[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
Hi, Carsten
Sure you could use 'Newtsuit' or 'Hardsuit' arms (they are virtually
identical - except for the name) but I suggest that the 'Exosuit' arm is a
much improved and up-to-date version of this near thirty year old design!
The only way it will work properly on a sub is on an end hemisphere with a
port above the centerline of the users shoulders or a dome port with the
arms below. The original 'Flyer' version of the Deep Worker was designed
with a backwards-facing dome-ring and Newtsuit arm sockets for just that
purpose. We built two of this series but never got around to putting the
arms on them - (one sold immediately and I kept the second one for myself -
like I need more subs!) It would be interesting to see if you could purchase
a set of Hardsuit arms from Oceanworks - I think the chances are zero - but
if you were able to convince them to sell, I'm guessing a pair of arms and
manips would be in excess of $250K U.S. - a trifle pricey!
Cost of Exo arms? Ask me in a few months when we deliver the first Exos -
same depth and a whole lot less than the Hardsuit version, though!
----- Original Message -----
From: <MerlinSub@t-online.de>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************