|
Jon, I concur. While we should not put a crimp on innovation,
our primary message should be safety. We have a variety of organizations
that review PSUBS from time to time and unless we maintain the high road we
will never hold respect or be able to fight detrimental imposed regulations (if
that time should ever come). I have seen a number of hair brained ideas
presented here over time and unfortunately a new-comer does not have sufficient
knowledge or experience to weed the poor ideas out. Instead of presenting
some questionable idea as fact, it should be carefully worded, labeled by its
author as potentially unsound, and the author should ask for peer review. The barrel submersible is just a death trap waiting to
happen. I haven’t looked at all of the Pilipenko sub videos but the
first immediately scared me as there was little reserve buoyancy in the unit and
it had a decided list once launched. Jon’s identification of the
leaking port hole and air blast only confirms my opinion. It is obvious
that neither of these subs have had weight and balance calculations done (it
would be difficult to put enough ballast in the barrel sub to keep the sail
upright). Keep in mind the successful submersible gets little press but a
submersible accident is sensational in nature so it gets loads of press.
Better yet, contact a knowledgeable member offline first to run the idea by
before publishing it on the list server. Which one do you think legislators
and professionals will remember? The press will sort through PSUBS email
list and capitalize on every unworthy proposal. Safety should be the first word always in submersibles,
innovation can follow. R/Jay From:
owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of jonw@psubs.org 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
|