From: NeophyteSG@aol.com
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ambient Vs. 1-Atm Quandary
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:34:29 EST
In a message dated 3/16/04 7:48:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
DJACKSON99@aol.com writes:
Watching the current builders bring their subs together is very
motivational,
but your ambient design is of special interest to me. Ambient Rules! :)
Not just a bit biased are we Doug? ;-) I've noticed over the months that
ambients tend to be viewed almost like ... [struggling for terms] Jr. PSUBs
or
"almost" PSUBs, but not in a truly maligning way by any means. I actually
envy
everyone who's building an ambient in terms of cost and complexity.
Generally
speaking you'll have your boats in the water far sooner and
less-expensively
than the rest of us. Because my planned operational envelope is
essentially
the same as for ambients ... up where there's light and the risks of
bailout
are less ... mine would be an ambient were it not for my desire to have it
hydrobatic. When I made the transition to a 1-atm design, *everything*
just got a
whole lot more complicated, costly and long-term. Therein lies my
quandary.
It's a war between truly loving the image I have of what I want (my UPS) in
all its glorious complexity & capabilities and the desire not to have to
wait
what I'm now projecting as a multiyear project, both in terms of design and
affordability, before actually getting wet. [minor tantrum in the
background ...
pay no attention to the crazy hippie engineer]
I love the added time (72hrs) and depth capabilities (now 300' operation
range) that the transition to a steel pressure hull and 1-atm design
brought.
Having a maximum diameter of 28" tapering to 18" for a pressure hull (steel
mummy-bag), means I also get a great safety margin in terms of depth
capacity
(1200+') with the same 1/4" steel as larger diametered craft with lower
ratings. I
also thoroughly enjoy the design process ... [raising hand] "Hi. My name
is
Shawn. I'm a design addict." I *know* it's a viable design and within my
abilities to achieve eventually, and I want it so bad I can taste it.
But, I'm also enough of a study of at least my own nature to also know that
the sooner I get something in the water, the less frustrating that path
will be
... and the greater the likelihood of my staying with it. So, I'm
seriously
considering taking a sidetrip on my design path and building a
non-hydrobatic
dry ambient version first. I can build and use the same exostructure
(thrusters, control surfaces, ballast system, etc.) but without the
pressure hull and
life support requirements of the 1-atm design. Since my design
incorporates
the ability to jettison everything from the pressure hull except emergency
ballast, theoretically, the transition from the dry ambient to a 1-atm
would be a
matter of swapping out the pressure hulls w/life support. Am I making
sense?
Thoughts, suggestions?
Warm Regards
Shawn
*****
"Call nothing thy own except thy soul.
Love not what thou art, but only what thou may become.
Do not pursue pleasure, for thou may have the misfortune to overtake it...
Live in the vision of that one for whom great deeds are done ..."
Man of LaMancha, D. Wasserman