|
Hi, Joe - 560 cu.ft. is about 35,800 lb. of
buoyancy. That's quite a bit. :-)
Once neutral buoyancy was achieved, dynamic control
(i.e.: planes) maintained depth. The HP air was more than enough to
get the boats back up in case of planes failure or even partial
flooding.
As far as limiting your posts to a time when
"flatter curves" would be appropriate, keep in mind that, as far as I
know, our archives are listed by date and by thread, not by key word
search. As long as we, the "pro's", neglect to label our subject headings
appropriately, please feel free to ask all the ridiculous questions you
want.
As far as archival searches are concerned, I'm sure
Ray would love to spend thousands of hours (!?) labeling each and every post
from the past six or seven years according to design ethic, systems analysis,
materials science, commercial suppliers, fluid dynamics, parts availability,
hydrodynamics, conceptual rationale, human engineering, etc.
I hope everyone realises that, besides being
impossible, the only thing almost as hard as codifiying the archives is finding
the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Again, as above, please feel free to ask all the
ridiculous questions you want.
Rick
Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Some
issues
Group
I am discovering material density issues along with the air supply,
buoyancy and control issues inherent to a dry ambient design. In that regard
the following excerpt is from the NAVPERS manual for air systems aboard WWII
fleet boats, specifically the 3000 lb system.
2A3. Air banks. Each of the five air
banks consists of seven flasks, with the exception of the No. 1 air bank,
which has eight. Each flask is provided with a drain valve. The total capacity
of the air banks is 560 cubic feet. The No 1 air bank is located inside the
pressure hull, with four flasks in each battery compartment. The other four
air banks are located in the main ballast
tanks
The 560 total cubic feet caught my eye and I
wondered if this could possibly be correct? Since this is equivalent of
seven 80 SCUBA tanks on such a large vessel to blow tons of seawater. I
understand the concept of the low-pressure blowers on the surface and would
employ that feature. But I am still trying to make sense of buoyancy tankage
and air supply issues for a dry ambient design.
Incidentally, I have been dealing with post Hurricane issues (somewhat
?irritating?) but was distressed to see the recent posts, as the animosity was
palpable. If as a "new guy" some of my previous posts were somewhat
?irritating? to some, I did so in ignorance of the culture within this
community however, I cannot offer any apologies for this reason. Although I am
a neophyte in this field, I am an expert in others where the basics were once
complex issues to me.
That having been said, I will respect the house ?rules? and limit my
posts to those times when the learning curve has flattened a bit as
above.
Thank You
Joe ************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************ 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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
|