[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reply to: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ABS - 3/17.1.1 - Normal Ballast Sy stem
Hugo,
You are comparing apples to oranges in a couple of your
points. First of all please try to keep my comments in context. And
secondly you are looking at this from an operators standpoint and I am looking
at this from an engineering standpoint, both of which are very important, but
the differences must be pointed out. Safety is drilled into you from day
one, and for good reason, memorizing operating manuals is/was your bread and
butter, the lives of those 48 passengers are your responsibility. The engineer
designs the sub, it is then tested beyond its operating depth, and the system as
a whole is tested, the engineer then has a measure of confidence that the sub
works. It is then up to the pilot to ensure that these systems are
operated as designed, while he also has an acquired feel for the
boat which separates the boys from the men. This is to
ensure that the life of the sub is lived out. You then provide feedback to the
engineer on components that aren't holding up, or suggest maneuverability
improvements, etc., and then the owners, wanting to increase
profits, design and build versions IV, IX....
This helps me understand your reasoning for developing a
set of standards for PERSONAL submersibles. This is not possible
unless you also say that the people who operate a personal sub must also have a
permit or license to operate a personal sub. This is a noble idea but very
dangerous one. Let me point something out. As an engineer, we have derived
equations and these equations have been incorporated into standards and these
standards apply to commercial businesses for insurance purposes. These
standards are also available to the everyday Homer Simpson, but they are
optional. If Homer wants to invent something and then die testing it,
which many Homers have done, that is his own business. This is where
regulations become manipulative bunk and will force society to rely on
their government, or government appointed authorities (or engineers,
yikes), which will destroy the innovation of a society. If Homer has any
brain matter he will do all the research (and reference the appropriate
equations) on his design, and might even discover something that the
big boys missed. Cars are like psubs, we have the option to
pick and choose what we want to build and incorporate into our design, like
cars, there will be noticeable differences in design, but the purpose is the
same. As yet, our government doesn't have us all driving Chevy's, we are
still allowed to build a hot rod to whatever specs we want, ok sure, we might
not be allowed to drive them on government roads. Is that because we might kill
someone no, its because the drunks and criminals (and their lawyers) write
the rules and insurance companies profit from it.
As an engineer, If I design a sub and I want ABS approval,
their standards are not set in cement. Engineering judgment can supercede them,
and rules sometimes are adjusted because of that. This is also true for
ASME, API, ect... rules. The engineers on these comities sit down and
develop a standard, they are giving examples of applications that work, but
they cannot account for every design. Over the next ten years
we might see a shift in some of these standards where they are
grossly over designing (Example: designing based on UTS vs. YS). But
here is where the operator comes in. If the sub is driven into a rock, this
dynamic loading may give plastic flow which may lead to failure. So
engineers have to over-build based on the mysterious 'what if' factor . If
we can't design a sub that doesn't cost a fortune to build, engineers and pilots
are out of a job. The car evolution example of this is, lets under-build them
but encase the occupants with inflatable pillows.
Psubs is here to help
people REFERENCE, discuss and
understand the theory and applied mechanics in sub design, not regulate it with
a new standard. The ABS/ASME rules offer a good outline for discussions to
follow, keeping everyone on the same page with the potential of creating a
reference ARCHIVE that is in order or at least one that has our dialog
associated with sections that need clarification. Operating manuals have already
been written, we can reference them also. Offering an applied class, during one
of these conventions, that familiarizes people with operating a psub (like
a K-250), would be a good suggestion also.
Adam
----- Original Message -----
> OK Guys,
>
> I
re-thought my desicion, and it is really stupid of me to back off from
>
posting in this site. Submarines are my life and is what I love to do.
>
Everyone here seems to be a great person, and your honest comments are
>
refreshing. Sniff ... sob... sniff.... LOL...
>
> I promise
that I will keep my postings as impersonal and as objective as
> possible.
I do respect the fact that many here have the guts to get in a sub
> made
in their garage.
>
> Special thanks to Vance, Marten, and Steven
for their frankness of
> _expression_ and kind words, they are the main
reason of my re-thinking my
> stance.
>
> Vance, you are
right on the money. I have been blessed to dive and operate
> many
different subs. And to me personally, ballast is everything. This
>
applies to the time when I drove the Atlantis I, IV, IX, X, & XIV.
These
> subs displace 80 Tons and the VBT in the 48 passenger boat has a
capacity of
> up to 12,000 lbs of sea water. Even though they are
mosntrous in size, the
> difference between a good pilot and a mediocre
pilot (for these subs that
> is) is the ability to ballast the submersible
properly.
>
> As for the analogy between cars and subs, I
respectfully disagree with such
> comparison. Cars, ships, airplanes,
homes, buildings, appliances, SCUBA
> diving gear, computers, toys, and
just about any mass produced product; all
> of them come in every kind of
color, size, and persuasion. The common trait
> between them is that they
are all built under a basic core set of standards
> designed to make these
products safe.
>
> Some of these products require a certain degree
of knowledge and skills to
> operate, such as, SCUBA diving gear, Cars,
Aircraft, tools, boats, etc..
> The basic operating standards and
certifications established for these
> products are designed to give the
user a basic knowldge to allow the person
> operate such equipment safely,
and to ensure that all users meet a minimum
> agreed set of knowledge and
skills. Isn't safety the main purpose of these
> standards? Does anyone
honestly believe that these standards are made by a
> bunch of bozo's who
just want to manipulate what you and I do with our
> lives?
>
> The standards set forth by the ABS, are the result of many years
of
> development through the input (read heated arguments or honest
and candid
> discussions) from many agencies including The Society of
Naval Arquitects
> and Marine Engineers (SNAME), The Marine Technology
Society (MTS) , the US
> Navy, the US Coast Guard, the US Department of
Transportation, the National
> Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Institute of Electrical
> and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) and the American Society of Mechanical
> Engineers (ASME, who
set the standards for the construction and
> certification of Pressure
Vessels for Human Occupation PVHO, which includes
> manned submersibles).
If careful consideration is given to these documents,
> which are
available to the general public, the reader will see that the
> safety
concerns raised by each of these bodies of knowledge were not only
>
valid, but sound. They were created with the intent to prevent or
minimize
> the inherent risks and accidents associated with manned
submersibles that
> would hinder (or completely shut down) the growth of
an innovative and
> potentially profitable industry.
>
> One
of such publications is a book titled " International Safety Standard
>
Guidelines for the Operation of Tourist Submersibles" written by John A.
>
Pritzlaff, and published by the Society of Naval Arquitects and Marine
>
Engineers (SNAME). On the second sentence of the Foreword this book it
reads
> as follows: "It is our sincere hope that these safety standard
guidelines
> will see world-wide use and will serve as the basis for safe
operation for
> tourist submersibles". This book was dedicated to the late
Frank Busby, who
> many of us have in high regard. In the first sentence
of the second
> paragraph of the Introduction on page 4, it reads: "These
guidelines were
> written as a safety aid to all who design, build,
operate and ride in
> tourist submarines". Later on in the third sentence
of the same paragraph it
> reads: "The purpose of these safety
guidelines is to promote and maintain
> safety."
>
> These
people raised their concerns after seeing an increase in the
>
copnstruction and activity of tourist submarines. By defining safety
>
standards, the tourist submarine industry became under regulation by the
US
> Coast Guard in the US and by International Regulating Agencies such
as ABS
> and Det Norske Veritas Worldwide. These agencies created the
standard by
> which others would be measured. Their justifiable concerns
gave the tourist
> submarine industry the edge they needed to move
forward. If this is
> manipulative bunk, you be the judge.
>
> With this in mind I propose the creation of a set of standards for
Personal
> or Private submarines if you will. We could set discussions,
meetings, and
> agendas within an alloted time-line to bring arguments to
the table, look at
> what we can learn from the wisdom of publications
like the one mentioned
> above, and then come into an agreement which will
serve as a guiding
> standard for the safe design, contruction and
operation of Private /
> Personal submersibles.
>
> I
honestly believe that by giving our attention to these issues, which I
see
> raised over and over in this site, we can give direction and purpose
to our
> dreams of building and owning our own subs. And who knows, maybe
this could
> lead to the creation of a whole new industry.
>
> Anyone interested? Please, post your sincere opinion. Lets get the
ball
> running!
>
> Thanks to all again!
>
>
Sincerely,
>
> Hugo Marrero
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
>
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
>
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
>
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
>
from our organization.
>
> If you want to be removed from this
mailing list simply click on the
> link below or send a blank email
message to:
> removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
> Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs
by an
> automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
receipt
> of your request.
>
> mailto:removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
> PSUBS.ORG
> PO Box 311
> Weare,
NH 03281
> 603-529-1100
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************