Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] safety issues

[Robert Ossian <rob_neptune@yahoo.com>]

I completely agree with this comment, and encourage
all to be "overly cautious".  I am admittedly one of
those exploring "innovative" or even unusual sub
designs, but I am also insisting on triple redundancy
on all design elements.  

For example: 
  - 3 seperate battery banks/circuits, all
independently wired and housed
  - 3 seperate and emergency independent surfacing
methods, not including "bail out"
  - 3 seperate emergency air sources
  - Additionally, crush depth will actually be around
400 feet, but the sub will only be rated for approx
250, giving wide margin for safety.
  - Primary & secondary escape points on differing
ends of the sub, each of which can be opened from the
interior.  This way, if one is blocked the other
shouldn't be.
  - Many other safety features...

Also, the AutoCAD designs for the sub are being
created in easily segmentable stages so that ASME
certified folks can check my designs thoroughly for
accuracy before the first seam is welded.

Many of these could easily be quantified as "wastes of
money" or unnecessary to some, but when compared to
the average cost of a funeral they seem pretty cheap
to me.  ;-)


--- rick miller <rickm@pegasuscontrols.com> wrote:

> guys
> 
>     the safety issues are paramount in the design of
> a 1 ATM sub, redundant everything. A wet subs issues
> are a lot easier to deal with, all else fails get
> out. The hull of a 1 atm sub is about the only thing
> that can not be made redundant. a one test to 1.5
> times working pressure is a good start that does
> nothing to tell use about the effects of pressure
> cycles or minor damage. Remember that comet
> aircraft, or another of the many that have had
> fuselage failures.
> 
>     abs specs are a pain and expensive to comply
> with as said before they come from a history of
> failure. With that said, there are some areas that
> money can be saved. gas piping for example, using
> swagelok valves rated for the working pressures and
> hydroed after installation stops the need for
> certified valves. total redundant systems that share
> nothing are the way to go. 
> 
>     ports are not a place to save money, while have
> them built and tested to pvho standards is expensive
> there are no backups so bite the bullet a spend the
> money. if we design view ports to aircraft standards
> a k-250 window would be 6.7 inches thick and come
> with certs that would track back to the individual
> chemicals in the acrylic. those of you who are using
> off the shelf acrylic sheets should at a minimum 
> test one port to failure. 
> 
>     
>     Rick m
> 
> 
> 
>     



		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************