[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub

To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
From: bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:30:20 -0400
References: <001001c38da9$05373740$12c08242@pavilion><20031008082838.0d02efbf.irox@ix.netcom.com><002301c38dff$18afb0d0$478ca844@FAMILYROOM><000501c38e06$418ccb80$12c08242@pavilion><007c01c38e1b$db418030$9cb9a6d8@potatoesn13d9d><000801c38e5e$10f88ba0$12c08242@pavilion><000001c38ec6$0fad72c0$478ca844@FAMILYROOM><000701c38ed1$99e2ea00$12c08242@pavilion><000c01c38f1e$04d03290$478ca844@FAMILYROOM>

the conning tower and the collar are going to be in 1 piece
of 3/4" thick
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan H. <JMachine@adelphia.net>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub


> Bruno,
>
> Take another look at your K-350 plans.
>
> The conning tower is only 1/4 inch thick.  The reinforcing collar that
forms
> the transition between the hull and the conning tower is 3/4 inch thick.
> The transition, conning tower, it's view ports rings and the viewport
> themselves all have to be heavier as well as the hull to dive deeper.
>
> You may think 3/4,or what ever else, is good but do you really want to
dive
> in a sub you THINK is safe for the depth your in?
> Dan H.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bruno masse" <rodin4@videotron.ca>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:55 PM
> Subject: 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

References:
- [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: Ian Roxborough <irox@ix.netcom.com>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: "Dan H." <JMachine@adelphia.net>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: "Adam Lawrence" <adteleka@in-tch.com>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: "Dan H." <JMachine@adelphia.net>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>
- Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
  - From: "Dan H." <JMachine@adelphia.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
Next by Date: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Viewport Toughness
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread