[PSUBS-MAILIST] Shackleton test report

[Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles]

Very clean and professional work! looks great.
I have decided to go with the 125 cu ft 02 bottles from our local welding
supplier as they don't offer anything around 80 cu ft. and I had a couple
laying around my shop. I now will try and find a CGA fitting to scuba valve
adapter and will be good to go.
Rick

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:16 AM Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles <
personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:

> Hi friends,
>
> I've updated the project page with new photos.
>
> http://www.psubs.org/projects/1234567810/shackleton/
>
> Best,
> Alec
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:02 PM Alan via Personal_Submersibles <
> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that great report Alec.
>> Glad it went well.
>> Alan
>>
>> > On 4/12/2018, at 1:29 PM, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles <
>> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi friends,
>> >
>> > Today with Mark Ragan and Brian Hughes' help I'm delighted to say we
>> were able to sneak a test in just before winter makes its appearance. It
>> was tee shirt weather, with high tide at the warmest time of day.
>> >
>> > You may not be familiar with Shackleton, so here's a summary. She uses
>> the main cylinder of an earlier project called Solo, which was to be a
>> hydrobatic sub and therefore had a very slender (i.e. only 31" diameter)
>> main hull. Solo lost her wings and tail but gained battery pods, a CT, a
>> deck, etc. Shackleton herself has already been through several iterations,
>> specifically of the MBTs. In the first iteration I made a big mistake - I
>> concentrated my calculations on submerged stability, just assuming the MBTs
>> would provide stability when surfaced. Nope! The second iteration used a
>> raft MBT, which is far more stable than the streamlined hull-hugging
>> initial version. That solved the surfaced stability issue. However, it had
>> a new problem. The raft was composed of a bunch of small aluminum tanks,
>> plumbed to valves on the CT just like a Kittredge sub. The problem was that
>> the plumbing had do cover quite a distance and suffered from water
>> blocking. This is the third iteration, an!
>>  d uses a raft of four MBTs but with mushroom valves rather than the K
>> boat arrangement. Water blocking can't happen because mushroom valves go
>> straight on the tanks and have no plumbing at all. I can already say that
>> although it took me a while to arrive at, I'm a fan of the raft
>> configuration implemented with mushroom valves. BTW the valves are
>> controlled in pairs, so the pilot can open or shut the two forward valves
>> or the two aft ones independently.
>> >
>> > What worked well:
>> > - As mentioned, the raft MBT provided good stability.
>> > - The boat floated at the calculated waterline and in trim.
>> > - The vertical thrusters blow water through the deck grating. I was
>> curious how much efficiency this would cost, but it appears a very
>> acceptable compromise.
>> > - The four thrusters are jettisonable. They are held against the hull
>> by a bolt, and they seat against electrical connectors that are insulated
>> from the water by an O ring. I have a short-detection circuit to make sure
>> those O rings aren't leaking. I used it, and found no leaks. Thruster
>> controls worked great.
>> > - The boat uses a combination of trawl floats and steel ballast to
>> adjust buoyancy, with no VBT. Today's test was with just one person aboard,
>> and in salt water. In other words, the scenario that calls for max ballast.
>> We turned out to be balanced with a tad less than the full complement of
>> weights - the theoretical numbers turned out near perfect.
>> > - I love the fast submergence!
>> >
>> > Needs work:
>> > - The thrusters are fine going forward but quite miserable in reverse.
>> I think this is due to a combination of two factors. First, in reverse the
>> prop wash hits the MBTs - I can't really do anything about that. Second,
>> I'm using after market props that are supposedly faster than the stock
>> Minnkotas. But I think they accomplish that by being biased for forward
>> motion. I'll be switching back to the stock props.
>> > - Two of the mushroom valves don't seal 100%. I'll be putting in
>> slightly thicker O rings to see if that stops it.
>> > - The hatch leaked, even though it didn't on past tests and didn't when
>> I tested water-tightness with a vacuum two days ago. The hatch is bolted to
>> its hinge, and washers on those bolts adjust the fit. This is just
>> something to tinker with, but I know it can seal successfully.
>> Unfortunately I have to remove the hatch each time the sub goes in and out,
>> to fit under the garage door opening.
>> >
>> > And now... let winter move in! The next step will be a nice spring day
>> dialing in ballast configurations for one or two occupants.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alec
>> > <47258859_10217781304468113_8654460041761390592_o.jpg>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20181204/451d2fdd/attachment.html>