Re: New ideas

[HUNTR2@aol.com]

In a message dated 99-02-24 08:48:06 EST, you write:

<< than trying to build a lighter hull.
 What about the high stress points and hull penetrations?
 What about water between the layers? What about hidden rust?
 Would it have to be made with many small sections welded together to make
anything
 like a cardboard structure?
 What about the extra labor to build?
 In the end, I think a thinner single wall hull with a lot of  T- ribs gives
you
 the most strength per lb. and you can put much equipment between the ribs. My
 friend that has the 14000 lb 3 man sub with a diesel in it, made his fuel
tank by
 sealing up the space between 3 ribs and putting a pressure proof filler cap
on the
 outside. I liked his idea.
 That is what is done on our large military subs.
 Jon Shawl >>

Hi Jon,
Yes these are good questions.  The main reason for something like this would
be far greater strenght, hull penetrations and stress points just doubled up
like on single layer hulls.  "Lighter" can be compensated by water ballast if
the space can be flooded.  If the layers and the honeycomb were bonded so both
hulls acted as stiffeners for eachother, the space between them could be used
as variable ballast and even trim if you had it separated into two or three
parts.   Inspection would be a problem unless you make it or coat it with non-
corrosive material.  You're right about cost and time....  This probably would
be something Exxon would have to fund and not a psuber.   Just ideas, ideas,
ideas...
I've designed a sub on paper and then found the Kittridge sub...  turned out
to be almost identical (well, not engineered) except for placement of Main
ballast tanks.  Now that my son has a scanner I'll scan the stuff in and send
it to Ray.  In the end tho, I'm going to get Kittridge plans and go that
route.  I've been a lurker here for over a year... but the dream will never
die.

Call me a dreamer... It's a compliment.
I'll compliment the dream with action as soon as $ allows.
Gene