[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.

To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
From: "Adam Lawrence" <adteleka@in-tch.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:48:16 -0700
References: <20030129172540.16959.qmail@linuxmail.org>
Warren,
If you haven't already done so, chapter 4 of part 4 in the rules for
classing
steel vessels will give you the minimum required dimentions of flanges in
end caps and the limits of reinforcement and so forth and other useful
calculations for your design. After getting these hard numbers the FEA
program can verify your hull arrangements.
Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: 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
References:
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
  - From: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
Prev by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Embedded Controllers
Next by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread