|
Hello Ian, I shall strive to be more careful to not try to speak for the group. Also I agree that I need to consistently phrase my ideas more in a way that conveys they are unproven concepts for discussion. This is part of the learning process we have in life, as to how to work better with people to promote learning. I've been aware of the need for me to phrase things in a way that makes it easier for people to disagree with me, and/or fill in the blanks I/we need to know the whole story, or see what needs further research and/or testing for a long time. That's why I try to use the phrases, in my opinion, from what I've heard, from what I've been told, from what I've read, etc., ect... Karl and I do find the C-BUG to be a KISS principle sub. My point was that it was a clever new configuration designed and built by a PSUBer in training, that worked overall pretty well. This is one reason why Karl and I have started to work on a upgraded version of C-BUG, to produce plans for people to acquire and build there own easy to build, sub with great surface stability, etc, etc... There was thrusters added to the C-BUG a number of years after it was completed, because he was tired of bumping into things and needed to be able to fight currents, etc., etc..... But it did function with out thrusters in a pretty cool way, just some what limited. It's very true that the R300 has a whole host of proven mechanical means combined in a tight configuration that is not in my opinion a KISS design for the average PSUBer out there. His application of syntactic foam bonding the steel hull to the outer FRP fairings, I felt was novel. Using a PLC, successfully using a squirt drive, and configuring it so it could have some reasonable hydrobatic ability, are items I find to be a novel PSUB configuration. I suspect I've missed a few other features that would fit that bill. I like the Occam's Razor approach very much. Just perhaps phrase it like " I think the Occam's Razor approach should be applied here, and this is how I think that configuration could be implemented. Your resident pipe dreamer ;)' Regards, Szybowski > Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:43:58 -0400 > From: irox@ix.netcom.com > To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUBers in Training > > > I think C-BUG follows this KISS principle, heck it doesn't even have electric propulsion. C-BUG is implemented in a simple but clever way, no folding out wings that can jam, no parachutes to tangle up, it's some simple it doesn't have any moving parts. Clever does not have to equal complex. Complexity, is rarely clever. > > What's complexity risk involved with the R300? From what I understand, there are a lot of features and electronics packed into a small vessel. But if I remember correctly, this is all driven by some of most basic and fail safe electronics available. > > You opened with "As a general rule, this group tends to love redundant and extra safety features.", then go on to suggest a rather hazardous solution for operating a submarine at what many may claim to be unsafe parameters. This kind of give the impression that you are speaking generally for the group, and that many would endorse you ideas. Looking at all the people who have operational submarines on the list, most seem to be big subscribers to the KISS approach. > > You're asking the people giving you feed back to phrase their responses better, I think if you want better responses, review your own phrasing. Also, some of the ideas posted here are obviously dangerous and won't work, I feel it's unfair to ask that people invest more time in responding to these ideas, when there are so many more topics worth investing the effort to talk about. > > I don't subscribe to KISS. I subscribe to "Occam's Razor" for my approach to engineering and design. If you're not familiar with Occam's Razor, I'll paraphase it as "Don't multiple the complexity of problem more than you have to." If we remind you of Occam's Razor, is going to be as offensive? > > I think many ideas floated here at too much like swallowing a spider to catch the fly, swallowing a bird to catch the spider, swallowing at cat to catch the bird.... > > Cheers, > Ian. > (A Beginner, A novice, A neophyte) > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Brent Hartwig <brenthartwig@hotmail.com> > >Sent: Aug 30, 2008 12:04 AM > >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org > >Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PSUBers in Training > > > > > >Jay, > > > >"You misspeak for the group. Those people that have been > >operating submersibles for some time and those with submarine experience strive > >for KISS (and they keep telling you this) while those just building and/or no > >experience love redundancy and extra safety features. "I'm a little surprised you have not gotten a lot of flak for the above statement. The K-350's have a number of redundant systems for safety, and a good number of other systems just for safety. They have at five ways to let you get back to the surface. Also there are a whole list of guys that have built successful subs on there first try, that have a whole host of new designs elements on there sub. For example we have Karl Stanley's C-BUG with it new design features. Then we have the R300 with so many new complex elements, all successfully implemented. So don't even try to put the guys that have not finished there first sub in a kiddy pool and disrespect are ideas and contributions, just because we have not finish a successful sub. > > > >I would further request that you don't use the term neophyte to belittle the PSUBers in training, like my self. Many are older then you, and have a hell of a lot of skills and experiences to bring to the table, not to mention the people and contacts they know. Your a pretty smart guy over all, so it shouldn't be hard for you to phrase your posting in a nice informative way. It won't hurt you to admit your wrong once in a while either. I don't much care who is right, I just want to learn what the correct answer is, or what needs to be further explored so I can continue to learn. Don't just automatically appose an idea or subject matter I bring up because you are perturbed with me. It makes life more negative then it needs to be. Steve Pearce had his fill of the negative and decided to leave the group and work on his design in peace. So for right or wrong we have lost a great member for the time being. Please lighten up Jay and Jon, there is no need to choose a negative path with this grand group of passionate and many times nutty individuals. > > > > Your resident positive thinker ;)' > >Sincerely, > > > >Brent Hartwig > > > > > >From: bottomgun@mindspring.com > >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org > >Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stopping Flaps > >Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:00:13 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Brent, > > > >You misspeak for the group. Those people that have been > >operating submersibles for some time and those with submarine experience strive > >for KISS (and they keep telling you this) while those just building and/or no > >experience love redundancy and extra safety features. > > > > > > > >Please review the emails and note that anyone with any > >submersible experience has repeatedly told you that dive brakes are a poor > >idea. While on the surface they sound like a great idea (go-cart, > >bicycle, or car…what about boats?), they don’t work. You are > >better to rely on procedure than a mechanical gimmick underwater to avoid a > >hazard, especially in your typical PSUB. Speed is hazardous underwater: > > > >1. > >Close to the bottom you are going to run into something despite > >any mechanical or electronic contraption; > > > >2. > >Speed will force you out of your operating envelop in a jammed > >planes causality resulting in a violation of your test/crush depth. > > > >It has been demonstrated that dive brakes and braking chutes > >have not worked to mitigate these two safety issues. A five-point safety > >belt doesn’t do you much good when you are stranded on the bottom, just > >makes it more difficult to get the body out. > > > > > > > >Speed was designed into Deep Flight for one reason only and > >that was to get to a very deep bottom, not for cruising on the bottom. Graham > >Hawks recognized that much of the ocean was very deep and most submersibles only > >penetrated the top veneer. Alvin took hours to get to an even > >moderate depth and Graham wanted to return to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, > >over seven miles down. He knew he would need a unique vehicle to get > >there fast and Deep Flight is the proof of concept. If you can go > >to the bottom of the Trench it is tough to operate outside of your depth > >envelop and small propulsion motors were to be used for cruising at a safe > >speed on the bottom. Hawks promoted this concept back in the 80s and hasn’t > >reached it fully yet. > > > >Jay > > > > > > > > > > > >Respectfully, > > > >Jay K. Jeffries > > > >Andros Is., Bahamas > > > > > > > >Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. > > > > - Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: > >owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org > >[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Brent > >Hartwig > > > >Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:18 PM > > > >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org > > > >Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stopping Flaps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Greetings Sean, > > > > > > > >Your items one thru four, I find to be very sound. As a general rule, > >this group tends to love redundant and extra safety features. So having brakes > >of some sort seem very important/useful/desirable. Braking flaps can be used > >when on the surface as well. If you have paddled a canoed or kayak much, you > >will know that you usually can only go as fast as an average K-boat and if you > >turn your paddle flat you stop very quickly. Of course a canoe is lighter so > >that just means we need larger flaps, if we want/need to stop that fast. > > > > > > > >Having only two seconds to react, as Jon was writing about, many times isn't > >enough time to do much of any thing. One reason Alec might not of even seen the > >cable, could be he wasn't looking out the forward port at the time. Look > >at how little time and stopping distance we have in a car many times over and > >over and yet still stop in time. I was thinking about installing a > >braking flaps system, that operates much like a cars brakes, with a foot peddle > >in the same position as a cars, and hydraulic assist, or perhaps a brake lever > >like used on many cars for there emergency brake, could work very quickly as > >well. Even if you still hit the boulder, you might of slowed down enough to > >make the collision far less of a problem. But that's just me, I like > >convoluted mechanical means if I can learn from those prototypes how to make > >them really function properly, or abandon them to explore other ideas. > > > > > > > >Have you ever driven a go cart, bicycle, or car that didn't have brakes. It's > >quite hard unless you stay with in a safe operating envelope, which would be on > >pretty flat ground, and at very low speeds. So your safe operating envelope > >will change in a sub if it has good braking flaps and you know how to use them. > >Of course with a car with no brakes, you usually have some built in collision > >protection like bumpers, air bags, and seat belts. But you still don't want to > >hit people and there flower gardens. In are case we don't want to hit nasty > >rocks, coral reefs, boats, SCUBA divers, etc., etc., etc..... > > > > > > > >I plan to have a five point seat belt system installed in my gliding hydrobatic > >subs, much like those installed in the Bionic Dolphin and Bioniorca. Perhaps I > >need a air bag system as well. It might be a really bad idea for a air bag to > >go off in a small sub. My be it would be better to use them on large subs. I > >would expect a lot of the injures that have a cured to sailer's on subs that > >have hit some thing, were a result of them not being seated with a seat belt > >on. > > > > > > > >Another possible use for braking flaps is to help you drift with the current, > >if it's going the same way you are, to save power. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Your > >resident possibility thinker ;)' > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Szybowski > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Date: > >Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:46:48 -0600 > > > >From: cast55@telus.net > > > >To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org > > > >Subject: Re: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stopping Flaps > > > > > > > > Not to make light of the many creative contributions to this discussion, but > >I can't help but feel like this is an unnecessary solution to a self-imposed > >problem, much like the guy who lined his car windshield with pillows in case he > >had a collision from not being able to see correctly due to the gas mask he > >wore in case of a leak from the gasoline canister strapped in the passenger > >seat which he carried in case he ran out of fuel. Sometimes, the > >solution requires taking a step back and eliminating a problem further up the > >chain. > > > > > > > >In the case of submarine collisions, you have two identifiable primary > >risks: 1) entanglement, and 2) damage. In the context of the > >anticipated operating conditions, I can't help but wonder if design effort to > >reduce entanglement potential by > > > > > > > >1) streamlining the hull and superstructure, and minimizing appendages to > >prevent entanglement or entrapment > > > >2) accomodating impacts to the hull and superstructure by incorporating such > >features as collision bulkheads, space frames and guards where appropriate > > > >3) implementing better systems to warn of impending collision, including > >attempts to increase range of visibility, lighting, sonar, etc. > > > >4) defining operating parameters consistent with the vehicle design and > >anticipated operating conditions to firstly avoid collisions altogether, and > >where a collision may not be avoided, to enable the vehicle to withstand > >collision without sustaining critical damage > > > > > > > >- are better uses of resources than convoluted mechanical or other means of > >reducing vehicle momentum on an impending collision, which may represent increased > >risks from other perspectives. > > > > > > > >A common error made in "what if" contingency planning is failing to > >determine if the "what if" event in question can be avoided > >(preventative), thus eliminating the requirement for a contingency plan > >(reactive). > > > > > > > >Just my $0.02. > > > > > > > >-Sean > > > > > > > > > > > >************************************************************************ > >************************************************************************ > >************************************************************************ 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 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 > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ > |