Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] submarine kit-builder's society

2010/6/6 <MerlinSub@t-online.de>

It is also for psubers very simple to ge a safe boat.

By a copy of a classification book for submersibles, read it, understand it,
build your boat to this standard or just equal to this. And forget just there stamps..

Phil, just for Information: A two seater Tourist sub was just class this year
here for 50.000 euro the first one and 25.000 all future copys.

vbr Carsten

"Wilfried Ellmer" <info@concretesubmarine.com> schrieb:

> Phil,
>
> classification...presumably fine for manufacturers like us - but an
> unrealistic burden for a home builder...
>
> I assume the fact that the "master of the universe of subbuilding" submits a
> design also helps to speed things up and keep "questioning and scrutinizing
> of submitted designs" at a bareable minimum.
>
> I personally would take any design that is "proved by Nuytco Research
> Limited" as a much higher standard than a classification stamp of any kind.
>
> Finally it is reasonable to assume that the engineers working there (at the
> very fronteer of deep sea exploration) have a much clearer idea how to
> tackle the matter than engineers working in
>
> "administration"...
>
> Jon,
>
> I do not really believe in your thesis that tecnology leadership comes from
> "administration societies" and that they do a solid research and development
> miles ahead of us. Even in our overadministrated times leadership comes from
> motivated individuals who push the fronties it - administration always
> follows.
>
> I am not "anti standard" or "anti classification" i am against the
> satanisation of the "outside class status" as "unsafe", "unprofessional",
> "unreliable" etc...
>
> The fact that currently there is a life outside classing agencies for
> private subs is the "air supply" of our sport. To fill a a private submarine
> builder forum with arguments to cut this air supply and regulate our sport
> out of existance - is not a wise course of action...
>
> Wil
>
> 2010/6/6 Phil Nuytten <phil@philnuytten.com>
>
> > 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 -----

> > *From:* Wilfried Ellmer <info@concretesubmarine.com>
> > *To:* personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> > *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 -----
> >>

> >> *From:* Wilfried Ellmer <info@concretesubmarine.com>
> >> *To:* personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> >> *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"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No, however I don't think Greg was insinuating that either, rather he was
> >>> simply trying to rally potential builders out there to "git kraken" as Frank
> >>> would say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************