Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] concrete submarine

[diagroto@ibague.cetcol.net.co]

Hello Michael,
Built that sub standing on its keel (not standing up in the air).
Some photos of building site are in internet.
http://imulead.com/sub.html
Have no photos of the smaller one was a 2,2m cylinder 70cm diameter.
prone position 1 ton without ballast. - trailering around this and going over 
slip was complicated. - Altough doable. Autonomous sub-yacht design of second 
sub was better idea (at least from my point of view) think carsten made a 
similar experience.
9m boat did not take over live. Lived 500km from the harbour in vienna.
Had not to take it out of water during 10 years (just scratch algies each month)
Arrived with car, opened hatch, started diesel - ready to dive.
This low maintainace cost is one of the biggest advantages of concrete hulls.
No rust no repaint...no repair, no maintainance.
Made an intent to patent idea, did not work (guy at the patent office did not 
understand). - Have no problem to share my ideas.

Other comments:
Critical mass of knowledge:
 - Concrete construction is not experimental at all.
remember there are guys making submarine tunnels everyday. No type special 
condition in a sub that forces concrete in a new or special way as it is not 
forced in everyday construction sites.

Drill holes for screws.
see those tunnel guys drilling holes everywhere in their tunnels although there 
are mountains or oceans standing above - no catastrophic failure no big 
structural weakness no sweating ingeneers.

Viewports on concrete sub:
see earlier diskussion on this forum.

Tecnical a tunnel is a big sub lying in the mud of the ocean floor built in 
really shitty conditions - can not be slipped and repaired in harbour during 
livetime. Building a sub is a sunshine project in compare.


Greetings 
Wilfried


Mensaje citado por: Michael Edwards <me@sustainkauai.org>:

> Hello Wilfried:
> 
> diagroto@ibague.cetcol.net.co wrote:
> 
> > Hello Michael
> >
> > My experience is that a small sub of 1-2 tons is to heavy to
> trailer,
> > need cranes to bring it to water, need surface ship to bring it to
> dive place,
> > is so uncomfortable that dive time is very limited.
> 
> I have a lot of practice with trailering and launch boats in the 2 to 5
> ton range.
> 
> Although subs would need more water depth to float off the trailer than
> a regular
> boat, I think it might be do-able. As far as to surface ship, here I
> live, after
> launching,
> the dive site is less than a mile from the launch ramp. Yes the dive
> time is
> limited,
> I am used to limits, as are the batteries and breathing gas. I don't
> plan on being
> 
> in this boat over 3 hours. In my experience, very few good dive sites
> are close
> to a deep water harbor. I trailer able boat with limited range that can
> get close
> to the dive site in the first place has some advantages.
> 
> > In a concrete sub it makes little difference if it is 2 tons or 20
> tons. (hull
> > cost) machine engineering in a 2 ton ship is complicated (all on
> outside) in 20
> > tons easy (all inside - motor, tanks etc. very similar to yacht).
> > Once in water 20 tons boat can stay in a normal harbour for years. No
> crane no
> > surface ship. Minimum size is same as you see for autonomous yacht.
> Can be done
> > with some 5 m (complicated) but is nice with some 10m.
> 
> We do have a two harbors on this island, on the other side. I would love
> to make a
> 
> larger version, as you have. Ideally it would be diesel/electric with
> the range to
> go 90 miles
> between islands. I think we would need to stretch your last boat to
> about 50 foot
> to do this.
> I have owned up to 350 tons ships, it takes over your life. A
> trailerable boat,
> and
> you can still have your life. Although the big sub is seductive!
> Right now, I'm trying to see if this "micro" sub is do-able, or even
> practical.
> 
> > Built the hull standing, from material was wood, the only problem is
> the cone,
> > shape. You can solve it by using a combination of paralel and
> triangular wood
> > pieces in the slip form fixed on their place with wire. The more cone
> shape the
> > more triangular pieces you use. All other is same as normal forming.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Wilfried
> 
> Wow, standing up, like 20 some feet in the air? I can see some
> complications with
> a longer boat. You would have to dig a hole to build a big one? Have you
> thought
> of using concrete spheres with a steel hull? Although I can see how much
> better
> it is by keeping it all concrete. Do you have any pictures of the
> construction
> process
> or your smaller boat that you would share? I believe last month you said
> something
> 
> about patients? I wish to respect your property information.
> 
> I think the major navies would not be happy of a lot of "cheap"
> submarines.
> I love your idea. I believe it is a real technology disrupter ;-)
> 
> Best regards, Michael
> 
> >
> >
> > Mensaje citado por: Michael Edwards <me@sustainkauai.org>:
> >
> > > Hello Wilfried:
> > >
> > > diagroto@ibague.cetcol.net.co wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Michael, curtis, brian, Gene, Carsten, everyone
> interested,
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion to do a sub you can get in and out are two proven
> > > concepts.
> > > > A simple wet sub at ambient pressure, or a bigger dry sub with
> diver
> > > chamber
> > > > like carsten did. Altough i think that anything else is possible
> i
> > > would be
> > > > careful not to combine disadvantages of various different and
> proven
> > > concepts.
> > > > (water in sub, pressure regulation-complicated, floating
> regulation,
> > > etc.)
> > > > Anyhow i agree with carsten that this is a new idea worth to
> > > explore.
> > > > Would not do it with a concrete hull. (sensible to internal
> > > overpressure).
> > >
> > > Thank you Wilfried, for pointing out the "fatal flaw". You were
> clear in
> > > your
> > > earlier threads
> > > that concrete shines in compression, not with pressurization. I
> guess I
> > > presumed
> > > that like water tanks, the material could stand a certain amount
> of
> > > pressurization/
> > > tension?
> > >
> > > > You also should be aware that there is a BIG difference between
> > > ferrocement
> > > > construction (meshing glue cement in...) and massive concrete
> > > construction.
> > > > Ferrocement is a concept that is used in yacht building only
> (not
> > > other
> > > > engineering ) had a LOT of problems especially rusting of mashing
> and
> > > crackling
> > > > due to not optimal use of concrete and lack of proper
> compactation. It
> > > also is
> > > > specially problematic for small yachts below 10m due to thin
> walls
> > > while it can
> > > > be used with relative good results for bigger yachts.
> > > > Massive concrete is widly used in submarine tunnels (salt water
> under
> > > pressure)
> > > > in drilling platforms (wave action) and offshore oil tanks and
> dam
> > > building in
> > > > same or more severe conditions than it would be in a sub.
> > > > In all this conditions concrete is compacted as in normal
> construction
> > > what
> > > > limits it to walls of 5cm minimum. - You need 2cm of concrete
> above
> > > steelbars
> > > > as minimum to avoid rust and distribute forces. You need space in
> your
> > > mold to
> > > > bring concrete in and compact it properly.
> > > > I had a double mold (kind of gliding mold as used for television
> > > towers or
> > > > bridges, boat consists in cone shape rings with variable diameters
> -
> > > no secret)
> > > > This means i did a cone shape ring every week and form was made to
> be
> > > recycled
> > > > and to adapt to any ring diameter and wall thickness on both
> ends.
> > >
> > > I have a million questions here. How many days did this "pour"
> take?
> > > Were the cones added on to an "internal" male mold? Or were cones
> > > used for both the inner and outer forms? Was the hull formed on
> it's
> > > side or standing upright? What material did you make the forms out
> of?
> > > I have seen slip forms in cast buildings but nothing anywhere near
> > > this
> > > complex of a form in concrete.
> > >
> > > > You are completly right, if you do not compact your concret
> properly
> > > during
> > > > construction (as in many ferrocement constructions) you will have
> a
> > > poor
> > > > crackling water barrier, endless rusting of steelbars - final
> failure.
> > > If you
> > > > do it right you will have your steel completly protected (2cm
> below
> > > surface).
> > > > Every building material has its limitations. And one of the
> > > limitations of
> > > > concrete is wall thickness below 5cm. This makes it little ideal
> for
> > > small
> > > > trailerable wet sub. But it can be used with excellent results
> for
> > > bigger thick
> > > > wall pressure standing dry sub.
> > > > Greetings
> > > > Wilfried
> > >
> > > Wilfried; do you feel in retrospect, that the small 2 meter sub was
> the
> > > wrong
> > > material
> > > for this small size? As a practical matter, what is the minimum
> size
> > > you
> > > would recommend for a "dry" concrete sub?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
>