[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
why do i have to thicker the conning tower
the hull is thicker so can take more pressure
i think 3/4" is good.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan H. <JMachine@adelphia.net>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
> Bruno,
>
> A sub has to displace it's weight in water to be neutral buoyant - bit
> heavier and it dives, a bit lighter and it floats. No matter how you
alter
> it, with more steel or more buoyant foam of what ever, that's how it
works.
> Not complicated!
>
> When a sub is designed properly both it's surface stability and it
submerged
> stability are designed in by the weight distribution throughout the sub.
> The problem with taking an existing hull design and just building it with
> thicker steel is that your adding weight to the hull that must be
> compensated for by reducing the weight somewhere else. The most obvious
> place to reduce weight is reduce things like ballast weight in the BOTTOM
of
> the hull and maybe even lighten your drop weights.
>
> Now remember the weight you added by thickening the hull is EVENLY
> distributed throughout the sub hull. To make matters worse, you'll need
to
> add more steel to the conning tower up top to strengthen it as well. See
> where this is going? You end up moving the overall weight of the hull
> (center of gravity) to high in the hull and the sub becomes unstable in
the
> water. Even worse when floating with the conning tower up out of the
water.
>
> There is more to it then just adding steel.
> Hope this helps, Dan H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bruno masse" <rodin4@videotron.ca>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:08 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>