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

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another nutcase here.



Rick,
 
   All this complexity, does it even come into play if the max dive depth is say.....10M ?  I'm thinking no, since if I wanted to, I could strap on a mask, jump in a lake, and swim down that deep (again, if my head didn't pop off).
 
   I'm assuming the dive tables and concern about rapture of the deep as well as narcosis comes into play at depths around 30M.  Am I right about this ?  I'm sure it depends on a number of variables.
 
   If I have any intention on going deeper than about 20M, I would be building a 1 ATM.   ....for the very reasons discussed here.  I don't mind taking more time  and money to build a sub that gives me a greater chance of living in.
 
Myles.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another nutcase here.

Hi, Bill, Myles - first, Myles, I'm not sure whether you are a certified diver or not.  I'll operate on the assumption you aren't (for the moment).
 
[snip]
 
"You do not need to have a jettisonable keel in an ambient by its very design. The ambient will have an opening in the floor [not necessarily] or a trapdoor that you can simply jump right out into the water" - depends on the egress design.  A crisis situation rarely offers the opportunity to "simply jump right out".
 
I will have to take the opposing view here.  First, Bill, you are used to a wet sub where bailing is simply a matter of getting out of your seat.  In a dry ambient, there are other issues at hand.  It takes TIME to egress and it is a luxury to be able to do so.
 
On a non-saturation, no-decompression dive, I would NEVER, under ANY exception, consider not having ditchable weights.  My life was saved because of a free ascent from over 25 metres - the only one I've ever had to make since 1974.  I've been under ice, on wrecks, night diving, current, kelp, yadda yadda.  I used to work commercially u/w.
 
That having been said, there are only two exceptions I can think of.  As I mentioned above, saturation diving and the other is decompression diving.  Dropping weight from 400 metres deep on a sat dive is a death sentence.  So is dropping weights after a "shallow" dive at 100 metres for half an hour with no bottles on an anchor line for stops.  Same principle, different application.
 
Other than that, there is NO diving system on this blue earth that should ever neglect having droppable ballast [non-military].
[snip[
 
Your body can safely absorb a certain amount of nitrogen and be ok, but too much nitrogen (saturation) can make you feel high and is disorenting and can cause you to make mistakes like you were drunk and even make you pass out and drown if diving. That comes from staying down too long and not watching your diving tables.
 
Sorry, Bill - will have to differ again.  Apples and oranges.
 
 The too much nitrogen you are referring to is called "rapture of the deep" or nitrogen narcosis and it hits different people at different depths.  This does NOT come from staying down too long - it is a function of depth.  It is a neurological condition.  Saturation in and of itself is not necessarily harmful.
 
Tissue saturation, different from nitrogen narcosis, IS a function of time as you pointed out.  Myles can make a bounce dive to 60 metres, have no tissue saturation and yet be absolutely stupid from narcosis.  Ask me how I know.
 
[snip]
 
With dive tables you know how long you can stay down pressurized at a given depth.
 
As a general rule this is mostly accurate.  The tables have large fudge factors built in.  It is also dependent on the amount of fat tissue in the diver, whether the diver is at sea level or in a mountain lake, whether the diver has pre-breathed pure oxygen, taken medication, drunk alcohol, the diver is male, female or a child, etc.
 
[snip]     There are some who might say a jettisonable keel would be good in a 1 atm sub, but I don't think you will need it in an ambient 
 
[snip]    in a situation where you need to slowly offgas the nitrogen and the best thing to do is have oxygen bottles on board to help decrease more nitrogen getting into your system.
 
Three things:
  1. Ascent should always, again without exception, be controlled.  Dropping PARTIAL hard ballast will increase the chances of surviving the dive by having an ambient submarine that surfaces slowly.  Think SCUBA and an ascent rate of 20 metres per minute.
  2. Pure oxygen deeper than about one-atm (10 metres) will kill Myles and all his buddies.  That would be embarassing.
  3. Unless you have a surface recompression chamber on the deck of your surface support vessel with licensed operators on board, it's probably a good idea NOT to make decompression dives from your dry ambient. 
This presumes that your bottom time is well within no-decom limits.  Should you allow slippage into a decom dive, then run into trouble, you are indeed in rather deep doo-doo, especially if you are on the heavy [meaty] side.  If you get into a fix prior to slipping beyond the no-decom window, you can bail.  Slip a weight belt around your waist first.
 
[snip]    So rocketing an ambient sub that's hull along with your body is under pressure to the surface with the sudden decrease in
 
    pressure and resultant bends and decompression sickness can kill you or give you health problems for the rest of your life.
 
Exactly - hence the CONTROLLED ASCENT with partially droppable ballast made prior to slipping beyond the no-deompression window.
 
Rick Lucertini
Vancouver, Canada
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Myles Hall
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another nutcase here.

Bill,
 
   Thanks for that.  So basically, you get the weight you need via the keel.  That makes sense.  Also safer too by having the keel jettisonable, up she pops like a cork, as long as you're not too deep and "bend" yourself I guess.
 
   I have been following the hull test threads very carefully.
 
   I don't like the idea of being exposed to the depth pressures, even if it's not very deep.  I seem to be particularly sensitive towards that.  I can't dive / swim very deep without my head wanting to explode (implode I suppose).
 
   Still thinking.....pondering....planning.
 
Myles.
----- Original Message -----
From: Akins
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another nutcase here.

Hi Myles.
 
In overcoming the buoyancy of the hull you might make an ambient heavy by filling its keel with lead, bricks, concrete, maybe even sand, anything heavy for ballast.
 
I've seen pictures where fellows who were taking their sub out for its first test took a bunch of bricks along and if they weren't heavy enough, just started loading bricks
 
into the sub's bottom until they were heavy enough.  
 
To use the same weight as you said to make a pressure hull, you have to build interior hull reinforcement rings, have a thicker pressure hull and also worry about the
 
roundness of the pressure hull and how much pressure it will take. You have to worry about leaks and hull penetration fittings leaking. You have to do an unmanned
 
pressure test like we have been recently and presently been discussing in the group's postings.
 
The ambient design does away with all that by simply keeping the water out with air pressure.  Theoretically the ambient hull outer walls could be as
 
thin as a beer can since the pressure inside will be the same as the pressure outside. Of course you wouldn't want to make one that thin because it wouldn't be practical,
 
but it would be possible to do so. There are fellows here who build pressure hulls all the time, but it is much harder to build a pressure hull than an ambient one. Although
 
there have been wooden, fiberglass and epoxy pressure hulls made for 1 atm subs that didn't go very deep, they still are much harder to build than a ambient hull.
 
The main advantage of the ambient hull for scuba depths diving is that you can make it out of practicall any material and you can make it in almost any shape you want
 
and do not have to make it spherical as most pressure hulls are to maximize resistance against extreme external water pressure. The main detraction of an ambient design is that
 
your body will be under the same pressures as a scuba diver at whatever depth you dive to and have to adhere to dive tables just like a diver does so you don't get the bends. Also
 
as you submerge and increase the air pressure inside your sub to equalize the outside water pressure and keep it out, you have to pinch you nose and blow to equalize your sinus
 
cavities just like a diver does as he decends. Also you cannot exceed safe scuba diving depths so you cannot go nearly as deep as a 1 atm sub can go. But for shallow sub diving
 
not to exceed a maximun of 130 ft, an ambient design would be much cheaper and easier to build than a 1 atm sub.
 
Bill.
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Myles Hall
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Another nutcase here.

Rick,
 
   Love it !!
 
   I was giving thought to an ambient, since my dive depths aren't going to be very deep, but, I don't really understand how you can make them heavy enough to sink.  If you can, why not just use that weight to make a pressure hull instead ?  It's not totally clear to me.  I can get access to good quality pipe and weld so, I just thought it would be best to go 1 ATM.  (By the way, plywood here isn't cheap.).  Your concept of keeping the costs down has a ton of merrit though.
 
Myles.