|
Hey guys,
I haven't posted on here in
years......
Sounds like the K subs don't have a provision
for thrusters to be dropped....Is this true? Like most anything, here's an
opportunity to improve upon this design (assuming this feature does not exist).
This could probably even be designed and made retrofitable to existing K
subs without any structural modifications. If any of you K sub owners out there
would like to discuss making thrusters ejectable, I'd like to join that
conversation.
I agree, this whole escape idea is interesting but
there seems to be way to many variables and scenarios to try and account for,
making it truly a last ditch effort with a very low likelihood of success.
Its healthy to consider these things, but good design work up front will ensure
every dive, is a dry dive.
I've designed my sub for 1400 ft. so leaving the
vessel is not really an option anyway. The
(mandatory) options are to design the issue out with drop weights,
jettisonable appendages, reserve and emergency life support, and then planning
your dive and diving your plan.... A sub designed with all this in mind makes
plain old sport scuba diving look dangerous!
Later guys,
Adam
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:10
AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Escape from
a K250 at 200 ft
Life support is paramount, and we should
be thinking about ways to drop thrusters, as the most obvious scenario is
entanglement in a thruster prop.
-----Original
Message----- From: jimtoddpsub@aol.comTo: personal_submersibles@psubs.orgSent:
Tue, Aug 24, 2010 9:52 am Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Escape from a K250
at 200 ft
It seems that the
"flood and escape" scenario presumes that the sub is in a stable position that
won't be altered by sacrificing the bouyancy provided by the air in the hull.
Might be feasible if sitting on a level bottom but not if caught in rigging
above a wreck, etc. If the hull is already leaking or some other
circumstance is compelling evacuation, then go for it. Otherwise I'd put my
efforts into equipping the sub to increase survival time. Jim T
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:28:44 EDT
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Escape from a K250 at 200 ft
We've had some discussions on "escape" before and I think it was pointed
out that to flood the sub quickly the risk of breaking your ear drums was very
likely. If you wait too long to fill the sub slowly your chances of survival
decreased so it was a trade-off.
Flooding a sub is just plain SCARY !!!
It's dark, cold, very high pressure, in an enclosed space with limited
egress, and a long way to the top IF you manage to get out.
Jay did a bit of study on the subject and gave a presentation on the
risks involved. Anyway you look at it, it's dangerous and your chances of
survival are not good. The second one out has little chance of survival.
Phil's procedure was designed for a sub where your head stays inside the
bubble. That seems like a good approach to me.
If a builder was contemplating the escape scenario, I think it might be a
good idea to design the hatch area with a little extra room.
If you start with imagining just how the whole procedure would be
carried out, a method of procedure ( M.O.P. ) could be developed, and
then trained for.
Good dive lights inside would be essential. Scuba tanks with regulators.
I'm using the skinny 40 cu. ft. ones that can fit through the hatch on your
chest, and "horse collar" buoyancy vests with inflators. These lay flat
against your body before inflation, and hold your face above the surface if
you're unconsious.
A valve to release the last bit of air would help if you have a metal
hatch. Phil's use of a "break-away"
dome hatch sounds good.
Just some random thoughts.
Frank D.
|