Basic misunderstanding: design experimentation is being promoted at the expense of safety.
Wrong!
Please, let's all be conscious of the underlying meaning of what people are asking, newbies and creatives alike: "how can we make this work?" With the addendum of " . . . without being killed?".
So . . . my PREAMBLE: under no circumstances should any of MY responses be misconstrued as flames. Where I come from (French Canada) intellectual discourse and debate is "de rigeur". It is welcomed, encouraged and supported. We disagree vehemently and are still friends after the fact. We still buy each other a beer, latte or . . . OK?
In the spirit of investigation, enquiry and general beach subbing, may I contribute the following: my technical engineering background is minimal; however, my training included DISCUSSION and DEBATE. Surely this is not restricted to Francophone mentalities? Do they not ENGAGE at MIT? Princeton?
Anyone on this list who has any engineering or academic background understands the value of polarized viewpoints. My Dear Psubbers - this is NOT a tea party. Let's concentrate on the issues being discussed - like design safety.
PLEASE understand what the term "qualifier" means! In every instance of psubbers disagreeing with each other, never have I seen a real, honest-to-god flame! We are talking about safety and, believe it or not, we all agree!
That having been said, let's take a real look at what an experienced, field tested psubber has to say.
protek@shreve.net (Gary Boucher) wrote:
[snip] I am interested in theShouldn't? Perhaps the caveat "should" be to go ahead and DO IT -- with the understanding that you do not climb into an untested vehicle in order to test it. It's not the errors, or the poor design, or the wrong materials that kill/maim psubbers. It's the violation of the primary principle of both engineering and science: never use humans as guinea pigs. The fatal flaw is NOT the building of a dud - it is the completely stupid (judgemental term - I apologize) and blinded (by ego?) method of testing that will kill.
safety issue after seeing SO many posts that are asking questions about
things that just shouldn't be done in the first place.
[snip] I used toOne cannot but help wonder if it's because the tanks actually LOOK like submarines that people are enamoured with them.
drive down a highway and admire all propane tanks as having potential. I
have been there.
[snip]Design Philosophy 101 is the mainstay to your argument and the arguments of all who promote safety. Without a design philosophy, there would be no focus, no results - and no safety. Your "philosophy of safety" is built-in to your argument by default.
When there is a question, everyone jumps in till it becomes a question
on philosophy rather than a technical question.
Also: technical issues form only a part of the value of this list. I have known artists and philosophers that could draw circles around technical types because they understood the process of critical thought. Many engineers are among the most creative people this planet has to offer. Notice I'm differentiating between "engineers" and "technical types".
Technical types are stuck in one mode of thought: "logic". There happen to be roughly 5 billion different versions of "logic" on this planet. If what you mean is "what works" then I'm on your side. But, there are so many versions of "what works" that it makes the head spin.
Jon, Richard, myself, andAn extremely valid point of view - just not an exclusive one. However, the key to what you're saying is "proven". How does one go about "proving"? By testing, of course. Like all who came before you.
several others have tried to suggest avenues of proven technique such as
using steel hull design, acrylic window of proper thickness seated in
proper ways, etc. We know that subs have been constructed with given
techniques for years that have been safe and had utility.
It isYes, you are correct. It was suggested by none other than the foremost, most prolific, field experienced and successful submersible designer in the world. I won't drag his name into this. He is a member, however, of this list. I'm responsible for introducing him to our group. If he wants to ENGAGE it'll have to be up to him.
discouraging to me personally when someone goes and says that you can build
a sub out of anything that keeps out water. You know, this is a true
statement.
However, did everyone miss his caveats regarding parameters? Tolerances? Appropriateness of material choices? Respect for "alternative" designs which he made very clear have to be tested? Understanding the nature of your materials?
If you can build bridges that support army tanks out of cardboard, you can build a submarine. Understand the materials.
[snip] Then, why don't we offer some specific designs that people can build?How true.
Liability. [snip]
It is far easier to say "NO you can not do that", than
to tell someone exactly how to design specifics.
However, on every pharmaceutical drug insert, every advert for vitamins and herbs, every technical brochure on anything, there is ALWAYS a waiver of responsibility that keeps most parties out of court. What is it? Simply what all of the "safety" oriented psubbers have been stating all along: have your designs, building steps and techniques, drawings and field testing evaluated by certified professionals. Period end of story. There is no substitute for not standing on the shoulders of giants. This is where wisdom supercedes intelligence.
Please, refer to Ray's disclaimer on the home page.
I think that is whyA position well worth respecting. But, "negative"? Strong, maybe. All of us would do well to pay attention. "Been there done it" carries a lot of weight.
several of us are flamed or ignored with our posts. We have been so
negative with some folks that they surely think we are knowitall snobs.
Not the case at all. On certain occasions we are just doing what we feel
like we can to prevent problems.
I have noticed that all the protesting has been coming from the "safety" camp. I, perhaps, am one of the few exceptions. There has been a strange silence from the newbies and "fringe" people the past few days ;-)
[snip] But, don't take any advice solely based onRay has gone out of his way to make this very clear to all members. It has been an ongoing effort on his part. I think it's almost a mantra of this list, n'est-ce-pas?
you thinking that the person is an expert. This includes me and others.
Form your idea and ask your questions.
But, "forming your idea and asking your questions" seems to trigger an absolutist, knee jerk reaction that safety is attainable only within the parameters set out by a select few.
Then go to a professional engineerGet that everyone? As empassioned as all of us are to "get down", this is one of the "bottom lines".
and run your design by him first. Anyone doing a build it project should
also consult a professional to check their work as they would in industry
before it is signed off on.
So, keep up the good questions on our design philosophies. That is, after all, another way of saying "design rationale" or "prove to me that your idea works".
--
Rick Lucertini
empiricus@sprint.ca
(Vancouver, Canada)
"Most people die with their dreams still inside them."