[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
There comes a point in sub design where the weight of the pressure hull
exceeds the buoyant force acting on it. So instead of adding weight to get
your sub to submerge, you have to displace more water with something lighter
than water. All the subs (I think) built by this
group do not reach depths where this transition takes place. After this
point, the sub requires some positive ballast dedicated to only providing a
buoyant
force. Alvin is an example, having a picture of its buoyancy package shown
in Busby (pg. 298). Trieste is the best example, having to carry a 29,000
gallons of gasoline, just to keep it afloat. So these subs are basically
anchors, connected to an ~incompressible balloon. You can use the Alec's
program to
find this point.
Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "bruno masse" <rodin4@videotron.ca>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> i think that if the hull weight more you need less additional weight!
> and why the k-600 is going to be less stable than the k-350 if the weight
> is at the right place?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan H. <JMachine@adelphia.net>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
>
>
> > Another thing to keep in mind is, as you beef up the sub, your adding
> weight
> > to it. You can only add so much steel and still have a sub. Beyond
that,
> > you got an anchor!
> >
> > The K-350 needs about 500 pounds additional weight placed in the hull to
> > dive. The way a K-350 is designed, keeping the batteries and weights
low
> on
> > the sub, it's stable. If you add steel to the hull over all, you have
to
> > lesson the weights in the bottom of the hull. The K-600 does this at
the
> > expense of stability. You can only go so far doing this though.
> >
> > On page 17 in the Busby book, Manned Submersibles, explains in greater
> > detail .
> >
> > Dan H.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ian Roxborough" <irox@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:32:36 -0400
> > > bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > another question.
> > > > it is about the kitredge sub
> > > > my question is: the k-600 have a 3/8" hull thickness and 1/2 thick
end
> > cap
> > > > and can go to 600' feets.
> > > > a hull with 1/2 thickness and a end cap with 5/8 to 3/4 thickness
can
> go
> > about
> > > > 1000' feets! i my wrong?
> > > > somebody can help me with this question please!
> > > > thank you
> > >
> > > In your hull with 1/2 thickness that goes to 1000feet,
> > > they are two thinks which you would have to take
> > > into account when comparing dive depths. Hull diameter
> > > will play a big part in making these calculations.
> > > Safety Margin is the other big factor when operational
> > > depths are being placed on hulls. Of course they are some
> > > other biggies as well, like material, what are the hulls
> > > made of? framing? hull length? hull length between
> > > heavy framing? how round is the cylinder?
> > >
> > > Assuming that material, diameter, framing, etc. are the
> > > same for the both hulls:
> > > The K600 can go a lot deeper than 600feet, I would guess
> > > that the theoretical crush depth of such a sub would be
> > > in the range of 2 or 3x the operational depth. Can the 1/2 inch
> > > thick hull go to 3000feet? Or is a 1000feet it's theoretical
> > > limit/clush depth for this hull.
> > >
> > > I remember reading/hearing about a K250 that was tested
> > > to distruction in a pressure tank. If I remember correctly,
> > > only the dome on the top failed, at around 3 times the
> > > operational depth ~700feet (please, somebody correct me if
> > > I'm wrong).
> > >
> > > The short version of this is:
> > > The K-class subs are serious over engineered (and I think
> > > this is very good thing).
> > >
> > > Ian.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>