|
I will address your post Ian in the order of each
of the points you raised.
1. I said..."
An ambient sub allows water to enter its INTERIOR to
dive.
The Hunley did this with her open top and open to the hull interior ballast tanks".
You said..."This is wrong, any sub which has VBT inside the pressure hull
could
meet this discription. And you you could build an ambient sub which doesn't let water into it's interior, so this seems irrelavent". I will address your above statement in two parts since you
mentioned two subjects in it.
Part 1. I am not wrong about the Hunley's ballast tanks
allowing water to enter her hull's interior so she could dive. Her ballast tanks
were open top and open to the sub's hull interior. You say any sub which has
Hunley style tanks could meet this description?
Well
what other sub can you name that has such ballast tanks?
Please name one other SUSPOSEDLY pressure hull,
SUSPOSEDLY 1 atm sub that has Hunley style open top, open to the hull interior
ballast tanks. Can you name even one?
Part 2. So what if you can build an ambient sub which doesn't
let water into it's interior? You can also build a sub heavy enough so it
doesn't need ballast tanks and can be lowered and submerged by a
crane. What has the possibility of building
an ambient sub that
doesn't let water into her interior
have to do with the fact that most ambient subs DO let water into their
interior. Just as the Hunley let water into her interior. So it is VERY
relevant.
2. I said..."The water pressure entering the sub's interior when an
ambient
sub dives, compresses the atmosphere in the sub's interior just as it did with the Hunley".
You said..."Yes, there would be a minor internal pressure increase from
venting
the tanks. (Also note water does NOT have to enter an ambient sub's interior for it to dive.) Another two part statement that I will address in two
parts.
Part 1. You agree that FLOODING (not venting, you got it
backwards) the tanks would compress the atmosphere in the hull and make the
atmosphere no longer 14.7 lbs per sq in inside the Hunley, and therefore she
could NOT be 1 atm.
You can
look up websters dictionary if you want for the definition of venting.
Part 2. Ambient subs have an always open to the
water section in their hulls. I believe it is most common for water to
enter an ambient subs interior for it to dive. I don't think anyone here will
argue that it is most common and everyone knows what I meant.
3. I said..."An
ambient sub uses air to force water out of the sub's
INTERIOR
to surface, just as they did with the Hunley". You said..."I don't believe this for a minute. How did
they use air to force water
out? Sailers breaking wind maybe? The bits about the Hunley's operation I've read about claim that they used a HAND PUMP to empty the ballast tanks" Your statement
is in four parts so I will address it in four parts.
Part 1. I am
sorry you do not believe what is true.
Part 2. You
asked how the Hunley crew used their air to force water out of the ballast
tanks. They did it by using the AIR in the sub that was compressed inside the
hull to ALLOW them to pump the water out.
When the
water came into the hull, it compressed the atmosphere. It is true that they
used a hand pump to force the water out again, but if the atmosphere had not
been compressed by the water coming in, they would not have
been
able
to pump the water out so that the atmosphere would expand again to 1
atm. Otherwise if the water had entered the sub WITHOUT compressing the
atmosphere that would mean they would have had to lose air for the water
to
enter
the sub. Then if they tried to pump the water out they would have had a vacumn
in the sub corresponding to the water they pumped out. The vacumn
would then preclude them pumping very much water out.
So
the air in the sub ALLOWED them to pump the water out. What other SUSPOSEDLY
pressure hull sub do you know of that uses its compressed INTERIOR HULL air to
allow you to pump out the water? None. Only the ambient subs
use
their INTERIOR HULL air along with an air tank of pressurized air to push
the water out of the hull. The Hunley did not need an air tank of pressurized
air. She used her own HULL PRESSURIZED AIR to ALLOW the water to be pumped
out.
The
pressurized air in the Hunley's hull did not directly push the water out, but
without it being pressurized they would not have been able to expell the water.
Part 3. You said...."How did they use air to force
water out? Sailers (sic) breaking wind maybe? Oh boo hoo, that was not a very
nice thing to say and I think I will make a big deal about it and whine that you
are not nice like you said about me
for
absolutely no reason. Very childish Ian. Everyone here knows exactly what you
have said and what I have said and everyone here knows I am not rude, crude,
abusive or not nice unless someone acts that way first. Then I will give it
right back
to them like
I am giving it back to you now. So let's dispense with the personal attacks here
against me by saying I ascribed you saying things that were not what you said
and that I am not nice for doing it. I never said you said anything other
than
what you
wrote for all to see here. I can admit when I am wrong and not take a cheap shot
against someone to divert attention away from the fact that I was wrong like you
did.
Part 4. That is correct that they used a hand pump
to pump the water out as I described in part 2.
4. You said...."Well there you go, you got 1 out 3"
I
believe I have proven that I "got" 3 out of 3 Ian.
Let me ask you THIS question though, suspose I had only gotten 1 or 2 out of 3?
That would still show the Hunley had attributes and qualities of an ambient
sub design. So my point would be made that the Hunley had attributes and
qualities
of an ambient sub even if I had gotten just 1 or 2 wouldn't it? It would still
have proved the Hunley had some attributes of an ambient sub wouldn't it?
Proving my point that she had attributes of both an ambient and a pressure hull
sub,
and that she is therefore a hybrid of the two types.
5. You said..."There where (sic) a few other error in your text , but I can't
bothered
point them out at this point - most of them have been address in my other emails, as have most of your questions. Ian, there are
so many errors in your text as to the facts, that I can't be bothered
either to point them all out at this point. I have addressed the Hunley having
attributes of ambient and pressure hull subs. I believe I have
proven
it with logic and reason AND been nice in
doing so. The conclusion is inescapable. The Hunley was a hybrid of both ambient
design and pressure hull design.
6. You said..."I'm sorry you don't understand the ambient vs 1ATM, and I'm sorry I
can't
explain it in a way you can understand. But I don't want to continue this exchange, I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall. Maybe somebody else has some way of putting that's better". I very well DO understand ambient vs 1 ATM Ian. It
was not nice for you to say I don't. Now I'm going to pout, sniff, sniff. (Not
going to let you live THAT one down). I do not need you to explain it to me Ian.
I know the difference.
You do you not want to continue "this
exchange" because you feel like you are "banging your head on a brick wall"?
Waaa! Ian is not very nice and even though I know what I am talking about
he thinks I don't and it is clear he
Isn't very nice and does not want to help me
understand, even though I already do. Smile.
7. You said..."I will not respond to any more of these "Hunley is ambient/hybrid"
emails."
I say....That is fine Ian. That is your right. See how
nice I am?
Kindest
regards,
Bill
Akins.
|