[PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test

Thu Oct 24 14:04:52 EDT 2013

Have a look at the massive changes to The Great White by the Scotts (Cassell and Reed). Big deck, good sized MBTs, etc, and still keeping the weight to about normal (1 1/2 tons according to the web site. Maybe the broad deck lets them scramble in and out--if not with impunity, then perhaps with care. As to canting the dome, I think you could heavy up the mating ring so that it was strong enough to weld elliptically to an angle cut conning tower cylinder and with a good dome, you could push on deeper, certainly to the K-350 and maybe to the K-500 ranges. Still have to fiddle up an internal/external closure for it, though.
Vance

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Perkel <josephperkel at yahoo.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test

Funny you should mention that Vance! 

It did not go unnoticed how easily Alec skipped on down to the Florida Keys practically whipping Snoopy out of his back pocket in the process and flinging it around like an infants mobile on that davit! Much was demonstrated as to the benefits of keeping the weight down!

Not being a machinist, what issues present themselves fabrication wise, to cant a K-250 dome forward (ala Deepworker) a few degrees on a taller tower?

Joe

From: "vbra676539 at aol.com" <vbra676539 at aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test

Joe,
That will give you something new to ponder. Now you have to design a boat around the geometric constraints of the Vancouver test tank. 7' X 9'. Let's see what comes out of that. Deepworkers, anybody?
Vance

-----Original Message-----From: Joe Perkel <josephperkel at yahoo.com>To: personal_submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 1:18 pmSubject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test 

Hank,

I remember having researched this issue once upon a time, and I remember it giving me fits finding it. It's the same navy facility in Md mentioned by Alec , "Calderock," only he took it a step further having actually called them. It's very hard to find on the website, it's listed under laboratories and facilities as the "deep submergence test facility." http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/carderock/pub/what/facilities/facilities_list.aspx

Elsewhere on the site you can find the agreement and cost analysis forms to download. 
So Alec has discovered the prohibitive cost which puts an end to it in my book.

It turns out that the best case scenario for a test facility for us PSubbers is a guy in B.C., with a crane and a barge, (imagine that!:)! At 27k mentioned by Alec, It would be more cost effective comparatively with Calderock for a guy from Miami to drag his little PSUB on a trailer all the way to B.C., with his wife in tow for a little dip in a local lake and one heck of a sightseeing vacation!!,...Ha!

Joe

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad

From: hank pronk <hanker_20032000 at yahoo.ca>; To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>; Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 4:07:56 PM 

Joe,
I just heard from WHOI, they tell me there is no chamber in the Pacific North West.   They suggest talking with the University of Washington.  I am sure Dr Nuytten would have mentioned it if there were one down there.  
Hank

From: Joe Perkel <josephperkel at yahoo.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:33:09 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test

Hank,

There are two in the states however, the one on the west coast has a 72" limit if I recall correctly.
The other on the east coast, is the same one used for the k-600 and Alvin.

A contract and waiver are required, let us know the cost if you do it.
Go to the WHOI website for info

Joe

From: hank pronk <hanker_20032000 at yahoo.ca>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] pressure test

Does anyone know if the is a pressure chamber large enough to test  my Nekton submarine in the Pacific North West.  
Hank

From: Phil Nuytten <phil at philnuytten.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:19:38 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

Hi, Hugh
As Vance says, HY80 is somewhat challenging to weld – err, actually, that’s an understatement. We had to work with our fabricators to come up with a whole weld procedure to satisfy our classing agency. If you decide to go this route, let me know and we will share that procedure.
Phil

From: vbra676539 at aol.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:18 PM
To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org 
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

I think it is somewhat demanding to weld, and expensive by comparison, of course. That said, there is a mountain of data available, as the pressure hulls of most modern US Navy submarines are built out of it.
Vance

-----Original Message-----From: Hugh Fulton <hc.fulton at gmail.com>To: 'Personal Submersibles General Discussion' <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>Sent: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 10:15 pmSubject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull 

Vance,  Yep that sounds about right.
Are there any nasties to using it?
Chs Hugh

From: Personal_Submersibles [mailto:personal_submersibles-bounces at psubs.org?] On Behalf Of Vance Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013 1:37 p.m.
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

Hugh,

HY-80 used to maintain the standard dimensions of a DW2000 with 50% depth increase.

VanceSent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2013, at 8:13 PM, "Hugh Fulton" <hc.fulton at gmail.com> wrote:

Vance,  I am sure I saw recently from Phil that he was using HY 80 but I don’t know what on.  I did a calc on mine and I got a lot deeper using the HY 80 specs over the Grade 70.
Hugh

From: Personal_Submersibles [mailto:personal_submersibles-bounces at psubs.org] On Behalf Of vbra676539 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:55 a.m.
To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

One other thing comes to mind on this. Phil uses A516Gr70 in the DW2000s. It occurs to me that if there was a demonstrable benefit to A537, he would have used taken advantage of it. And he didn't, apparently. Interesting. Don't know why, though. Maybe it has something to do with welding stainless inserts in and the heat treatment thereof. Just a guess.

Vance

-----Original Message-----
From: JimToddPsub <JimToddPsub at aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

Vance,

>From Leeco Steel's website:

A537 plate steel is heat-treated. As a result, it displays greater yield and tensile strength than the more standard A516 grades. A537 steel plate is ideal for both in boilers and pressure vessels, and is used in the oil, gas and petrochemical industry.

Nice to see it provides at least a brief comparison to A516.  I'm sure there are more variables to consider including cost.

Jim

In a message dated 10/22/2013 5:23:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vbra676539 at aol.com writes:

Jim,

A537 was used extensively, as well, especially in the early boats that Perry built. Maybe you can figure it out. It seems that I recall being told that it was somewhat harder to weld but had better cold-water-under-pressure properties. Maybe Dr. Nuytten would weigh in on this, assuming he isn't up to his ass in DW3000 alligators this week (which I suspect he is).

Vance

-----Original Message-----
From: JimToddPsub <JimToddPsub at aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

Greg,

I should have clarified that.  It was a cut-and-paste from a web site.  I'm more of a librarian in that I save info in an organized fashion when I come across it so I'll have it available later when the need arises.  That was the case in this instance.

Jim

In a message dated 10/22/2013 1:25:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jgcottrell2002 at yahoo.com writes:

Thanks for the info, Jim. It's good to know there is some one in the group that is also in the steel industry.

Greg

From: "JimToddPsub at aol.com" <JimToddPsub at aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Best Steel to use for Sub Hull

Maybe more detail than you really want to know, but here goes:

ASTM A 516 or ASME SA 516 grade is one of the most popular steel grades in market . 

It is primarily intended for use in welded pressure vessels where notch toughness is important. It comes in four grades 55, 60, 65 & 70. At Oakley Steel we mainly sell 516 gr 60 and 516 gr 70. These grades cover a range of tensile strengths from 55 - 90 MPa and this versatility explains much of the specifications popularity. 

For plates thinner than 40mm we normally supply them as rolled. Plates supplied above 40mm thick are normalised. 

For A 516 grade 70, which is one of our most popular steels, the ASME standard composition is as follows (dependent on grade): 

Carbon 0.27 - 0.31% 
Manganese 0.79 - 1.3% 
Phosphorous 0.035% max 
Sulphur 0.035% max 
Silicon 0.13 - 0.45% 

In a message dated 10/22/2013 11:53:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jonw at psubs.org writes:

Generally, A516gr70 suffices for personal or recreational submarines.

Jon

On 10/22/2013 12:45 PM, Christopher Cave wrote:

Hello, 

What is the best steel to use for a submarine hull. Someone mentioned marine steel such as 316,316L or 317. Any suggestions or a website I can review.

Thanks,

Chris 

Christopher Cave 

christophercave at yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8951 (20131022) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com/

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8952 (20131022) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com/

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8952 (20131022) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8952 (20131022) __________The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.http://www.eset.com/

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________Personal_Submersibles mailing listPersonal_Submersibles at psubs.orghttp://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20131024/cc53628f/attachment-0001.html>