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
>>> ************************************************************************
>>> ************************************************************************
>>> ************************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>
>