|
Ray you bring up good points.
I feel the need for PSUBS is where it is at. I feel A few guidelines are in
order.
As for myself I do not feel I would accomplish my dream without the help of
this group.
I don't believe we need enforced rules, but a few basic safety guidelines
is being responsible.
For instance some way of dropping weight in an emergency is basic common
sense.
Should we banish a mariner because he did not comply, of course not but
several notes from members
bringing the point up would be appropriate.
I've had several idea's that I was shown the light from this group, and
will always be grateful for
such input.
Most of all we all have to realize this is fun stuff and we need to keep it
this way.
Crazy people need to stick together or the civilized folk will ruin
us
Dean
In a message dated 7/18/2008 12:41:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
psubs2001@yahoo.com writes:
Hi Jon,
We are at the fork. Are we a loose group
of individuals or a cohesive group of by the book submariners?
Up
to now PSUBS has been of the first group. A loose group of hobbiest that
come together to share experiences, ideas and BS.
Sounds like you
and Jay want PSUBS to become the second group. Formal rules, guidlines,
and bylaws. Setting requirements that every submersible must conform to.
While setting requirements may not be a bad idea, how to make sure
each submersible complies? Do we send out inspectors? Do we ask for weld
samples? Multiple sets of blue prints with calcluations? How far will
this go?
Currently PSUBS fills a niche below the cost structure
of ABS. If we formalize the hobbiest submersible building too much we
might as well close down PSUBS and tell everyone to go to ABS. After all
they already exist, have rules, have inspectors and are recognized by
the government.
Regards,
Ray
--- On Fri, 7/18/08,
jonw@psubs.org <jonw@psubs.org> wrote:
From:
jonw@psubs.org <jonw@psubs.org>
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST]
Oil drum submarine
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Date:
Friday, July 18, 2008, 6:52 AM
Jay,
I think your message was mis-interpreted and you have alot of
sound advice. I didn't interpret your suggestion as a way of
restricting discussion or only allowing a certain few to
respond. It looks like it was meant to illustrate how a
discussion could occur by first warning casual readers that the
content was not a proven method yet, and needed to be vetted by people
with more experience. The intent being that in the case of an
idea or suggestion that was ultimately agreed to be "not good
advice", casual readers wouldn't just see the initial "Hey I have a
great idea" message and then miss the "You can't do that, and here's
why" message that would follow. The problem of course, is your
suggestion requires a discipline that most of us (including myself)
don't have. We naturally think our idea is a good idea,
otherwise why would we have thought it up. With a group of
people all at the same experience level your suggestion could be
implemented and work well. However, we have new people with
varying levels of knowledge joining all the time (most times we don't
even know) and so I see much difficulty implementing your suggestion
in this environment.
Your thoughts regarding other organizations (and individuals)
reviewing PSUBS from time to time is absolutely true, as well that our
primary message should be about safety. People who visit PSUBS
purely from an individualistic perspective will always have a
different view on structure, than those who view PSUBS from an
organization perspective. The individualistic approach usually
does not include a requirement for legitimacy, whereas an
organizational perspective requires it. Although we use
"organization" in our name, the fact is that we really don't have one,
which is why those who look at things from an organizational
perspective always feel like they are banging their heads against
a brick wall.
When issues such as the current discusssion come up, I often
wonder what it is about PSUBS that makes it any different than other
organizations. For example, USPA is the United States Parachute
Association. Their charter is "...enjoy and promote safe skydiving through
parachuting training, rating, and competition programs."
When reading some of the postings to this particular
topic, I found myself wondering what the response of USPA officials
would be if the media report had not been about a poor Chinese laborer
who fabricated a submarine out of 55 gallon drums because he couldn't
afford anything else, but about a poor Chinese laborer who fabricated
a parachute out of discarded cotton sheets because he couldn't afford
anything else. What would the response from EAA (Experimental
Aircraft Association) have been if the media story had been about a
poor Chinese laborer who built an airplane out of discarded 2x4's for
the frame and plastic garbage bags for the wing fabric. Would
those organizations consider those home-built projects "innovative" or
something else. Would those organizations publicly support the
efforts of that poor Chinese laborer because he was fullfilling his
dream, or something else.
PSUBS has a common bond, but it hasn't been solidified.
It's like epoxy that has two parts which haven't been mixed and molded
into a cohesive entity. I told you recently that I saw a fork in
the road ahead. Perhaps we are closer to that fork than I
thought.
Jon
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 |
|