Re: Unmanned test dives

[Axel Iehle <ai@augusta.cma.fr>]

Jon,

sorry I was not refering to your first and second subs. I know they're
really two different things.
The shark-face-painted-yellow-sub was just an image for me to represent
the fact that our subs may "look not serious" enough to pressure chambers
operators. So I was wondering if they would accept to take the risk of 
imploding a sub and thus possibly damaging the chamber (of course you should 
be responsible for your sub destroyed, but are you also for the chamber?). 

Axel.

Jon Shawl wrote:
> 
> Axel Iehle wrote:
> 
> > I guess testing a sub could be made in many successive steps.
> > You may want to test small critical elements (through hulls, viewports...)
> > that are easy to handle and test in a pressure chamber (it may be a good idea
> > to even test elements that you bought "certified"... do you rely on someone
> > else when it's your life in the balance?)
> > Then when the sub is assembled, as someone indicated already you can save a
> > lot of time and money by simply checking roughly if ...it's water proof! no
> > need for a crane a boat or a big test-chamber. And there could be some
> > surprises!
> > Then I guess the next step is the unmanned diving test. Thinking to a big
> > compression test-chamber is pleasant, but:
> > I'm not sure I can pay for it
> > I'm not sure the operators will accept taking the risk of something damaged in
> > their chamber due to the failure of your shark-painted-face-yellow-sub (but I
> > may be wrong)
> >
> 
> Just a note to make sure you know that the shark boat and my Yellow sub are not the
> same thing.The shark boat was vacuums pump tested in my own yard, and the yellow sub
> was tested unmanned in a lake to 140'.
> I don't think the operators of the test chamber would be responsible in any way as
> long as they did not go over the pressure that you specified.
> Jon Shawl
>