Re: One last time

[protek@shreve.net]

Phil,

    First, you are right that I was upset.  My asking you if you had
ever read PVHO was just plain tacky, and I apologize for being tacky. 
I do not question your day job as you have defined it on psubs. 
Many of us would enjoy such a vocation.  If this were a discussion
group where life and limb were not at issue I would probably not
have even commented the first time.
    Since you have been informative about your job, I too will discuss
my profession.  I teach physics, electronics, and computer science,
at LSU in Shreveport, La.  My doctorate is in engineering but not
mechanical engineering.  I have no doubt that you understand
materials better than I understand materials. 
    As I mentioned, I teach at the university level.  I am at the top of
the faculty when it comes to teaching evaluations.  I have a pretty
good understanding of people, their abilities and weaknesses, and
the learning process in general.  All of this sets the stage for
restatement of my original point.
    There is a wide range of talents and abilities on psubs.  I am
certainly not the final authority on anything here.  But there is also a
group of people that dream of owning and operating their own sub
someday.  Many of these people are far far from having the
knowledge to do so with safety.  I was once in that group myself.  I
seriously question that (all) of those people in that group can go on
to build a safe submersible.  I also believe that some can.
    If you really knew me, you would not question my willingness to
venture into areas that have not been well trod by the multitudes,
such as unusual materials, designs, or methods.  I have never
thought of sub design as any form of "Holy Grail" as you mentioned
in a previous post.  There is nothing mysterious, or black magic-like
about it.  But these people are not ready to build a "Deep Flight".  I
personally would not want them to try some of the psubs suggested
materials and practices.  
    There has been much talk of testing.  But, an example of what I
have been saying occurred recently on psubs.  It was clear that some
believed that any window design that held to maybe double the
depth of operation was safe.  They never even knew about long term
effects or cycle testing.  They were discussing the construction of
testing systems to apparently take the window to short-term critical
pressure and failure.  This is my point; if they stick to standard
materials like PVHO advocates or Kitteridge apparently is using (I
know very little about his subs) they have a well defined, well laid
out approach to construction.  However, if they go off with the "Its
OK to use anything, cause the expert said its OK" approach taken out
of your context, I a genuinely concerned that they will be so far off
into uncharted ground that there will be a fatality. To assume some
will not take this out of context is risky. Some will take that and run
with it, thinking that they have covered the bases.
    You use titanium, special alloys, exotic materials because you
know how they perform.  You apparently have many years of
experience in material science.  They don't.  As an example; they
possibly would take these same materials and combine them so that
when temperature changes, and each expands or contracts with a
different coefficient of thermal expansion the seals could be
compromised.  Their are so many things that some don't know to
think about.  There is so much to know about the field of testing that
many don't know.  That is why, once again, if they are going to build
a sub anyway, they should stick to something that is not at some
new cutting edge, but basic, excepted, and a well trodden path.
    The reason that I got upset, was not the fact that I take issue with
the fact that you could perhaps theoretically build a sub out of many
materials.  The reason I got upset is because I know the impact that
your statements can have, and how they possibly will be received.
   One final thought here.  I have a copy of PVHO and I too have read
it.  It is about 10 years old.  Why doesn't PVHO advocate the
any-materials approach?  They were very specific about materials
and they were all metals or acrylic plastics that were used in their
standard.  There are other standards I know, but if anyone builds
with materials that are not accepted, the design will be
non-accepted.  If I advocate materials that are not included by any
known standard then I am advocating building a sub outside of
accepted practice.

Gary Boucher




At 12:42 AM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Hullo, Gary:
>        Yup, you are quite right about my attributing your remarks to Jon
>Shawl - I've already apologised to him for that , and do so, again; (
>Sorry, Jon!).
>        I'm also sorry if my thoughts on manned submersible design,
>materials, etc., have upset you. You're certainly not alone . .some of the
>'ADS NEWTSUIT' stuff I patented nearly two decades ago upset the
>conventional designers, the 'REMORA' submarine rescue  system that I
>patented and we built for the Royal Australian Navy sure annoyed and upset
>the DSRV guys,  and the current 'DEEPWORKER'  series is a radical departure
>from conventional design, as is the new 'EXOSUIT'. Gary, this IS my day job
>. .this is what I do for a living.  This is not my hobby. 
>        I'm really suprised that you could have so completely missed my
>point(s).  You sound really, genuinely, PO'd  that I would mention formula
>terms amidst people " who don't know what psi is"  . .Expressing units in
>kips and pascals was  not done to  impress you. It is the convention for
>hull stress formulae. I realize that it is a bit arcane ( although the
>conversion is simple) and that's why I very carefully followed that
>particular paragraph with the disclaimer that I was NOT trying to " be
>smart or patronising". 
>        You also miss my point on materials - even tho' you say " I agree,
>. . .could make a bridge . . etc., etc." you obviously don't agree or don't
>'get' what I was saying . .   You ask whether or not I have "even read PVHO
>. ." don't you honestly think that is just a teensy weensy tad insulting???
>                                                          The 'DEEPWORKER
>2000' subs that we are building right are a hybrid combination of
>materials; 516-70 mild steel, 6061 T6 aluminum, titanium, 316 stainless
>steel, UHMW,  and Acrylic G. Each of the metals have  different machining
>and welding characteristics, corrosion and/or electrolysis problems, cold
>temp expansion/contraction co-efficients. Do you think that we are using
>these materials in concert on some sort of a whim??? or an ego-driven
>desire to use 'exotic' materials???     If we used the 'tried and true'
>method of soft steel construction, we couldn't  build the DEEPWORKERS,
>period. Let's get this straight: These are certified and classed hulls -
>every scrap of material has been tracked from its melt batch and is
>certified, numbered, and registered. Every inch of weld has been Xrayed,
>mag-particled, or dye-penetrant tested. Every single hull integrity system
>from penetrator plates to 3rd party connectors have individually pressure
>tested ( including proof-testing the entire subs  to 2800 feet in our nine
>foot chamber) strain-guaged, logged and verified by inspecting surveyors
>from the certifying agency.  . .You seem to like viewports: We designed and
>provided the working drawings for the 2000 foot rated acrylic domes, we
>specified the polymer component mix, detailed the testing procedures,
>heat-treating, and the surface finish polishing procedures. Finally, we
>arranged for the presence of surveyors and final certification. We usually
>do this in batches of a dozren or more hemispheres, because of the very
>long lead time....... and you ask me if 'I've even read' PVHO . Jeez, Gary,
>the first drafts of PVHO that I read were in ball-point pen!!
>        One last time. External pressure vessel design is a  known,
>specific, repeatable, testable, accepted, procedure of calculation that is
>used thousands of times every day in North America. It can be applied to
>any material whose physical characteristics are known and expressable in
>the formula terms. You can check out the efficiency of any material you may
>wish to consider against other materials and make a decision based on
>objective. Just like nearly anything else in this age of specialization,
>you can learn to do it yourself - if you have the capacity, time, and
>inclination - or you can pay some-one else to do it for you. 
>        If some aspiring subber says " I want to build a sub like 'Deep
>Flight' " it is simply not acceptable to blow them off by saying "Naw, you
>dont know what a  psi is, you gotta build a Kitteridge".
>        Gary, you are not the the average mental couch potato - or you
>wouldn't have built a sub in the first place. You know what it's like to be
>thirsty . .dig your well where others may drink. Melodramatic? perhaps .
>.but I firmly believe that it is the same spirit that caused you to build a
>sub  - that will take us to the stars.
>
>        OK, the horse is flogged and buried. I apologise to other subbers
>for taking their time.
>
>Regards
>
>Dr. Phil Nuytten
>President, Nuytco Research Ltd.
>www.nuytco.com
>
>