|
Hi Jon, I agree that safety is very important, and that we as a group should and do help each other to be successful long term. I don't however think one has to have a lot of money to build a basic safe submarine. There are so many ways to get things done, (that usually are expensive) that work great and are durable. When you only let the rich be dreamers and builders of dreams, then innovation will crawl. I don't think that a very poor Chinese laborer should just relegate his life to just surviving. Nothing is completely safe and so everyone has to decide what risk they are willing to take in life. When it comes to safety, many times we don't have much, if any choose when simply trying to exist on this planet in regards to safety. I guess I'm asking that we try to figure out some sort of balance. Regards, Brent From: jonw@psubs.org To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Oil drum submarine Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:24:39 -0400 Brent,
I have to disagree with you on this one. It's great when we can congratulate people who have built well designed and constructed submarines in their backyard, and there are many who have. However, I think we should be equally zealous about openly criticizing and rejecting designs and construction techniques that are clearly not safe. A cursory look at Xiangli's sub shows it is a text book illustration of how not to build a sub. Only one publication got it right and gave the following synopsis..."he claims the sub should be quite safe. Coincidentally, the builders of the Titanic said pretty much the same thing." http://ralph.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=598774
Here's a closer photo of the sub. Note the wires from the dive planes, the hatch, and the hatch seal. This photo pretty much confirms that the end cowel does not hold a ballast tank. http://www.daylife.com/photo/0fzU7CUe5QgXF
I have similar feelings about the Pilipenko sub and I think the diving video we were pointed to was a sad documentation of construction and testing techniques. The guy goes under water and one of his viewports immediately starts a sizable leak. It's obvious that he appears confused and a bit disorientated by the size of the leak and then the blast of compressed air that hits him in the face when something lets go after he overpressurizes it. If that viewport had let go completely (must have been at least 8 inches in diameter), that guy wasn't getting out of his sub. I may alone in this, but my thinking is that a properly built submersible shouldn't have leaks when it goes underwater with a human being in it. Something about that scenario always raises a question with me about the integrity of the vessel. And this wasn't a case of the hatch not being closed tightly enough.
The fact that these two owners obviously have limited resources is one of the most important warnings that we as a group should be issuing. If you don't have the resources to build a sub properly, don't build it.
Where are the safety concious individuals in this group? Why the silence?
Jon
|