Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hello; Design; Materials; Thanks

[Alex <spm2@nomad.ignorelist.com>]

There seem to be a great number of anonymous people on the Internet who like to
spread  fear, saying that some government agency will come raid you if you do
anything off the beaten track, even if it is perfectly legal. I don't know
where these people come from but we must ignore them. Besides what they say is
usually completely untrue anyway. There is no fun in life living as a coward.
Now that he said the DEA or HS might come visit, it makes me want to do it
more. 

I thought that any drug dealer worth 2 cents would have his cargo in a
submerged container attached to a cable, and when trouble comes the evidence is
dropped to the ocean floor. Are submarines used to transport drugs? I've heard
one or two stories in the online news of some submarine that was caught with
drugs, but they were really crappy subs that were mostly like surface boats.
There must not be many subs used to transport drugs, or they just never get
caught!

I bet the government doesn't want people to have personal submarines, for the
same reasons that tyrannical governments have in the past, and they're trying to
get submarines to have a bad reputation by the general public. It has worked
somewhat, because after only a few news stories where some "submarine" that
looks a lot like a regular boat was caught with drugs, anyone who has heard of
that story will likely think of drugs now.

Alex


On 20-Sep-2009 T.C. Craig wrote:
> Vance,
> 
> I haven't been on this board a week, and with a few warm exceptions, I've
> been condescended to, patronized, and now accused by a complete and total
> stranger of running drugs.
> 
> 1.  If I was high enough in any drug organization where I would have to
> worry about moving *tons* of product, I can assure you, I wouldn't need the
> wit nor consultation of internet-engineers.
> 
> It's safe to say that South American Drug Cartels are not lurking the
> Psubs.org board in the hopes of gleaning clandestine information.
> 
> 2.  As many people have pointed out to me, it costs a relative pittance to
> increase the diving capabilities of any metallic one-atmosphere
> submersible.  Therefore, why would any criminal institution forgo the deeper
> "insurance" so as to lumber around shallow and more legally dangerous waters
> when they have the resources to go to 400' ?  Indeed, why not go cheaper
> with an ambient design?
> 
> 
> Frank,
> 
> Thank you for the exquisite explanation, and detailed information.
> 
> You're assuming a lot about what I know about internal and external
> pressure.  For instance, I know that pressure is less like vice grips and
> ball-peen hammers, and more like a gigantic blanket pressing uniformly
> across a hull. Though, the analysis makes sense in the face of threats of
> collision.  There was never a mention of a lack of stiffeners. Furthermore,
> I got  5/16" from a  book on submersible torpedo boats from the early
> 1900's, but now that I think about it, they were probably talking about the
> fairings. Thicknesses of 3/8" and 1.5" are the most common.
> 
> Does everyone really think that I suddenly just decided to build a
> submersible boat?
> 
> How is it that none of you have seemed to catch the fact that these
> dimension are almost identical to the original *Holland*? Indeed, that would
> be quite the project @ 16.5 ton displacement.Even my original 15' X 3.3'
> diameter is about the same as *The Goube*t, with a dry weight of 3,196lbs.
> Though, these weights are based on iron.
> 
> Has no one explored the history of early 1900 submersibles?  Many of these
> early designs are almost exact replicas of the david/monitor boat I'm
> proposing now,  with depth limitations of around 60' - though crush depths
> were around 100'.  I *know *the concept will work as I'm standing on the
> shoulders of proven designs. What I need to know is how to update the design
> for modern materials and methods, and what to consider as feasible in terms
> of personal construction.
> 
> If this doesn't seem like a feasible design given the resources of the
> average builder, why don't you just say so rather than having me reinvent
> the wheel and call it "learning."  Why not say at the outright,  "assuming
> you're not a rich man with lots of space, submersibles beyond x # of feet
> and Ylbs of displacement are generally unfeasible and cost prohibitive.
> Might I suggest you keep your displacement between x and x2, and y/y2
> operational abilities?"  Do you really believe that's, "doing the work for
> me?"
> 
> What if we all had to learn to tie our shoes by first weaving the fabric on
> loom? "Sorry kid, I had to do it too,"  strikes me as inefficient, elitist,
> and certainly unlike any college courses I've ever taken - both CNC
> machining or any of the Socratic arts.
> 
> Hull calculators are used when the real designing begins, but I'm still
> trying to get basic dimensional references here and am looking for you guys
> to narrow the broadnesses of information.
> 
> -T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:09 AM, <vbra676539@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't want to nay-say anyone, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of
>> visits from HS or the DEA, either. Those folks have a vanishingly low sense
>> of humor about some things--and justifiably so.
>> Vance
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Lance <lanceind@earthlink.net>
>> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>> Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 9:00 am
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hello; Design; Materials; Thanks
>>
>>   Vance,
>> Thank you. I was wondering when some one was going to say this.
>> Dan Lance
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>  *From:* <vbra676539@aol.com>
>> *To: *personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>> *Sent:* 9/20/2009 8:34:47 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hello; Design; Materials; Thanks
>>
>>  What type of vehicle would benefit from a low-profile, ultra-light,
>> high-volume pressure hull? A throw-away cargo vessel, perhaps? Hmmm. Its
>> design to dive rarely and barely is evocative. We have had some issues along
>> the western coasts of Central and North America with vessels of this type
>> that were NOT designed to dive, and got caught as a result. None of them
>> were out there for pleasure.
>> Vance
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ShellyDalg@aol.com
>> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>> Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 3:42 am
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hello; Design; Materials; Thanks
>>
>>  TC. The basic idea here is.......Displacement determines overall weight.
>> If you have a bubble big enough to sit in, it takes X amount of weight to
>> make it sink. You can either use a thin walled pressure hull and strap on a
>> bunch of lead, worrying that you may accidentally reach crush depth and die,
>> or you can spend the same amount of money on a thicker hull, use less lead,
>> and be assured the crush depth is deep enough that you'd never approach it.
>> The work involved is the same. The overall weight is the same. The plumbing
>> systems are the same. the electrical systems are the same. Thinner (
>> cheaper) windows still puts the crush depth too close.
>> There's really not much sense in building for a shallow depth when the
>> added cost is such a small percentage of the total.
>> It's more logical to build it strong, even if you never go past 60 feet.
>> A 5/16" hull without stiffeners won't go anywhere near 60 feet without
>> crushing. More like 18 feet and it buckles. Run some numbers through the
>> calculators you've been given.
>> Remember that a pressure tank is designed to withstand *internal* pressure
>> like propane. To break the tank is to reach "burst" strength of the steel.
>> A pressure hull for a sub must withstand *external* pressure. The steel
>> doesn't "rip" or burst. It merely has to bend in such a way as to make the
>> tank collapse.
>> Imagine how easy it is to bend a piece of steel just 5/16 inch thick. A
>> pair of Vise grips will bend it. A small ballpeen hammer will bend it. Smack
>> it with a 2X4 and bend it.
>> Steel is actually cheaper by the pound than lead bricks. It's cheaper to
>> use thicker steel than to buy a bunch of lead to make the same size bubble
>> sink.
>>
>> -----------You've been given good advice, and pointed in the right
>> direction. Get some books, learn a few basics, and I can assure you your new
>> questions will be quite different than the ones you've posted so
>> far.-----------
>>
>> It's fun to dream and we encourage people to think outside the box, but
>> we're pretty big on safety around here. What we say, recommend, or suggest
>> reflects on us as a group, and the personal submarine sport as a whole. I
>> may sound a little overly conservative, but the last thing anyone needs is
>> BAD advice when we're talking about a potentially deadly activity like
>> building your own submarine.
>> Good luck in your quest. It's a long term project and you may have taken
>> your first steps. It's a long road.
>> Frank D.
>>
>>

-- 
Mailed with XFmail on 20-Sep-2009.
God saved Noah, but Noah had to build an ark!



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