|
Hi Jim.
You're welcome. Yes, we had quite a long running
discussion about the Hunley and how her ballast tanks operated. Some members
here did not agree with
me that the Hunley was at the very least,
technically a hybrid ambient/1 atm sub, but I was proven correct by
one of the main archaeologists currently working
on the Hunley. Here is a link to the Hunley
newsletter #58 site. Look at the top listing for "10. How did the
Hunley's ballast tanks work and how did she submerge?"
Which was the questions asked by me. Here is the
link.......
After clicking on #10 at the page's top
listings, you will find my questions
followed by a response to me by George Penington webmaster and editor of
TheHunley.com telling me my questions had been responded
to by Hunley archaeologist Michael
Crisafulli whose responses to my questions immediately followed George
Penington's response to me. Michael Crisafulli who is a
Hunley archaeologist currently working on the
conservation of the Hunley answered that I was technically correct
about the Hunley being ambient. He said she would have technically been ambient
while her open top
ballast tank valves were open to flood. He notes
that the atmosphere would have been slightly pressurized by this although it
would have been slight. BUT THE FACT REMAINS IT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN
PRESSURIZED.
This ambient at one point of operation, followed by
being non ambient but the interior being slightly pressurized makes the Hunley
unmistakably a hybrid of both an ambient and 1 atm sub. This is what he
said and what I
had already deduced from my research on the Hunley. I do not understand what was so hard to
understand about this concept by some members here at Psubs who wanted to argue
with me or insultingly disparage me about it.
So to answer your question of if I am still of the
opinion that the Hunley was technically a hybrid of an ambient and a 1
atm submarine, yes I am more convinced than ever after archaeologist
Michael Crisafulli's response to my questions.
To answer your question of how were my concepts
received by others in our psubs group....Some were silent. Some tired of hearing
about the Hunley. Others were rude and telling me I was a "Hunley Bunnley"
and a "Candlewaster"
(which means someone who reads but learns nothing).
Some tried to argued with me. But I knew I was right. All the logic was there if
you understood the open top ballast tank operation of the Hunley. The conclusion
was inescapable,
she had to be ambient at one point, and a slightly
pressurized 1 atm at another point.
It was nice to be vindicated and proven correct by
an actual archaeologist working on the Hunley after some of the rather impolite things that were said to me here
regarding my opinion of how the Hunley operated.
I posted this link and told of archaeologist
Michael Crisafulli's response to my questions here at Psubs once before. That
silenced the naysayers and except for one or two that said "I
learned something" or to that effect, I never heard
another word, or apology out of anyone. But
it is over and done with so I will not harp on my vindication of
being correct and only do so because you specifically asked me. The
experience caused me to stop posting to the group for some months
because I was
so disgusted with the remarks of some members
and their inability to grasp what I thought was a relatively easy concept. I
still read a lot and keep up with the conservation going on with the Hunley
but I try to refrain from posting here too much these
days about the Hunley after my last
experience doing so. I made the mistake of "Never try to teach a pig to
sing, you waste your time and annoy the pig". So regarding the Hunley I
now follow..."cast not your pearls before swine" as it
were.
If anyone cares to ask me as you did, I am always
happy to answer but I refrain from detailed discussions regarding the Hunley at
psubs without someone specifically asking me. It was nice to know you are
interested.
Bill
Akins.
|