|
Ian, I have to agree with you, on reflection my email was
overboard. My point that I didn’t make very well was instead of
stating as fact some questionable idea you hold, couch it in terms that it
needs discussion and be prepared to accept what others are trying to tell you. My point about legislation is very valid though. As a
sport we can be regulated near out of existence with a couple of more stunts
like the “artist” in NY with the poor replica of the early Turtle
who decided to approach a cruise liner with it. Doug’s levity is always good to bring me back to center. In the case of the Chinese oil drum sub builder, as an old friend
in the early days of technical diving said, “Sheer stupidity is self
correcting!” R/Jay From:
owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of djackson99@aol.com That's
a great idea. This free exchange of ideas has gotten way out of hand and some
poor bystander is going to get hurt. We can form a committee to screen
members ideas and make sure they are conforming to our safety standards. You
would think that the Chinese government would stay on top of this, but I guess
it's really up to us. -----Original Message----- I'm not sure if I'm miss reading, or if I just disagree with you. But I'll say I don't think anybody has to or should run there idea's by "knowledgeable member" before posting them to the list. A better idea is read the archives and see what was said about that idea 5 years ago, if you still think you have an un-answered question or something new to say on the topic, then go a head and post. Getting people to have thier idea's review by special members before being posting is a slippery slope. Also, it's kind of fun reviewing and responding to people's ideas, kind of unfair if one person to get all the fun. ;-) Cheers, Ian. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jay K. Jeffries" <bottomgun@mindspring.com> >Sent: Jul 17, 2008 9:18 AM >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org >Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Oil drum submarine > >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 >Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:25 AM >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org >Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Oil drum submarine > > > >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 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org >[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org]On Behalf Of Brent Hartwig >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:43 PM >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org >Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Oil drum submarine > >You have to give the guy props for making his dream happen. He's only >planning to go to 10 meters according to the article. I would think those >drums could take that. Perhaps he has some internal ribbing or other >stiffeners we can't see. The end drums might be the MBT's. > >I don't really understand how the conning tower is attached and reinforced. > ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ 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 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ The Famous, the Infamous, the
Lame - in your browser. Get
the TMZ Toolbar Now! |