Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] No Machining Hatch Sealing Concept

[Jon Wallace <jonw@psubs.org>]

Brent,

You missed the point.

At least part of your argument in favor of the "no machining" hatch 
design was that Peter Madsen used it successfully.  I brought up the 
Seaker100 accident as an example that things don't necessarily go wrong 
the first time, second time, or even third time you use something even 
though the design is weak.  Very much apples to apples.

Jon


Brent wrote:

>> *This accident comes up in interesting places.
>> **So lets compare apples to apples here please.

*
Jon Wallace wrote:
> A perfect example of not depending upon the fact that you did 
> something, to continue doing something, is the Seaker100 accident.  
> They dove their sub successfully in the same configuration numerous 
> times which led them to believe continuing to do so within the same 
> parameters was safe.  It wasn't.




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************