Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Shedding Weight

[Ian Roxborough <irox@ix.netcom.com>]

Well, I can't think of any reason it won't work, technically.
There is the problem of dealing with rips and such, of course.
Also, making sure there is a large enough safety valve to
let excess gas out of the bladder, so it doesn't over inflate
and burst, if it gets some gas in at depth then rises. But,
does using a flexable bladder like ballast tanks really buy
you much weight savings?

I would imagine that a tough flexable bladder like ballast tank
would weigh more than say a light weight ridged GRP (constructed
using fiber glass or kevlar mat) ballast tank with an open bottom?

I could see flexable ballast tank (read collapsable ballast) being
useful from the point of view of once submerged you don't have to
move around the water which would be in your ballast tanks.

Ian.
--

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:33:53 EST
NeophyteSG@aol.com wrote:

> 
> I'm setting up some of the prelim calculations on my current design and keep 
> running into the need/desire to shed some more weight.  So, again I come back 
> to the question of whether soft, bladder-like inflatable ballast chambers 
> (e.g., kevlar-reinforced Hypalon pontoon/salvage tubes) are feasible.  As long as 
> the differential pressure is less than the bursting limit of the tube it 
> *should* work, yes?  Or am I missing something?
> 
> Warm Regards
> Shawn
> 
> 
> *****
> 
> "To see a World in a Grain of Sand
> And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
> Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
> And Eternity in an hour."
> 
> -- Auguries of Innocence, William Blake, ca 1803
>