[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: "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:53:12 +0800
Content-Disposition: inline
Thanks, I'm going to add the reinforcement components and try
again.  

Warren.

> 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
> 

-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze
Prev by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS License
Next by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS Pressure hull basic layout.
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread