Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Welcome, apologies and multi-hulls.

["Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>]

Yes.

Warren.

> Well, sure. I can imagine that it isnt cheap to go deep.
> When you quote the higher costs, are you comparing that with 
> a monolayer hull that can go as deep?
> EM.
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:48:03 +0800
> >From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>  
> >Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Welcome, apologies and 
> multi-hulls.  
> >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> >
> >Doing some rough calculations I come up with 20% higher
> >cost to fabricate a hull this way. There is on other flaw
> >in the theory: How will you couple a, say, hatch collar, 
> >viewport flange, etc. through the hull layers? The stresses
> >at the junctions get astronomically high...
> >
> >Warren.
> >
> >> Hi People.
> >> In an attempt to make up for my embarrasing, unhelpful, 
> and 
> >> narrowminded comments I made earlier. I would propose some 
> >> more discussion on this idea of 'compartmentalising'.
> >> (please excuse any spelling mistakes, I dont possess the 
> >> apparent intellectual capacity of some giants on this list)
> >> 
> >> Is there any merit in using a multi-layer hull? 
> >> 
> >> For a single layer hull for an ambient machine, the 
> pressure 
> >> differential is at a maximum. If we were to use TWO layers 
> >> (or more) in the pressure hull, and partially pressurise 
> the 
> >> layers in between, then is it not possible to sustain a 
> >> greater TOTAL pressure differential?
> >> 
> >> I am now going to attempt to draw an ascii 
> illustration..ahem.
> >> 
> >> The traditional method:
> >> 
> >>        |
> >> Inside | Outside
> >>    @   |    @
> >>   1atm |  4 atm
> >>        |
> >> 
> >> 
> >> pressure differential = 3 atm.
> >> Depth ~30m
> >> 
> >> 
> >> A multilayer hull:
> >> 
> >>         |           |
> >> inside  | Intermed. | Outside 
> >>   @     |   @       |  @
> >>  1 atm  |  4 atm    |  7 atm
> >>         |           |
> >> 
> >> Pressure differential per layer is still at 3 atm. 
> >> Outside depth ~ 70m
> >> 
> >>  If I have this right..I think I have it vaguely correct,
> >> compartmentalising might be a really good way to get to 
> >> greater depths. I know this sort of thing has been 
> discussed 
> >> before, but I am too lazy to look up the archives..
> >> My apologies for any spelling mistakes Herve, I hope you 
> can 
> >> overlook them just this once.
> >> If I have overlooked any fundamental physics of 
> hydrodynamics 
> >> and hydrostatics, please be nice!
> >> 
> >> Thanks!
> >> EM.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ---- Original message ----
> >> >Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:21:43 EST
> >> >From: BauWauHausDesign@aol.com  
> >> >Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Welcome to the 
> >> Personal_Submersibles_Disc ussion  
> >> >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> >> >
> >> >   In a message dated 1/27/03 5:56:13 PM Pacific
> >> >   Standard Time, dub@linuxmail.org writes:
> >> >
> >> >     Even if it increased to ambient, or even half of
> >> >     ambient, you would not
> >> >     be able to withstand the bodily strain at the
> >> >     depths in question.
> >> >
> >> >     Warren.
> >> >
> >> >   provided that the pressure is ambiant. what if you
> >> >   were able to stratify pressure zones without a
> >> >   structural membrane (ie cockpit, pressure suit...)?
> >> >   to say it is not possible is to deny many example in
> >> >   nature that rely on non-compartmentalized stratified
> >> >   pressure zones to exist.
> >> >
> >> >   jeffrey
> >> 
> >
> >-- 
> >______________________________________________
> >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