I chose to go ambient due to the reduced
costs and because I thought it was more obtainable.
Having considered it (
and having the hull still sitting in my garage) I might convert to 1 atm
before the building begins.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of DJACKSON99@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:46
PM
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST]
Ambient Vs. 1-Atm Quandary
I'm not too sure you'd really save
that much time or money, and you sure had convinced me that 1 atm was
the best and safe way for you given what you want to achieve. I can
really see the fun of standing a sub on tail and breaching the surface,
and that would not be possible in an ambient. Maybe the time and
cost are cut significantly if you just built for 100 feet with the
possibility of upgrading through hulls, acrylic, etc for deeper water?
That would give you a working sub and experience before you build
that thruster that has to work at 300 ft. I guess
it's really is a questions of where you plan to operate. So
where do you plan to use your sub? Is it for thrills in the water
column or do you plan to chase after a whale?
And yes, wet and ambient subs are
second class citizens at PSUBS, but sometimes they are the perfect
solution. I choose dry ambient because I plan to stay around 30 feet
for most dives and go slow. The the pretty stuff is mainly shallow and
there are lots of wrecks found near the shores. I
also want to stay dry in the winter, and finally I want to use it for wake
boarding. Try that in a 1 atm!
In a message dated 3/16/2004
12:37:41 PM Central Standard Time, NeophyteSG@aol.com writes:
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?
|