RE: Reply to: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ABS - 3/17.1.1 - Normal Ballast System

["Marten Liebster" <mliebster@tbteam.com>]

My expertise doesn't come even remotely close to what these two gentlemen
have. However, I'd like to present a different viewpoint, that of a newbie. 
 
In my short time of being a part of this group, I've learned so much, both
from the general postings and emails to individuals directly. If this
information would be complied into a set of standards for personal subs, it
would be extremely beneficial to a newbie, such as myself. It would be a
good starting point, much like the "design guidelines" section on the Psubs
site, (I especially appreciated the article authored by Gary Boucher).
 
This group is not an official body with authority to enforce standards or to
certify designs. So these standards would be more like guidelines, not some
thing that would be set in stone that one had to follow.  So a
designer/engineer still has the freedom to deviate from the guidelines as
set forth in the document. In my opinion, it might be thought of a best
practices type of document. 
 
For example, consider the case of Pierre's BIG. If the document stated that
freeboard MUST be 2.5', it would be near impossible for Pierre to go by
this, his sub is only 38" tall. The fact that he couldn't meet this
"requirement" doesn't invalidate his design. 
 
My concern would be if people viewed these as a set of rules. If anyone
deviated from them, they might be castigated by other members of this group.
This may cause a split between the followers of standards and those that
don't. This may in turn squelch the interest of new ones. 
 
The goal of the document, IMHO, is to help improve safety and designs, not
to be a rigid set of rules. It will be another "must read" for a new
personal sub designer.
 
Marten 

PS I've got my flame retardant suit on, so bring it on :-)

________________________________

From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Marrero
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:29 AM
To: 'personal_submersibles@psubs.org'
Subject: RE: Reply to: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ABS - 3/17.1.1 - Normal Ballast
System


Adam,
 
I haven't ignored your post. I want to make sure that I take the time to
absorb your comments and to put myself in your shoes. I will post in reply
in due time.
 
Hugo

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Adam Lawrence [mailto:adteleka@in-tch.com]
	Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:08 PM
	To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
	Subject: Re: Reply to: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ABS - 3/17.1.1 - Normal
Ballast System
	
	
	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 ----- 
	From: "Hugo Marrero" <HMarrero@hboi.edu <mailto:HMarrero@hboi.edu> >
	To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org
<mailto:personal_submersibles@psubs.org> >
	> 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
<mailto: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
<mailto:removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org> 
	> 
	> PSUBS.ORG
	> PO Box 311
	> Weare, NH  03281
	> 603-529-1100
	>
************************************************************************
	>
************************************************************************
	>
************************************************************************ 




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************