|
Hugo,
Would you email me a copy of the paper you wrote
"Do we Need Safety Standards for Private
Submersibles?" This will help me understand your thoughts and help ensure
that I am accurately disagreeing or agreeing with you.
Thanks,
Adam
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:29
AM
Subject: RE: Reply to: [PSUBS-MAILIST]
ABS - 3/17.1.1 - Normal Ballast Sy stem
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
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
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
|