Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] standards - broader view

[clientes@tolimared.com]

Hello Randy,
I thank you for your important contribution to take the step to  
compare safety standards of different fields of engineering and giving  
us this - so needed broader - view.

My background is tecnical, medical, cientific, and commercial.
In medicine for example you simply NEVER can cover ALL BASES. This is  
why other than in material science each person is DIFFERENT by genetic  
nature you NEVER can test and prove a method to absolut certainty as  
you can not test out a killing point (breaking point).

So by nature any treatment and anything you do contains a factor of  
uncertainty and not cover all bases.

Similar as in aviation there are several levels of regulation that go  
from Public health and registration with FDA to a "hospital ethic  
comission" where 3 doctors sit together and decide what should be done  
and what not.

There is science, and pharmaceutical testing, and medic research,  
operating within, outside, beyond FDA - which still is science and  
still is ethic and still is necessary and still is reasonably safe and  
still is wanted and is not a - NO NO NO.

Similar i believe that there is still a safe engineering outside  
Government regulations as long as you keep Peters 1:10 standard  
Carstens "calculate double and test standard" - or any other standard  
that a reasonable and ethic mind can suggests.

What concerns standards in general they have that good side to keep  
people from doing dangerous things - and the dark side to sofocate all  
progess if you overdo it.

My personal impression - please correct me if i am wrong - is that  
many of the pressure vessel standards - developed under the shock of  
the COMET disaster - may a aviation specialist comment on this - got a  
little to far to sofocate. (sheet material).

Since COMET we all are aware of the importance of cyclic load in  
unexpected catastrophic failure. What is a good thing - so test  
frequently - and life goes on...

For me this forum gets a lot of its value by working as a "tecnical  
ethics comission" that guarantee still science still safety still  
reasonable building ethics even outside of what standards can and will  
cover. If you do a prototype you are by nature sometimes a bit "out of  
standard"

So jon, - please - do not sofocate "out of standard" statements - or  
the forum just becomes a lot less interesting.

I also see that there is some interest of taking the K subs to a kind  
of self building class so i understand the pressure to close in with  
government regulation - anyhow you still have a good pool of "wild  
auto standard" and still resonable submarine building here - this is  
one of the best ! don´t loose it.

Kindest Regards
Wil
(concretesubmarine.com)






************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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 53
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************