RE: Unmanned test dives

["Morrisson, Richard D" <Richard.Morrisson@PSS.Boeing.com>]

Agreed, there is no substitute for at least one "dunk" style proof test.  The frames should have much less of a creep problem than plastic though and a single proof test should be sufficient.  Cycling to check fatigue of a steel hulled sub should not be a question for one with an adequite safety margin.  Note: "fatigue" and "creep" are specific engineering terms, not my personal ones.

I hope to make a sub with a large acrylic dome similar to "Deep Flight" someday and will be making up a test rig such as I described.  I will let everyone know when (if) I do so others can benefit from it's use.

> ----------
> From: 	EdwMullin@aol.com[SMTP:EdwMullin@aol.com]
> Sent: 	Monday, March 01, 1999 3:17 PM
> To: 	personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Subject: 	Re: Unmanned test dives
> 
> The test rig described here sounds excellent for testing the acrylic part of
> the view port.  A previous post made mention of view port frames failing due
> to welding to the hull.  To test the welding of the entire hull, as well as
> through hulls, fittings etc... that was why I thought the entire sub should be
> submerged to depth... 
>