[PSUBS-MAILIST] publicity

[Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles]

I ran the numbers again in the calculator and got the same numbers.  If 
I change the usage factor to 1.0 then I get 884 feet.  I suppose when 
trying to ascertain a theoretical crush depth a usage factor of 1.0 
would be acceptable in the calculator.  It's been my understanding that 
ABS, Lloyds, etc, look for a safety factor of about 1.5 which would put 
the 350 at 525 feet.  That may explain the 600 foot test depth you 
mentioned, but even so, my opinion is that's overkill.

Jon

On 6/17/2020 1:25 PM, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
> Jon
>
> OK sounds good. I was asking for the crush depth of a K-350 and the 
> unmanned test depth for one hour is 600' so that doesn't sound 
> correct. Someone told me a while ago that Ketteredge had put a 350 
> when first developed in a hyperbaric chamber that was only rated for 
> 1,200 and pushed it down to that depth to see if it could take that 
> pressure without imploding and nothing happened so he knew that that 
> design would survive at least to that depth without failure. Can't 
> remember who told me that but does anyone know if that story is correct?
>
> Rick
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:13 AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org 
> <mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org>> wrote:
>
>     Just point them to the website Rick, if they ask.  There's a link
>     to facebook from there.
>
>     I get 665 feet for the pressure cylinder and 576 feet for the hull
>     caps, but those are theoretical best case limits.  So 500-600 feet
>     would be a fair statement.  Given all the fabrication variables
>     there is no way to predict a specific depth which is why we use
>     safety margins.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20200618/9d1a0c7a/attachment.html>