[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Trolling Motors
hello,
Yes, I agree, you should have a way to compensate for any lose of displacement.
I remember hearing a story somewhere that a sub landed on the bottom and sank in
the "muck" the suction held them in place and they could not surface. That's all
I remember.
My sub has 4 MBT's front, back, and both sides, they can all be blown separately.
The deballasting air is provided by two internal scuba tanks that each have their
own regulator, valves and airlines. Safety does rely on redundancy !
ttyl
protek@shreve.net wrote:
> After a couple of Psubs Emails I am getting the picture of what is going
> on here. Little slow... I have a couple of comments. First, I personally
> do not think that anyone should build a sub that can not take the change in
> weight of a flooded trolling motor compartment. All subs should carry some
> form of compressed air that can be used for blowing what might be only an
> emergency tank or tanks. This source of air should be manually controled
> with a very reliable valve. My sub has two scuba tanks, two regulators,
> and two valves used for ballast blowing. I sometimes use an electric
> solonoid valve for giving a "shot" of air to the tanks but I also have two
> manual valve with much redundency. One shot of air should be able to take
> care of a motor housing flooding. An alternate approach would be to also
> use drop weights. I have around 200 pounds of drop weight. Now, my drop
> weight system has 3 switches that control two seperate drop weights. One
> is the ARM switch and has a switch cover to prevent accidents. The other
> two switches are FORWARD and AFT. I do have to have electrical power for
> this system but this is NOT my primary system. The air system is.
> My second point is; you need somebody that can go and pick you up if
> you surface and have no propulsion. They at least need to know where you
> are and what kind of reserves you have. Two-way communications is
> desirable also.
> Now, I am not commenting on the electrical shock danger here from
> exposing bare wire to outside water. However if the case of the motor is
> well grounded to the frame of the sub this "may" be a minimal concern.
>
> Gary Boucher
>
> At 09:35 AM 10/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Gary Boucher wrote:
> >> I am curious here. Could someone tell me how the failure of a trolling
> >>motor at depth be considered fatal? I keep seeing these posts that refer
> >>to danger and risk etc. Is this with a semi-dry sub? Why would blowing a
> >>seal be so dangerous?
> >
> >Thank you. That's what I was wondering: Umm, gee - it's just the motor.
> >What's the big deal? So, he stops going. I don't see how that's anything
> >but annoying and disappointing, unless he's trolled out farther than he can
> >swim back when the motor conks out, and there's nobody around to help...
> >
> >By the way, Martin: very clever. ("Trolling" for emotional responses...) :-)
> >
> >Martin Sanderse wrote: -----
> >>Albert Long wrote:
> >>> All I know about this is, don has been using the evinrude for some time
> now
> >>> at depths of 700 ft. !!! <snip>
> >>> I guess you either try it or you don't... I'm going to try it, when I do I
> >>> will let you know how it works for me,
> >
> >>On the risk that Albert is just trolling us for emotional responses:
> >>
> >>How about testing it without risking your health first? OK guys, let's
> >>think of a good
> >>testing method before we have a long post-mortem discussion. That way if
> >>he wants to
> >>kill himself his family can't say he didn't know how to test the thing.
> > ------
> >
> >
> >---------
> >David
> >buchner@wcta.net
> >http://customer.wcta.net/buchner
> >Osage MN USA
> >
> >
> >