be 1.3 cubic meters
> > > (in sea water ~1300kg and 2600lbs).
> > >
> > > This would a lot easier to tow, probably wouldn't
> > > require such a big vehicle...
> > >
> > > There might be a problem with supporting the upper
> > > endcap, since the acrylic should not take the weight
> > > of the end cap and people climbing in and out of the
> > > sub.
> > >
> > > Ian.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:37:48 +0800
> > > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey! Yeah! That drawing you made really struck a chord with me! That
> > is
> > > > great...As for the elliptical conning tower...That is quite
> > possible.
> > > > However, it may not be far off just the way you have it...That isn't
> > quite
> > > > what I was thinking...It is better.
> > > >
> > > > Warren.
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:33:37 +0800
> > > > > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Here's the reason I would want two hatches: This is a two man
> > sub. Do I really want
> > > > > > two hatches? You've got to be kidding me! Heck no! But I also
> > have never been a big fan
> > > > > > of slithering like a snake. Not my style. If the hull diameter
> > was greater then I would
> > > > > > advocate a single hatch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make the passenger sit up front then. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > I think with some well placed hand rails you could get in and out
> > of the
> > > > > forward seating position without too much "slithering".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would somebody who has sub like to comment on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gosh this weight constraint makes things exciting! It wouldn't
> > be that difficult at
> > > > > > all if this was a one man, but two...Whoa. What about a large
> > conning tower with both
> > > > > > passengers back-to-back? It's not like the view behind the sub
> > would be any less exciting
> > > > > > for the passenger...Well, let's see if we can bang out
> > something...
> > > > >
> > > > > I've thought of something like that a few times.
> > > > > (check http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/subfiles.html for a diagram).
> > > > > But I'm not sure how comfortable it would be without making the
> > hull pretty big
> > > > > (or using an out of around shape for the coning tower).
> > > > >
> > > > > Ian.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:02:21 +0800
> > > > > > > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK. You have some really interesting ideas here. I
> > personally
> > > > > > > > would like to see two hatches, possibly of raised domes, or
> > > > > > > > the cylinders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm interested in why? I can't seem see any advantage to two
> > > > > > > hatches on a sub this small.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I only put one hatch in because putting two would make the
> > moment of
> > > > > > > the boat unstable on the surface. I.e. two open hatches on
> > the surface
> > > > > > > puts a lot of weight high up, now imagine if two people stood
> > up at the
> > > > > > > same time. There is also the cost factor and effort of making
> > two hatches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought your seating idea was great! I also
> > > > > > > > like the "foot dome", that is an interesting concept,
> > because
> > > > > > > > it minimizes the volume. Also, putting the instruments and
> > > > > > > > controls on rails so that they roll out of the way sounds
> > like
> > > > > > > > a good idea, then they wouldn't be in the way when you are
> > > > > > > > climbing in. Did you get a chance to look at the pictures of
> > my
> > > > > > > > canted idea?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's hard to tell why you've done that for the picture.
> > Infact
> > > > > > > it's hard to get any useful information out of a 3d pictures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Other than that, I think it would be endanger of being
> > > > > > > swamped if the dome was open and small wave hit the boat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ian.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did a little fiddling around with the pressure hull
> > layout.
> > > > > > > > > Using a foot well, it seem that we could design a hull
> > with
> > > > > > > > > around a 2 cubic meter displacement (~2000kg or ~4400lbs).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm interested in what people, in particular about the
> > > > > > > > > dimentions with regard to confort.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ian.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/subfiles.html
> > > > > > > > > http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/20030123.175639/hull-v1.jpg
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Approximate displacement: 2 cubic meters (~2000kg or
> > 4400lbs)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hatch top is 2.5 feet from the water line, per ABS spec.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One dome viewport, one cylinder style veiwport.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Only rear seating position has a hatch, the dome doesn't
> > not open.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Seats would probably be made of cloth and hung "hammock
> > style"
> > > > > > > > > so they be easily moved out of the way making it easy to
> > access
> > > > > > > > > the front seating position.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Front seating position is for the viewer/guest, the rear
> > position
> > > > > > > > > is for the pilot, the idea is the pilot sitting slightly
> > higher
> > > > > > > > > to see more.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Controls would been to fold away so they do not inhibit
> > passage
> > > > > > > > > to the front position.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > > > > > > Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Powered by Outblaze
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > > > > Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Powered by Outblaze
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > > Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> > > >
> > > > Powered by Outblaze
> >
> > --
> > ______________________________________________
> > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> >
> > Powered by Outblaze
> >
>
> --
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.linuxmail.org/
> Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
>
> Powered by Outblaze