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
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************