You guys got me thinking tonight. What a great discussion.
First in a way, I have to agree with Brent. I think dreamers need the
acknowledgment and support.
But I also agree with Jon. this oil drum is a death trap. First I don't see
any way it will stay upright
or have any chance to resurface successfully. I think it has a real good
chance of submerging
But we do have the dilemma. How do we act responsible? cuz we need to
How do we not squish free thinking and the sharing of ideas? Even if
they are dumb
And yeah we need to still have fun
It's too bad we don't have an address to offer suggestions to Xiangli so he don't kill himself
But on the bright side it may prevent someone else from
the same fate.
Please forgive my ramblings I am tired. Spent all day
on my support vessel, crawling around
the bilge and twin 460 cu in Lincoln engines and nope
it's not in the water yet either.
Dean
In a message dated 7/17/2008 9:33:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jonw@psubs.org writes:
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
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.