|
Hi Jim.
How do we define "minor"?
True "IF" the Hunley had been a COMPLETELY ambient
sub they could have opened the hatch and escaped if the conning tower glass had
not been shot out by a union rifleman as the archaeologists claim is possible
and water either entered the hull that way or from
the Hunley having
her hatch open when she attacked and too much water came in before they
closed the hatch and they submerged. They actually do not know for sure what
swamped her, but it is a fact that when they found her the glass in the conning
tower had
been broken out, possibly by a union rifle bullet.
But then again the Hunley was not a COMPLETELY
ambient sub. She had attributes of being both ambient and pressure hull. At
different times the Hunley was acting as ambient, at other times she acted as a
pressure hull. When her ballast tank valves were
closed she acted as a pressure hull. I am sure they
would have closed the ballast tank valves AFTER they submerged right after
sinking the Housatonic, so she would have been acting as a pressure hull at that
time and therefore they would not have been able to
open the hatch to escape.
Once again, the Hunley took water into her hull
INTERIOR like MANY common ambient subs do to submerge. She had her
atmosphere compressed like MANY common ambient subs do by the water pressure
coming into her. Although she did not have
compressed air tanks, her compressed atmosphere
ALLOWED them to pump the water out of her or else there would have been air loss
for the water to be there in the first place and therefore pumping out water
then would have been impossible since that would have
created a vacumn. . She was only a 1 atm sub when
her ballast tanks were totally dry which means she was not a 1 atm sub all the time. And finally, had she had compressed
air tanks and left her ballast tank valves open she would have been a COMPLETELY
ambient sub, so she was only ONE item away from
being a TOTAL ambient sub. Just compressed air tanks were all that was missing for her DESIGN to be COMPLETELY
ambient. Do you still think she had more in common with a 1 atm pressure vessel
than an
ambient sub? She was
both at different times. A hybrid as I have said.
Kindest regards,
Bill Akins.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] inaccurate
terms & inescapable that the Hunley was a hybrid.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
In a 1-ATM sub, the pressure inside the hull is about the same as it is
on the surface, give or take minor variables of the type already
described.
In an Ambient sub, the pressure inside the hull is about the same as the
outside water pressure at any given depth, more or less.
So it seems to me the Hunley was basically a 1-ATM sub (with a pressure
hull) that might have had some of those "minor variables" in pressure due to
the open ballast tank design.
If the atmosphere were at ambient pressure inside the hull,
wouldn't the crew have been able to open the hatch and
escape? That's something three perished crews were apparently
unable to do. And that's why, to me, the Hunley seems much closer
to being a 1-ATM sub than it does an Ambient sub.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Jim
Ian Roxborough <irox@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
On
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:29:36 -0400
"Akins"
wrote:
> 1. 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.
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.
> 2. 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.
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.)
> 3. An ambient sub
uses air to force water out of the sub! 's INTERIOR
> to surface, just
as they did with the Hunley.
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.
Well there you go, you got 1
out 3.
There where 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.
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.
Some of your claims of what I've
said and defined are VERY inaccurate
(in fact the complete opposite of
what I said), this is not very nice.
I will not resp! ond to any more
of these "Hunley is ambient/hybrid"
emails.
Ian.
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
our server receiving your
request.
PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH
03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|