|
Hey, Wil!
Err - Phil didn't 'recommend not to go for ABS' (or
any other certifying agencies, for that matter). I do question the value of
having a classed sub if you don't plan to take passengers for hire or those who
would not be willing to sign a 'draconian' waiver to dive in your sub. The cost
of initial 'plan approval' and then the many visits by surveyors during the
construction phase, pressure tests and sea-trials can easily chew up a
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The prices vary, but all are expensive
for a home-built - where you can't pass the cost on to a customer. We have
actually had potential customers change their minds about buying a semi-custom
sub from us, when they found that certification of a new build could easily bet
ten percent of the purchase price.
I believe that a home-built should should
follow the accepted PVHO and MTS guidlines for construction, however innovative
the design.
Just be prepared that if your rad new concept is
subject to plan approval by a classing agency because you want it classed, for
whatever reason, you may have to open a small vein!
The alternative? Put the sub under regular
insurance for theft, fire, etc. and self-insure for total loss. This
doesn't cut it for liability, however, and though your iron-clad waiver may
carry the day, you can't stop the victim or his estate from bringing an action
if he/they so choose - and defense can be expensive, with no guarantee that
you'll recover legal costs, even if you win.
For the record, our subs are classed variously by
Lloyds, ABS, Cayman, and DNV.
Also for the record, I've been personally
responsible for the classing of more than 90 'submersibles' of one type or
another, so it's not terribly accurate to say that I don't believe in sub
classification,
period!
Or, if you want to avoid all paperwork hassles -
maybe move to Roatan!
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 2:38
PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] submarine
kit-builder's society
Hello Jon,
I have not been on this forum for
quite a while...just a few inputs.
Doing something PIONEER while
staying within STANDARDS is like putting edges on a circle.
If you want
to be a "explorer" and keep a "defensive legal position" all the time - how
will that work?
Safety is NOT the same as "Standard conform" - safety
does not come from stamping - safety comes from solid testing and solid
overbuild. No matter if it is standard conform or not.
The sea does not
know if your hull is stamped, approved, standard conform...whatever...it just
finds your crush depth - stay sufficiently away from it - 1:3 - testing is the
key.
If you want to build a sub according to a "industrial pressure
vessel standard" it will look, feel, and basicly - be, a "industrial pressure
vessel" - who is really dreaming about "industrial pressure vessels"
?
Who wants to have one? Sail one?
What is psubs.org good for if it is only a pointer to a
"industrial pressure vessel standard" ? - if you restrict free concepts you
are basicly out of business.
Why does Phil Nuytten who really has built
a lot of subs recommend not to go for ABS (not worth it) ?
Wil
concretesubmarine.com
2010/6/5 Jon Wallace <jonw@psubs.org>
Jens Laland wrote:
Is
this forum meant to be an exclusive "submarine kit-builder's
society"
Or,
will there still be room for people taking the time required to work
on
new design or technology, and who needs a forum where they can
present
their work in a multitude of forms; like figments, dreams,
ideas,
questions, proposals, concepts, sketches, images, stories,
discussions,
mock-ups, scale models,
etc.?
New design and technology
discussions are fine as long as they are both practical and discussed
responsibly. Practical means in the context of home-builders and
responsible means having resources to back up assertions and proposals, or
demonstrating that you are following a safe path towards your goal. Of
utmost import is safety and it must be applied diligently to all discussion
including concepts, proposals, design, fabrication and operation. This
list is public and we have a responsibility to be careful how we present
"new" concepts and "unproven" technology so that casual readers or
well-intentioned but undisciplined sub-builders don't take those concepts as
definitive alternatives to traditional materials or procedures that are
known to work reliably. Enforcing this discipline upon ourselves
strengthens us as a group and projects a positive image to the public as
well as government entities and our industry partners.
Figments and
dreams not based in practical application to home builders, or that cannot
be shown to be (or include) safe practices, are not appropriate for this
public list and should be discussed in the "experimental" mailing list
available to members through your PSUBS accounts. The experimental
mailing list was created specifically to allow discussion of unproven ideas
and concepts, and to let those with minds who want to wander free, do so.
I assume we have gotten here from the FRP discussion. I know
nothing about FRP or its viability for PVHO, however it seems to be
indisputable that FRP for such use is not mainstream. However, the
fact remains that research is being done on the material for use as
cylinders under external pressure as evidenced by the experiments conducted
by Carl Ross in the UK. The fact that ABS has no certification
available for FRP pressure hulls should not be discarded so lightly.
While it is possible that ABS is just behind the times as has been
suggested, it is also as equally possible and plausible that they know a bit
of something about the material in terms of fabrication for PVHO and have
valid reasons for not creating standards for it.
At PSUBS we have
adopted and promote the philosophy that home-built subs should be built
according to ABS standards. The primary reason for doing so is to
promote the safe design, fabrication, and operation of small home-built
submarines based upon proven industry standards accepted by almost everyone.
This gives us credibility and projects us in a positive light to both
the public and those authorities for which these things matter and whom have
the ability to regulate us. It also binds us to a common standard when
the need arises to justify our decision for a particular fabrication method
or operational procedure. Unfortunately, there are too many people in
the world who would want to "save us" from ourselves. Not adopting any
standard puts us on the defensive when challenged about the safety of our
vessels. Associating ourselves with industry standards such as ABS
gives us the upper-hand in any such confrontation.
Now perhaps it may
be more obvious why some people are challenging the use of FRP for a
submarine hull. The fact that ABS does not have standards for FRP when
used for a PVHO doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, but it does mean we
need to discuss it responsibly and cautiously. I think Alan has been
taking pains to do both when discussing his plans for using FPR, including
using a composite engineer, talking about the expense and weight, and
suggesting that he will abandon the idea if it is either economically
unfeasible or otherwise impractical. Alan has not employed the typical
topic structure we've seen in the past where someone throws out an idea as
if it is fact and then defends it with something like "nothing is
impossible". It sounds like he is taking a measured approach and doing
some significant research into the feasibility of the material for his
specific design criteria. As long as it continues in that manner I
don't see a problem with having Alan update us on his progress.
Challenging new designs and materials is good medicine for those
embarking on projects that do not conform to ABS standards, and in my
opinion those designers need to "step up to the plate" and accept it.
As I have said before to others, don't take offense to being
challenged about your ideas or plans, especially by a group that has a duty
to further safe practices for an inherently dangerous hobby. If you
really believe in what you are doing, accept the criticisms as a challenge
to drive your project to complete success and show us that you were
right.
Jon
************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ 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.orgRemoval 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.ORGPO
Box 53 Weare, NH
03281 603-529-1100 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************
|