[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
The Delta is like the Kittredge subs in that it has added weight to make it
slightly negatively buoyant when all the air is out of the two ballast
tanks, fore and aft. Calculating and then testing for this point is
important since you need (should) to know the rate of descent. The sub dives
at relatively shallow depths which allow it to still use HP air to blow the
tanks. These large tanks give Delta a payload capacity of up to 550 lb
(positive buoyancy).
Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "bruno masse" <rodin4@videotron.ca>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> ok but what about the delta sub that can go to 1200' feet and have litle
> buoyancy?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Adam Lawrence <adteleka@in-tch.com>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:14 AM
> Subject: 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>