|
Ahh
Reverend Jim -
Time
to cross over everybody.
Drink
the Kool-Aid!
Hard to argue with the classics!
Man
that is cool - I never actually knew that the "reverened Jones Waiver' was
in common usage.
Thanks
Phil - Fountain of knowledge.
Best
regards-
Greg
Wil:
Not to belabour the subject, but probably
important to get it right. The figure quoted is for a new build - that is, a
design that has not been previously classed by any accepted agency. The
majority of the cost is for 'plan approval' - where the agency's technical
people/engineers go over the detailed submissions, checking out each
calculation, each FEA, each fab drawing, strain gauge results, radiography,
compliance surveys reports, etc. Once plan approval has been granted then that
specific design package is given what is called 'type approval' or 'type
class' or 'model approval' or 'serial design approval' (differing terminology
in different agencies). This simply means that the specific design
approved can be duplicated any number of times without the necessity for plan
approval each time. That allows you to absorb the not inconsiderable cost of
plan approval over several builds - as long as you don't change anything. You
can upgrade or change features from the drawings on file with the agency,
but each change must be approved (at some cost) and the new drawings supersede
the originals ( the original drawings are retained for annual and major survey
purposes on existing subs of the original model.
All this is presumably fine for manufacturers
like us - but an unrealistic burden for a home builder! (actually, it's not
even fine for us - a hundred grand for plan approval and a fairly standard
pricing scale of about a hundred bucks an hour for a registered, qualified
engineer means that the classing agency is proposing to spend something like a
thousand hours on design review ??) - (less the agency's mark-up, of
course). On a 40 hour week, that's twenty weeks - factor in the
weekends and holidays and it's half a year! It doesn't take a qualified
engineer anywhere near that time to actually prepare the entire plan, do the
calculations, etc.,
Hmmm - I'm on a soap-box, I
see.
Re: Roatan and Stanley's 'the best insurance is
the fact that I'm with you' - that's sarcastically referred to as the
'Reverend Jones waiver' in the biz. (as in " go ahead and drink the Cool-aid,
see, I'm drinking it, too! "- old-timers will get the reference, quickly.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 5:31
AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] submarine
kit-builder's society
Hello Phil,
Sorry for a "not terribly accurate"
interpetation of your opinion about classification of private personal subs
and thanks your clarfification of this point.
Of course i am aware
that you do a lot of classing in your business for several
reasons.
Thanks for putting some overall numbers on the discussion,
150.000 USD budget (minimum) for doing paperwork if you go for clasification
(with a standard proyect - nothing fancy).
Which means projects that
can not afford that sum (for paperwork) are automatically pushed out of
"viability zone".
For what you call "rad new concepts" you need a lot
more (add a couple of ceros to the number).
At the end the most
critical point is liability - you can get ruined by the defense costs even
if you win it at the end.
If you do something commercial in a "high
liability entanglement risk" segment it is convenient to have some deep
thoughts about "project risk management".
I find it interesting that
Roatan comes to your mind in that context. I estimate Karl Stanley a lot for
his guts and his business model - his oral waiver for sub passengers is
legendary - "this sub is not
classed your only guarantee is - i come
with you" - close the hatch and dive.
Looks like most of his
customers are just fine with that.
It has a long tradition in
multinational companies to do the R&D pilot projects in countries where
"nanny state security" is not a "politically desired" and "legally
implemented" status. (I am writing this
lines from south
america.)
European Submarine Structures AB has Headquaters in
Stockholm (Sweden) and a R&D Branch in Cartagena South
America.
Maybe we should talk about a "low paperwork hassle" R&D
cooperation for some of the "rad new concepts" - make them work in a ambient
where paperwork cost and hassle is not the decicive project management
factor.
The basic question is: Why should i pay 150.000 USD
to clear the question "is it safe?" - when a 50 USD test proceedure can give
me a so much better answer.
150.000 is a lot of money for getting
what is finally just a "opinion". If i invest this in test series,
double the material strength, i can get a lot more safety for the money -
much more "bang for the
bug" as you say.
The good thing is
classification is a "CAN HAVE" not a "MUST HAVE" - for private sub builders
and they should be interested to keep it that way and not prepare the ground
that overregulation and
administrative overhead costs pushes the
sport into the "no viability zone".
Wil
concretesubmarine.com
2010/6/5 Phil Nuytten <phil@philnuytten.com>
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 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************
|