From: "Akins" <lakins1@tampabay.rr.com>
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another response from Hunley archaeologist.
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:41:57 -0400
You raise valid points Ian. But if the Hunley was not ambient, she could
not technically be 1 atmosphere either, since any compression of her
atmosphere over 1 atmosphere of pressure would technically make her not 1
atmosphere.
I am starting to wonder if the Hunley is actually neither, but a hybrid of
both, not falling technically into either catagory but having attributes of
both. Something I have never seen before.
I received another e mail from the Hunley archaeologist Michael P. Scafuri
as a follow up to his first e mail. In it he said that they are not really
sure how the Hunley worked yet, and that further investigation may prove
that she was
slightly buoyant and did have to use her forward motion and dive planes to
submerge like the later Holland did. This somewhat contradicted his first e
mail and further confuses the issue.
I wrote him back again asking for a definite answer as to whether the
Hunley was ambient, not ambient, or some kind of hybrid. I also mentioned
we would love to know if she was always slightly positive buoyant as soon
as he
and the conservatory can determine that. So bottom line here is the best
information we have coming from the archaeology experts is that they are
not sure of a lot of things yet. I'm trying to find out for us all, but we
may have to wait
for more investigation by them, or we may actually not ever know. Here's
our latest correspondence below. The first below one is my response to his
original e mail, the second one his lastest and second e mail to me, and
the third one my latest e mail
to him that I am waiting for a reply from him on. I'll post his reply here
as soon as I receive it. The mystery of the Hunley goes on.
Kindest regards,
Bill Akins.
----- Original Message -----
From: Akins
To: Michael Scafuri
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: H.L. Hunley
Thank you very much Mr. Scafuri.
I posted your reply to the PSUBS.ORG forum where we have been discussing
the Hunley a lot. I know they will be glad to hear from you.
I had thought that the Hunley was always slightly positively buoyant like
the later Holland submarine was and that she had to use her dive planes to
force her under like the Holland did. From your reply it seems the Hunley
was technically ambient but not always slightly positive buoyant.
Thanks again for your reply clearing these questions for me.
Kindest regards,
Bill Akins.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Scafuri
To: Akins
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: H.L. Hunley
I am glad to help. Please keep in mind though that, at this point, we
don't really know how the Hunley performed, how seaworthy she was, exactly
where her waterline was, etc. It is still speculation for the most part -
educated speculation but speculation nonetheless. We might find out one
day that yes, she did in fact need her dive planes to submerge; I don't
think so, but with such a unique vessel almost anything could ultimately be
true. The Hunley has surprised us before.
Take care,
Mike Scafuri
Hi Mr. Scafuri.
Thanks again for your help and explainations.
I take from your most recent e mail that it is actually unclear if the
Hunley was always slightly positive buoyant like the Holland submarine was.
As you said you may find that the Hunley was only able to submerge by using
her forward motion and dive
planes to keep her under just like the Holland submarine. I understand it
will take a lot of time and research to acertain exactly how she really
worked.
One thing I hope you could clear up for me is whether the Hunley was
technically ambient or not. Was she ambient because her atmosphere was
slightly compressed due to the ballast tanks
being open to the hull interior? Or was she NOT ambient because of what my
fellow Psub.org member says here....."I still don't see any reason that the
Hunley is ambient. If it was ambient it couldn't
dive without pressure compensation, this does not appear to the the case.
Unless some piece of information is missing, the Hunley is 1ATM. The crew
were always subjected to surface pressure (give or take the very small
amount of
pressure increase from the ballast tanks venting into the cabin). Once
submerged, it doesn't matter what depth the Hunley is at, the crew will be
under the same pressure, if it was ambient, the pressure the crew would be
experiencing would
be the same as the external water pressure. If somebody can supply me the
internal volume of the Hunley and the volume of water used to dive, I will
calculate the internal pressure after diving."
So Mike, could you please clear up for us whether the Hunley was
technically ambient or not? Was she some kind of a hybrid that was neither
totally ambient nor totally 1 atmosphere?
If that is the case then how do we catagorize what the Hunley was?
I would also like to know if she was always slightly positive buoyant (like
the Holland) when that can be acertained finally by you and the
conservatory.
We have been discussing the Hunley ongoing for a long time at our Psubs.org
forum, and it would be nice to know how she really worked.
Thanks again for taking the time to get back with me.
Kindest regards,
Bill Akins.