[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
I was wondering the same thing, possibly for a different reason.
One thing I wanted was the ability to pressurize the hull to
ambient and have a divers hatch...Which is actually a possible
option for this hull...And I would have an acrylic viewport in
the hatch. It looks, from the FEA report, like a flange in the
center of the main caps would actually make the hull stronger.
Want to try some ideas?
Warren.
>
> I'm happy to go with the general consensus and interest in what others thing.
> I wonder if it possible to put a view port in the foot well so people can
> view the bottom.
>
> You can get acrylic cylinders http://www.reynoldspolymer.com/drops.htm
> but annealing it might be tricky.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:46:02 +0800
> "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey, Ian, don't shoot your idea down! It is the only hull concept to-date that
> > actually settles the trailer weight and two passenger issues cleanly! We aren't
> > stuck with the design. But really, what about it is un-tested? Not much. It's a
> > slick variation on a proven theme. The acrylic cylinder might be a large step,
> > but traditional viewports can solve the problem. If you have anymore ideas like
> > the last one, let's here 'em! That hull held up to pressure as well as a
> > K-350 type hull in the FEA testing I was doing I think it would also be cheaper
> > to build...Although that would be a close race.
> >
> > Warren.
> >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this back-to-back hull is a good idea of the psubs OSS.
> > > It's not a very popular design to date, as in it's not really used any
> > > where (I could be wrong). I think that if building the OSS involves
> > > using new ideas that haven't been well tested by others and time, people
> > > building this might be faced with more problems than expected. I'm all
> > > for new ideas, but not for major items like the pressure hull, after all
> > > we are expecting people to be able to build this as there first submarine.
> > >
> > > I vote that we stick with a more traditional pressure hull. If anybody
> > > wants to use the back-to-back idea, be my guest. I may even build one
> > > myself, but not until I've build a K-350 or something like that.
> > >
> > > Ian.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:48:32 +0800
> > > "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze