[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] FW: sub ops
Hugh we have 26" freebord on KSS Eurosub against waves with the outer sail mounted.
Theoretical the out sail can be easy removed for use in lakes or protected water.
But no one of the pilots did it or feel to do so.
Without the outer sail the hatch freebord will be reduce to just 12".
This is the freeboard against flooding. Not bad - but a to low figure for a boat used also in open waters.
On KSS Eurosub you can stand with three person on the deck - boat empty and two of this guys in front of the sail on the bow deck and the boat is still pretty stable. But if somebody like to go to the aft bollard it is whise that still one guy is standing or sitting on this bow deck..
The freeboard agains wave influence on CSS Euronaut is 2100 mm or 83" and against flooding 55".
And stability is calculate that way that you can carry a Abraham tank on the deck.
Hmm.. Okay.. maybe a smaller one..
The freeboard of CSS Sgt.Pepeprs is just 142 mm or 6 inch..
But this boat was never designed to run with open hatch on the surface.
For this reson the boat has a breathin snorckel.
We later realise that the boat can be driven with open hatch on the surface- because the driver half out
block the hatch 98% so water can not easy go in.
Even Sgt.Peppers is pretty stable on the surface with one man standing upright on the saddle tanks.
Most important issue on the design steps for a submarine is the pressure hull calculation and the stability calculation. Special the one in longtudinal direction..
vbr Carsten
"Hugh Fulton" <hc.fulton@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Sean,
> I believe that KSS Eurosub meets the minimum 30" ABS height and also the
> Comsub theoretically meets it but barely until I prove I have lightened it
> sufficiently.
> The new sub I am building should have one meter. Time will tell. C-Quester's
> also meet height requirement. Good point on the safety issues with too big
> an MBT but you need a big one to get it out of the water. Not much good if
> one gets damaged. Hugh
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> [mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Sean T.
> Stevenson
> Sent: Monday, 17 January 2011 3:02 p.m.
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] FW: sub ops
>
> I get the immediate impression that fore and aft (pitch) stability
> analysis is probably not being given the same care and attention as the
> transverse (roll) case in many cases. The same considerations apply to
> both, and in fact an argument can be made that fore and aft stability is
> more critical.
>
> In any case, small vessels are inherently prone to significant motions
> due to both the sea and the movement of occupants within, and
> accordingly, MBTs should be designed to accommodate the worst case
> scenario motions (i.e. all possible motions within the
> point-of-no-return surface stability limits) without the loss of ballast
> air. For this reason, I am a fan of totally enclosed MBTs.
> Realistically, though, as PSubbers we are already making concessions to
> our intended use - apart from Carsten, I don't think anyone is meeting
> the mininum freeboard requirements of ABS etc. Commercially, PSub size
> boats like the Nuytco Deepworkers must be hoisted on deck before hatches
> are opened. At the Vancouver conference, by applying maximum transverse
> thrust in alternating directions, at the natural frequency of the
> vessel's roll, I was able to roll the DW to a pretty good angle - and
> that was still on the hook! (Phil, if you're reading this, I wasn't
> trying to break it - honest). The point is, it wouldn't take much
> effort on the part of the occupants to put a surfaced PSub hatch awash,
> so the question becomes, when determining to what extent you comply with
> the commercial design guidelines, how much safety do you make inherent
> to the mechanical design, versus the operating procedures and simple
> assumption that the vessel occupants are not going to put the vessel at
> risk?
>
> As an off-the-cuff suggestion, it seems logical to me that a surfaced
> vessel with MBTs blown should be able to accommodate its design crew
> complement on the weather deck without significant risk of stability
> failure, when operating in the design sea state.
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On 16/01/2011 5:16 PM, Alan James wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This whole issue of buoyancy seems to have been under rated.
> > There was Tao Xianglis oil barrel sub that went bow up & had to be
> > dragged from the water.
> > Doug's Argonaut Junior surfaced too quickly & on the backward bounce
> > compressed his ballast air
> > & sank to the bottom before he could adjust it. & now Jim's boat.
> > It's a bit of a wake up call in this area.
> > Regards Alan
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Fulton" <hc.fulton@gmail.com>
> > To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] FW: sub ops
> >
> >
> >> Sean,
> >> Under ABS rules there is a stability check for maximum movement of
> >> personnel
> >> etc within the confines of a sub. It would be an interesting
> >> excercise to
> >> have that comparison made on BG or a Kittredge design under 7-10.2 of
> >> ASME
> >> PVHO. This is for underwater stability but righting moments etc for
> >> on top
> >> with metacentric height etc can be calculated. This is one of my big
> >> concerns. I think I remember throwing out that thread on stability some
> >> time last year but there was no interest at the time. I am considering
> >> putting a diaphragm on the base of the MBT so that in the event of a
> >> tail or
> >> nose entanglement blowing of the MBT's will not result in burping at a
> >> severe angle.
> >> After testing of the Comsub I have tried to alter the various components
> >> like an Ali rudder instead of SS as the moment was too great and it
> >> was tail
> >> heavy on test, also increased drop weight, lighter batteries. However
> >> these
> >> are minor changes to what you are alluding. Hugh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> >> [mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Sean T.
> >> Stevenson
> >> Sent: Monday, 17 January 2011 12:41 p.m.
> >> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] FW: sub ops
> >>
> >> Dean - check your email settings. Your messages are showing up in a
> >> huge font on my system.
> >>
> >> As for your comments - I'm sure every designer has their reasons for
> >> keeping their designs as light as possible, but it is an interesting
> >> thought exercise to consider the actual downsides to incorporating
> >> larger main buoyancy tank volumes, in conjunction with additional
> >> lead ballast, to increase the righting arm of any given boat for the
> >> same freeboard. Lead is relatively cheap, and exterior MBTs would
> >> seem to be one of the easiest structural / mechanical retrofits that
> >> can be effected. The obvious downside being the necessary power to
> >> drive the boat at the same speed, but for most PSub applications
> >> (Cliff excepted), we're not racing around down there. Perhaps
> >> designing for sufficient stability to support a load on the weather
> >> deck is worth the additional displacement? Even without changing
> >> displacement and ballast, it might be possible to lower the position
> >> of fixed ballast on a given design in order to increase stability? I
> >> am curious to know if anyone on the list has, after completing and
> >> testing a sub, opted to make modifications in order to change the
> >> stability. Comments?
> >>
> >> -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
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5792 (20110116) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5792 (20110116) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> 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
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************