[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stupid Idea was Burst Valve



Hi Rick.
 
I think you have me confused with someone else's post who said "we spend a lot of money keeping the water out of our subs". That was not me. It was also not me who labeled this thread a "stupid idea" I was simply responding to the thread. 
 
What I did was offer ALTERNATIVES to flooding. What I said was I liked the idea of a diver lockout or escape pod much better than breathing thru a regulator and enduring hypothermia while waiting for the hull to fill up so I could open the hatch.
 
I never said having a flood valve was stupid or that you shouldn't have one. I just offered alternatives.
 
I DID agree with Dan in a later post than the ones below, that if you have NO other alternative built into your sub for escape other than to flood it to get out, then to save yourself of course flooding would be necessary as a last resort.  
 
I think you might have me confused with what someone elses post said Rick.
 
Kindest Regards,
Bill Akins.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stupid Idea was Burst Valve

Bill
I strongly agree with Dan H. regarding the flood valve.  You can NEVER have enough redundancy to getting your self back to the surface! Yes, we do spend a lot of money keeping the water out of our subs but if it is between my life or getting the inside of my sub wet, guess which one I'll choose,,,
Rick Patton
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan H.
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stupid Idea was Burst Valve

Bill, 
Take a look around the PSUBS site and you'll only find one home built sub big enough to have a divers lockout chamber, Carstens sub.  Most actual personal subs are really small.  There is only ONE chamber, the one your in, and anything else would pretty much double the size of the sub. 
 
There is much more of a possibility that a sub pilot wound end up in an emergency situation at the bottom then getting there.  If my sub is rated for 350 feet I wouldn't likely be diving where the bottom is 600 feet down.  In most cases, it's the bottom that your want to visit.  Why even go in deeper water?
 
There could be entanglement hazards any where in the water, but most likely near the bottom where lines and nets settle to. There are several systems you could use to bring up a sub in case of a system failure but entanglement may render them all useless.  Leaving your sub and swimming to the surface may be a futile effort if your down deep, but what if the bottom is only 60 feet down.  If stuck there and you've waited as long as you think you can and help hasn't shown up to cut you free, your going to want to, TRY anyway, to exit the sub. 
 
I know there are those that say flood valves are a waste of time, and even a bad thing to have in a sub, but if you already ran through your emergency procedure check list, also your life support system time and your still sitting in the dark at the bottom, wouldn't you feel it was worth the hundred dollars for a few fittings and a ball valve? 
 
You know you can't push the hatch open once your down more then a foot.  After that you have to bleed off your HP air into the hull to increase the pressure but if that doesn't bring it up to ambient, all you can do is let in water and compress the cabin air more.  Remember you most likely already used most of your HP air blowing ballast tanks at depth to break free.  Eventually you can get out.  If you compress the cabin air fast enough and your not down to deep, you might live to tell the tale.  Might, is still better then dying at the bottom.
 
I would rather return to the surface any other way if possible, but in a small P-sub, $100 worth of plumbing fittings and that one more item on the checklist may someday be the difference in living or not.  It's a VERY VERY last resort, after you used all your upward thrust, blew all your ballast, dropped your drop leads and waited for help. 
 
 I'll flood and throw away my sub anytime, for even the chance, to live another day.
Dan H.
----- Original Message -----
From: Akins
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stupid Idea was Burst Valve

Hi forum.
 
Why not have a diver lock out chamber as an escape device instead of a burst/scuttle valve for the main hull? The only reason I can think of that someone would
 
have a valve to let water into the subs main hull, is so the pressure inside would equal the outside so you could open the hatch to bail out. That means the sub would be dropping like a
 
rock at that point and you probably wouldn't make it to the surface anyway by the time the sub flooded enough for you to open the hatch and bail out. But with a
 
diver lockout chamber you wouldn't need to flood the sub, just get into the lockout chamber and flood it and then open the lockout chamber exterior hatch to escape.
 
Of course you would be lucky to escape anyway in a situation where you might have to use the lockout chamber because if you were going down by the time you made the decision
 
to bail out via the lockout you might be so deep your body may not be able to stand the exterior water pressure. Also you probably would only get one person out since there would
 
not be enough time to blow out the lockout chamber for another person to use before the sub imploded if you were going down fast. Totally depends on your depth of course.
 
Has anyone built a p sub that has an escape pod built into it that could
 
jettison from the main sub and has its own adjustable buoyancy? Just an egg, tube, or sphere that has no motor and a simple breathing air and buoyancy system, for emergency bailout built to hold the entire crew capicity of your p sub.
 
Kind of like an adjustable buoyancy non line tethered version of the emergency McCann resuce chamber diving bell that recovered submariners invented and built by Commander Charles B."Swede"  Momsen the inventor of the momsen lung,
 
 
 
Only much more streamline and actually built into the sub so it doesn't stick out and can be jettisoned. Definately would increase the size of the sub though to have this. I like this idea much better than flooding the hull and breathing thru a
 
regulator while hoping the main hatch will open and having to endure hypothermia and extreme outside water pressure.
 
Kindest Regards,
Bill Akins.
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stupid Idea was Burst Valve


I agree that the Burst valve isn't a good idea, which could end up killing
people.

The flood valve (AKA scuttle valve) is NO JOKE and is going to save lifes.
That is unless you're spending so much time and money that you would prefer
to die rather than get your sub wet and live.  Of course this is the VERY
VERY LAST OPTION (well second last if you count dying as an option). You'd
have to be a fool not spend the few $$ on way out of your sub in an
emergency.

For those who choose to death over a flood valve, make sure you have
enough CO2 absober to out last your O2 supply, otherwise it's going to
end with a very painful headache.

Captain goes down with his ship?

Ian.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005