Too much debate not enough info?

[shawl@torchlake.com (Jonathan Shawl)]

Hi, All Psubbers,
There has been much Psub e-mail coming in and I don't have enough time
to respond to each one I would like to.
To save time, mine and yours, I will put most of what I want to say
about the recent postings in this one. After this I will try to stick to
only the technical e-mails that I feel I can add anything to.
I have received several e-mails similar to the following message. I
would like to share this one because it says it so well.
And I Quote...
    "I have to say that I agree with your view of the PSub group. I am
one of those still compiling design ideas before buying
materials. I now have only 187 messages from the group have learned
nothing that I didn't already know (and I am by no means a expert at
anything). When I first subscribed to the group I couldn't wait to read
the messages. Now I could care less. I read a message replying to your
email today that completely infuriated me! ............. I want ideas
and pointers. After today, I will either unsubscribe from the list of
remain a lurker till someone pushes my button again (which wont be long
the way things are going) "
..... unquote. Note, this is one of the newer members. Is it helping the
newcomer to subs by engaging in debate over what each other is "really
saying"? Some of the recent debate???

"OOOhhhh . . . I just crossed my knees  - I feel a flux in the Force,
ObiWan!"
"Moi? "
"Repeat as in "throw up"?          :-) "
"You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar! "
"Somewhere around 0345h I think I lost my sense of humour. "
"No flames!  Wasn't I sweet? "
"Seem to enjoy"?  That's coming close to a FLAME!!!  Actually, it's
closer to libel,
but, I won't tell anyone   ;-)"
"Say that with a smile, there, Pardner!!!  Another "almost FLAME"!!! "
"I'm inclined to wonder if something can be done with papier mache
(sealed and re-enforced, of course!).    ;-) "
"I still wouldn't do it out of Jello, mind you. "
".... 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!!! "
"Finally, the party responsible steps forward.  Are you in trouble now!"

"Flamed?  I've seen no evidence of such abuse!  So far our exchanges
have been very "
"civil, if spirited, and respectful.  But, flaming? "
"Ooooohhhhh - you shoulda seen the FLAME I just deleted!"
"I better send the "technically sound" stuff first so I don't develop
a radical reputation! "       (TOO LATE)
 ">my technical engineering background is minimal; however, my training
included DISCUSSION and DEBATE."
 All this from someone who had "training in discussion and debate "? Are
these examples of Sub related debate?
 I want to say that  I am not against a debate done for the purpose of
bringing out new or better ideas into a better light. I don't care for
debate that comes with many of the above unnecessary comments. Some of
the comments seem to me more like one liners at a comedy club (I did
laugh at some), or like a jab in the ribs with a sharp stick, rather
than something you would say in a "professional debate". I'm apologize
to all if I said anything that may have started any of this type of
"debate".

This next part is in reference to the sub related death Richard was
telling about in his posting. I recently sent him a copy of a newspaper
clipping.
I think Rick made some assumptions about the accident. Rick Said....
">... 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.
>....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.
>.....Don't throw it away by diving in it during testing, either.
>...It is an engineering fundamental that you test without humans before
you test with humans."

In general, what you are saying Rick is true, don't be a human guinea
pig! that part is good advice....
...and it don't take a engineering degree to "know better".
...but Rick, you are just guessing about what happened in this tragic
event and making it sound like this was their first dive.
Now for the rest of the story...
This event happened about 50 miles from me. I have the local TV news
reports on tape and the newspaper reports on file. I have a sales flyer
about the sub. I will post the newspaper articles separately. I have
talked to friends of the family and people that went to school with the
man that was killed. I have a dive friend that saw the sub up close at a
boat show. At that time my friend asked them about the windows and was
told that they had tested them to over a 100' in a unmanned test. He
also said that they would be making the next one thicker, from 1/4" up
to 5/16" thick. (still to thin I thought) I also heard this from others
in my area that had talked to them about their sub. So here we have an
"engineered" sub that was tested unmanned to over 100' and survived.
Then it was used in Green lake on other shallower manned dives. Only to
collapse later at 38'!
This brings up a very good point Gary's made about testing windows.
"...... But more than just a test or two or three may be needed for
safety.  Windows for example
are pressure cycled thousands of times to establish that a certain
design is not
going to fail.  One or two cycles to much greater depth will NOT yield
the
info necessary to make a judgment.  That is why the Navy spent all that
money in
testing to just establish the parameters for round flat plate windows!
You
deviate in materials or technique and you are stepping onto uncharted
ground.
 ....    My point is that just because something holds out water and
will test to
twice the operating depth does not mean it is safe."
I think building a "dud" was the first mistake, then a lack of proper
testing was there last mistake. It took both.
>From what I could see in the TV news footage of the recovery, the front
window was still hanging on by about 3 bolts along one side. The domed
view port had turned inside out into the sub and then ripped loose most
of the way around. I can only guess that the pilot must have been hit
pretty hard. In the newspaper they speculated about the sub hitting a
log that may have been lying on the bottom, but one report I herd was
that they were in mid water when it happened and the sub sunk to the
bottom. As far as I know no logs were found in that area during the
rescue. That would mean then that they did not test there unique window
design enough to prove it's long term reliability. And from what I here
about these two they where not stupid people. Hopefully their experience
can help all of us while we continue to learn  to build only safer subs
than there's.
They were trained but had more to learn from experience, the experience
came to late for one of them.
This experience has made me rethink many things since building my sub.
Like Is my sub safe enough? How safe is safe enough?
To close I will quote Gary's words once more.
"I would say this to new people and those thinking about psubs "ASK ALL
THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT OF ANY OF US.  I don't want to impede the free
flow of questions at all.  But if some are answered by "no" then
understand that we are not trying to squelch creativity."
I couldn't say it better myself.
Jon Shawl