Re: The First PSUBs Fatality

[Rick Lucertini <empiricus@sprint.ca>]

Hi, Richard - great name you have there!   :-)

I'd like to address a few of your remarks.  It's 0300h so I hope my replies are
reasonably pleasant.

richard hess wrote:

> [mega-snip]        This is an example of what happens when someone ventures in the
> realm of
> the unproven/untested design.  [snip]       Many people on the psubs group seem
> enjoy
> using/promoting untried designs, untried materials, and untried methods.

"Seem to enjoy"?  That's coming close to a FLAME!!!  Actually, it's closer to libel,
but, I won't tell anyone   ;-)

Take a close look at what you're saying.  As in a previous post I submitted (today's
date), I made it clear that it was faulty testing procedures that killed that
psubber.  Unproven/untested designs are simply that.  They are a laboratory
curiousity.  It is an engineering fundamental that you test without humans before you
test with humans.

Notice that no one has carelessly disputed what the experienced people have been
saying.

What has been happening is that newbies and creatives are interested in the design
process (rationale) and have basically been saying "show me/prove to me/explain to
me/why/why not/if then/what if, etc."  This is everyone's right.

Nowhere has anyone said, claimed or otherwise expounded on the benefits of ignoring
accrued wisdom.

Venturing into the unknown is the only way to explore.

> If the recent death does not reinforce what Gary Boucher, Jon Shawl,
> myself, and a few others have been saying about sticking to accepted
> engineering standards, having your design checked by a REAL Mechanical
> Engineer

I need to be blunt here to illustrate a point: what are ya doin', tryin' to kill
someone?

You've made an innocent, but fundamental error that, unless remarked upon, could lead
to a false sense of security for a newbie or even the more experienced.  You did it
without realizing that your well meaning advice could lead to someone's death.

A mechanical engineer is not necessarily qualified on pressure vessels or the
materials used in a marine environment.

Furthermore, there are hydraulic engineers, electrical engineers, electronics
engineers, material sciences engineers, corrosion specialists, instrumentation
specialists, model makers, environmental engineers, ocean sciences engineers,
propulsion specialists and computer specialists that have to be consulted in the
design of textbook-perfect submersibles.

> and having the finished hull pressure tested beyond it's
> operating depth

As in, beyond its design depth; as in, to and beyond its crush depth.  Repeatedly -
under a variety of conditions, loads and shocks.

Have you followed these protocols?  Is your sub safe?  How do you know?  Could you
share this information with the group?

> then nothing more can be said on this discussion group
> to save you from your own flawed sub design.

Say that with a smile, there, Pardner!!!  Another "almost FLAME"!!!

As long as you, or anyone else, are willing to violate the protocols I mentioned
above (and these are the tip of the protocol iceberg) does that mean you should offer
nothing to this group?  Are your opinions not valid?

I challenge every sub owner on this list to provide the test logs of their boats
under their ownership.  Drafting sign-offs, construction sign-offs, insurance
sign-offs, ABS sign-offs, Coast Guard sign-offs, tables and matrices of shifting
moments under a variety of sea-states, loading at various temperatures, thermal
expansion data on differing types of conjoined materials, magnetic influences on
critical navigation equipment, systems failure truth tables, etc.

Oh, yes, anyone here done REAL sea trials?  In gale force winds?  Twelve foot rolling
seas?  How about your bows?  How sea-kindly are they?  Is your sub a coffin under
these conditions?  Do you use sub-to-tender communications at all times to monitor
changing weather?  Do you even have a tender? Could your vessel handle a severe roll
in beam seas?  Will it turn turtle?  Do you have a WRITTEN plan of action in case of
an emergency?  Does the local Rescue Coordination Centre know the limits and safety
features of your sub?  Are they on file?  Do they need to be?  Do you carry a VHF
radio?  How fresh are your communication batteries?  Do you carry backups?  Do you
carry a strobe light or flares?  A smoke grenade?  Parachute flares?  Does your
vessel even carry the basic boating safety equipment?  Why not?  Does it even have a
set of paddles to get you to shore?  Would you even need them?

Does your boat carry a full set of snorkeling gear and life jackets or buoyancy
compensating vests (BC's) in case of emergency egress?  How about a cold water hood?
Pony bottle?  Is there a strobe on your BC or life jacket?  Do you have a pressure
resistant container with a portable water resistant VHF radio in it attached to your
vest?

For the divers among us, how often have you surfaced to a different sea state than
the one at the start of your dive?  This happens with subs, too, especially those
with a lot of life support.

Look folks, I know of ONE individual on this list who I know for a fact even suspects
what I'm talking about.  Again, he's been there-done it.  And, he continues to do it
- over and over and over.

> MANY of the people on this group are on the very same road as the two
> PSUBer's who were in the flawed sub.

Hardly.  The members of OUR list are asking questions, putting out proposals, and
asking opinions.  They are lurking to watch trends and observe how we deal with
contentious issues.  Will we be critical of new ideas?  How about the most basic of
questions?  Are we supposed to tell them to rifle through every archive in search of
their answer?  Don't bother us with those simple minded questions?  Read the archives
before bothering us?

No, the members of OUR list are very intelligent indeed.  And, for the most part,
wise.  I for one will continue to address the same questions and issues over and over
again if I have the time.

> I think this manned submersible
> fatality should be A WAKE UP CALL to all of those on the discussion
> group who are as we speak, building subs out of non-approved materials

Pardon?  What's approved under what context?  That's the proper question.  Read below
. . .

> building slab sided subs

Fine for wet subs and ambient dry boats.  Hydrodynamic hell, mind you.

> milk-tank subs

That's a first!  What's a milk tank?

> wooden subs

ref. my earlier post of field tested parameters of a plywood sub called the
"Submanaut".

> building viewports of their "own" design

if tested, what's the issue?

> planing to put gasoline engines inside
> their hulls

That was an innocent query.  A diesel engine is much safer.

> [snip]        Some people seem
> to think that you can build a sub out of any material

You can - (almost) within the design tolerances of that material.  I still wouldn't
do it out of Jello, mind you.

Fibreglass, wood, glass, plastic, concrete, ceramic and metal have all been used
successfully.  I'm inclined to wonder if something can be done with papier mache
(sealed and re-enforced, of course!).    ;-)

> I have also seen a cardboard submarine once,

Totally rad!!!  Can you tell the group more about it?

>should we all start building fiberglass covered cardboard submarines?

Only if the cardboard had a honeycombed core made with a water resistant coating.  If
you can do it with plastic honeycomb, why not cardboard?  Please, test it first -
repeatedly!

> Would a cardboard submarine be safe at a depth of 100'?

Absolutely.  Come on.  Design within the parameters of the material you are using!!!

Stop (you all know who you are) making assumptions about the materials you are
working with!  You can, and will, be killed in your certified, ring stiffened
titanium hulls at a depth of one atmosphere if you ignore testing protocol.

> [snip]        there are tons of information related to manned
> submersibles at a good library, but you have to go and spend some time
> looking it up.  You should also seek out professional engineering
> advise, someone with the "PE" after their name.

Excellent ideas.  As for the PE, be careful.  Find out what the protocols are and
follow them to the letter.  PE does not mean Perfect & Enlightened.  It simply means
Practised & Educated.

> [snip]

> I don't know why anyone would want to waste their time, money, and their
> life trying to reinvent what George Kittredge has already perfected.

He didn't perfect it - he duplicated it.  He used to be a commander of a military
sub.  Furthermore, I'm certain Commander Kitteredge would be the first to admit that
his designs are simply a drop in a very large bucket.

> Gary, myself and others have been flamed

Flamed?  I've seen no evidence of such abuse!  So far our exchanges have been very
civil, if spirited, and respectful.  But, flaming?

Wow - and I'm a sensitive Pisces!  March 1st.  You can all wish me a happy 43rd.
Like, Totally Rad!

> because we have urged a proven
> and cautious approach to submersible design and fabrication.

Well taken.  I for one am very supportive of that effort on yours, Gary's and the
others' parts.

> As some of you may remember I started the "dead horse" comment as a
> result of members on PSUBS beating a subject to death, until no one
> could remember what the original question was.

Finally, the party responsible steps forward.  Are you in trouble now!

> At such a time I think it is wise
> for someone to consult a book on the subject, and get some valid answers
> for themselves.

I will be sending Ray some very interesting and highly appropriate technical material
in JPG format.  I think you may find it fascinating coming from a "heretic"!  As a
matter of fact, I better send the "technically sound" stuff first so I don't develop
a radical reputation!

> I don't offer information other than the occasional
> technical example or operational story, I would rather point people in
> the direction of the proper information, and let them read it for
> themselves.

That's unfortunate, IMHO.  Why not share your wisdom?  With a clearly worded
disclaimer, of course.

Take a stand.  Is the legal climate in the US so litigous?  Just be careful you don't
get blamed for wrongful death!  You may be sued for non-disclosure of critical
information, especially since all these emails are archived!  That's what you get for
fence sitting!  A silent conspirator in someone's death!

> I think PSUBs serves best when it provides references for the members to
> check out for themselves.

We do that quite well.  I'm quite proud of our group.

> PSUBs is also a great gathering place for the
> private submariner to meet others with the same interest, and to show
> off photos of their subs.  However, when the PSUBs discussion group
> ventures into the area of speculative engineering advise, the warning
> lights should go off.

Please note that in virtually all instances of so-called "speculative advice", there
have been warnings of dire consequences (of poor testing) made by the proponents of
the advice.  As well it should be and demanded of.

This is an extremely well versed and thoughtful group.  Safety is our LARGEST
concern.  Over the past year or so we've come to know a little of our "cyber-subbers'
" personalities.  Perhaps I can speak for all that we would be deeply saddened at the
loss of one of our group.  Regardless of whether they ignored or followed our advice,
whether they died foolishly or innocently.

The point I'm making is that, ultimately, we are all responsible for educating
ourselves.  This list plays a small, but powerful role, in that education.

A review of the archives will show that there are caveats, warnings, directions,
library reference numbers, publishers' names, book titles, descriptions of proven
techniques and admonishings of all kinds plastered all over the map.

> PSUBs is not a Naval Research and Development
> Laboratory.

Ooooohhhhh - you shoulda seen the FLAME I just deleted!

> I hope everyone on the discussion group will take a moment to consider
> what caused the death of a fellow submariner

An engineer who, through training and experience, should have known better.  A human
foible.  He ignored his own education and, possibly, the advice of his peers.

> and how this unfortunate
> incident can serve as an example to the rest of us of what not to do
> when designing and building a submersible.

Agreed.  Test, Test, and Test again.  Regardless of who did the welding and how many
letters came after the consultant's name.

> [snip]        Your life is precious, don't
> throw it away by building a death trap.

Don't throw it away by diving in it during testing, either.


--
Rick Lucertini
empiricus@sprint.ca
(Vancouver, Canada)

"Most people die with their dreams still inside them."