[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
Yes, this is for the drop weight, but no, I didn't do what Thijs just
proposed. I'm afraid to say I just went with plain old grooves on the
shaft. The grooves will weaken it a bit, its true, but on the other hand
the shaft is pretty massive and is supported where the grooves are.
Alec
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Cox [mailto:ojaibees@ojai.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
Thijs,
If I'm not mistaken I think that is what Alec has done.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thijs Struijs" <thijs-struijs@planet.nl>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> I just posted a drawing (or at least i hope i did) to Moki files of a
thru
> hull fitting. It is just an idea for solving 2 problems: weakening the
shaft
> and machining an O-ring grove in the fitting. Maybe it is a solution.
> Have a look at:
> http://www.prismnet.com/~moki/subfiles.html
>
> Greatings,
>
> Thijs Struijs
> The Netherlands
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Cox" <ojaibees@ojai.net>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 7:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
>
>
> > Ok , so if I'm understanding this now the issue here is the strength
of
> the shaft. If that is the only issue I would have to say that it
would not
> make any difference whether the o ring is on the shaft or the inside
the
> fitting. Since it would be much easier to machine a O ring grove in
the
> shaft and also easier to inspect for burrs and put chamfer on the
edges of
> the grove I submit that putting the O rings on the shaft would be more
> advantages. If you have to turn that 1/2" shaft hard enough so that
it
> would sheer off then there is some other problem. Am I missing
something?
> >
> > Brian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan H." <jmachine@adelphia.net>
> > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> >
> >
> > > Brian,
> > > No, no Not at all.
> > >
> > > Either O-rings on the shaft, or O-rings in the housing will work.
As
> far as
> > > leaking, it's the shaft to housing clearance and the proper groove
depth
> > > that matter. And yes, hydraulic applications do sometimes use
O-rings
> in a
> > > shaft but not as a rule. If the shaft is the critical component,
the
> O-ring
> > > grooves are in the housing. Grooves in a shaft weaken it.
> > >
> > > Maybe I didn't explain myself well before. What I meant by my
earlier
> > > posting was, if you groove the shaft, the groove diameter, minis a
> little
> > > factored in for the stress risers created by the groove, becomes
the
> working
> > > diameter of the shaft. The weakest point! A groove does create
stress
> > > riser. If you break a shaft with grooves in it, it will always
fail in
> one
> > > corner of a groove. A properly designed O-ring groove has small
radii
> in
> > > it's corners, but still it's a week spot. If you take the same
shaft
> size,
> > > but put the O-ring in the housing, you can design around the full
shaft
> > > diameter.
> > >
> > > I tried to keep my shaft diameters from getting larger then needed
> because,
> > > as a shaft get larger it takes more force to turn when your deep.
At 400
> > > feet a one inch shaft has 160 pounds of force pushing in on it.
That
> > > creates friction that you have to overcome to turn it.
> > >
> > > Dan H.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Brian Cox" <ojaibees@ojai.net>
> > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 12:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Dan,
> > > > I knew that would draw a response ! I really
don't
> > > follow the reasoning on this. I simply do not understand what you
are
> > > saying. Don't most hydraulics have the O rings on the the shaft
and
> with
> > > those we're talking 3000 psi. If I had the O rings on the shaft
are you
> > > saying that I would not be able to turn the shaft? And the O ring
would
> > > leak because there is more stress on the corners of the O ring
grooves?
> I
> > > don't get it ! Sorry to be so difficult and annoying !
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Dan H." <jmachine@adelphia.net>
> > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:19 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Brian,
> > > > > O-rings on the shaft create areas of higher stress in the
corners of
> the
> > > > > O-ring grooves. Also your shaft diameter is the area that the
sea
> is
> > > acting
> > > > > on when calculating how much force is pushing inward on the
shaft.
> At
> > > depth
> > > > > that force creates some resistance to turning. But, for
sheer,
> tension
> > > and
> > > > > compression, your shaft diameter is only the root to the
O-ring
> groove
> > > minus
> > > > > a bit for the stress risers in the groove corners.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a bit more difficult putting the O-rings in the thru
hull, but
> the
> > > > > shaft in one size and most efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan H.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Brian Cox" <ojaibees@ojai.net>
> > > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:54 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dan, thanks for the insite, I'll probably go bigger on the
drop
> > > weight.
> > > > > My "O" rings are going to be on the shaft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Dan H." <jmachine@adelphia.net>
> > > > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:50 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brian,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You sound like your on the right track with your through
hulls.
> One
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > to consider with your drop weight through hulls is, how
your
> going
> > > to
> > > > > attach
> > > > > > > the handle inside the sub. If your going to drill through
the
> shaft
> > > you
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > want to consider a shaft larger then a half inch since
it's
> holding
> > > the
> > > > > drop
> > > > > > > weight and will get yanked through the hull if it breaks
or of
> the
> > > bolt
> > > > > > > shears. When making mine, I was visualizing the drop
banging up
> and
> > > > > down on
> > > > > > > it's shaft while tailoring down the road. Then I want to
depend
> it
> > > to
> > > > > hold
> > > > > > > the weight when diving.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had a bit of trouble with the through hulls necking down
in
> the
> > > weld
> > > > > area
> > > > > > > but cured the problem with a hand reamer after welding.
Use two
> > > > > O-rings,
> > > > > > > one near each end, for double protection and then you
won't be
> > > welding
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > reaming where they will be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dan H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Brian Cox" <ojaibees@ojai.net>
> > > > > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:00 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alec, If I'm envisioning that piece correctly it
started out
> as
> > > a
> > > > > 1.5"
> > > > > > > dia shaft and a portion was machined down to 1" , then the
part
> is
> > > > > inserted
> > > > > > > from the outside of the sub where the lip keeps the part
from
> > > blowing
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the sub under pressure. I probably don't have your
dimensions
> quite
> > > > > right
> > > > > > > but I think I see the part. Are the shaft and hole 1"
+/- 2
> > > > > thousandths?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Alec Smyth" <Asmyth@changepoint.com>
> > > > > > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 4:28 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, there's a reason. Because the sub is hydrobatic,
when
> the
> > > sub
> > > > > is at
> > > > > > > a 90 degree roll the drop weight will exert a bending
moment. So
> I
> > > made
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > stubby. The maximum diameter is 1.5", and its set in an
insert
> that
> > > is
> > > > > 3" in
> > > > > > > diameter. The difference between the diameters of the
shaft and
> the
> > > hole
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > only 2 thousandths of an inch, so that the O rings cannot
> extrude
> > > and so
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > insert will help the shaft resist the bending moment. And
the
> reason
> > > I
> > > > > said
> > > > > > > "maximum diameter" is that there is a 1" section on the
shaft
> too,
> > > to
> > > > > > > prevent the ambient pressure from shooting it into the
boat
> after
> > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > the drop weight, or when the sub is inverted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry for writing a book on such a small topic...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alec
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Brian Cox [mailto:ojaibees@ojai.net]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Fri 2/27/2004 5:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > > > > > > > > Cc:
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Alec, I read a few posts back that your drop
weight
> > > shaft
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > like 2" or something, it seamed rather large was there
some
> reason
> > > for
> > > > > > > that?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Alec Smyth" <Asmyth@changepoint.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:28 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With a 1.25" insert, you have added much more
> reinforcement
> > > than
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > material you removed with a 0.5" shaft hole. If I remember
> right,
> > > the
> > > > > rule
> > > > > > > of thumb is that you should add twice as much as the hole
> removed.
> > > So it
> > > > > > > should be sufficient.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alec
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Brian Cox [mailto:ojaibees@ojai.net]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Fri 2/27/2004 3:51 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org
> > > > > > > > > > Cc:
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] thru hull fittings
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi All, I am in the process of machining thru
hull
> fittings
> > > > > (316L
> > > > > > > ss) that will have 1/2" shafts running through them to
turn
> valves,
> > > turn
> > > > > > > rudders, and other functions as well, drop weight, and
possibly
> move
> > > > > trim
> > > > > > > ballast ;-) . The fittings that I am machining at the
> moment
> > > are 1
> > > > > 1/4"
> > > > > > > od with the 1/2" id ( for the shaft) is that 1 1/4" a
big
> enough
> > > > > chunk of
> > > > > > > steel to be welded through 1/4" A516 70 or should that
OD be
> > > larger
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > some reason?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank You
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Brian Cox
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ================================================================
> > Deze e-mail is door E-mail VirusScanner van Planet Internet
gecontroleerd
> op virussen.
> > Op http://www.planet.nl/evs staat een verwijzing naar de actuele
lijst
> waar op wordt gecontroleerd.
> >
>
>