Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question

[MerlinSub@t-online.de]

Hi Phil, 

Emile and I just update the next month the KSS Eurosub with a new bigger diameter frontdome we just develop together with Reinhard from the Nemo project. It 1 meter in diamter and 2,4 inch strong acrylic. Not cast and not blown - but hotmould of a polished steel ball hydraulic oven press. 

But there was also a request by the owner may to ads 1-2 manipulators. I just read this track and comes back to an old idea of Wilhelm Bauer. Can we add one or two Hardsuit or Newsuit arms to the sub so that the arms operator in prone position can slid his arms into it from inside the pressure hull? Will this work? This solution seems for me on the first view easier to handle and control than a electric or electrohydraulic drivens manipulators. 

Vbr Carsten

"Phil Nuytten" <phil@philnuytten.com> schrieb:
> Hi, Sean:
> I can understand your confusion since the language in this particular patent is not as clear as it should be . . the degree of axial movement cited - a couple of degrees - is the allowable tilt of the oil reservoir piston without binding. It has nothing to do with the 'anti-tilt' bearing described in Humphrey's subsequent patent CA 2485908. The anti-tilt mechanism was developed by my company, (Hard Suits Inc.) around the same time as my CA 1209632 patent  - that patent describes the basic principle of the rotary joint but purposely omitted the 'anti-tilt' feature and an addition feature which was in use at that time called the 'fail-safe' ring. 
> Although the Humprey patent appears to cover an entire rotary joint - it does not. The joint shown in the Humphrey is from my original patent, but with the addition of the 'anti-tilt' feature and the 'fail-safe' ring. There are only two claims in the Humphrey patent - the 'anti-tilt and the 'fail-safe' - the rest is prior art (my prior art). The short version is that my original patent lapsed and the owners of the company (which was sold and re-named several times after it was acquired from me and the other shareholders by a hostile take-over bid from a Texas company in 1996) very much wanted to continue to claim 'exclusive patented technology' even though that was no longer the case. Humphrey was my employee from 1985 to late 2001 and, unbeknownst to me, cut a deal with Oceanworks (the most recent descendant of the original Hard Suits Inc.) to 'patent' these two features in his name - but assigned to Oceanworks,(the two features that were not in my original patent.) 
> He is no longer in my employ.
> The few degrees of axial movement possible in the oil make-up section amount to about 15 degrees in a five bearing limb - significant - but nothing like the 90 degrees of normal movement - it is made possible by 'rocking' the piston when the reservoir is partially depleted - not usually used and not claimed in either patent.
> 
> This pretty sketchy, but I can't  go into further detail - except to say that I am currently the sole owner of Hard Suits Inc. 
> 
> 
> Original Message ----- 
>   From: Sean T. Stevenson 
>   To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org 
>   Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:31 PM
>   Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
> 
> 
>   Perhaps best directed at Phil, but posted to the list in case anyone is interested:
> 
>   I was looking at some of the old ADS suit joint patents, and I noticed that the old Nuytten patent (CA 1296032) describes a degree of freedom in axial alignment of 1.5 - 3 degrees per joint.  By inspection, it appears that this is the result of the movement of lower member 2 in this patent, although I could be mistaken.  In any case, this permissible misalignment is touted as a design advantage in the patent, although it is not clear whether this allowable flex is by design intent, or merely an unintended consequence of the assembly.  In the subsequent Humphrey patent (CA 2485908), this degree of freedom is characterized as undesirable, and indeed the joint described in this patent specifically attempts to eliminate it and establish axial rigidity, in an attempt to prevent any bending load on the joint from causing seal leakage.  Intuitively this makes some sense, although the Nuytten patent describes a cumulative flexing ability of 18 degrees over a seven-joint conduit; this is not insignificant.  I presume that this difference would need to be accommodated by adjusting the wedge angles and/or rotary limits of each joint such that the necessary range of motion of the operator is not impacted.  I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here - other than to get some idea of whether flex is an important design objective, or whether it is simply the result of holding looser assembly tolerances than a design using fully rigid joints which relies upon joint rotation exclusively?
> 
>   -Sean
> 
> 




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************