Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub

["Dan H." <JMachine@adelphia.net>]

Bob,

 

All "K" subs were designed and built in steel.  I guess if they were designed in aluminum, we'd be taking about aluminum and if they were designed in fiberglass, we'd be talking about fiberglass. 

 

I for one am most familiar, and have the equipment to work with, steel.  I'm sure if you have the expertise to work with other materials we will all be happy to hear of your progress as you build.   I know there are many materials that are superior to steel but there is a lot of history with steel, it's cheep and relatively low tech to work with.  Steel has what I want. 

 

Note, a sub is in compression not in tension as a high pressure container is.

 

Dan H.

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Duncan

To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 1:16 PM

Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub

Why do we have to use so much steel? Composites are very strong. There are very high pressure gas containers using an 1100 (pure Al) aluminum, wrapped in epoxy fiberglass.

"Dan H." <JMachine@adelphia.net> wrote:

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"
To:
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 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 le! ngth 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.
>

Two guiding princ! iples govern Israel Naval Commando doctrine:

1.Every defense system is vulnerable.

2.The enemy can deal with weapons and operational methods that are known; for that reason, naval commandos use imagination, daring and initiative, to create situations which cannot be anticipated.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search