[PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site

Sun Jul 2 01:00:11 EDT 2023

And the character assassination and innuendos are running full blast. 
Despite its heavy leftism, I would have expected something more like 
journalistic integrity from The New Yorker.

The article did reveal one fact that I had not seen, namely that the 
occupants had time enough to release weights before the fatal implosion. 
The acoustic sensors did work, but did not give sufficient margin.

The rest is essentially irrelevant but damaging floss. Endless harping 
about the controller, which was completely irrelevant to this accident, 
as the author and his informants must have known.

Marc de Piolenc

On 7/2/2023 3:53 AM, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
>
> The Titan Submersible Implosion Was “an Accident Waiting to Happen” | 
> The New Yorker 
> <https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan-submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen?fbclid=IwAR0CN7CyK3Ok72HX4Mf0n6sB6uc95sE-nH5_N1KDrqA5XHU1vx_k8eUCbfo>
>
> Best insider description so far.
>
> Carsten
>
> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
> Datum: 2023-07-01T12:13:41+0200
>
> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> I have done the calculation again for a spherical shell sector window 
> with conical edge 160Mpa and CF 4.
>
> According to this, a window with 530/376 & 60° would have to be
> would have a wall thickness of 161 mm - according to photos it was 140 
> mm at 60° or 110 mm at a 90° fit.
> A 90° window would have needed 132 mm thickness according to the code.
> Now.. 140 to 161 mm or 110 to 132 mm is not far off - and considering 
> the window was inside straight - means there was more material there.
>
> I now think the window was OK from a pressure design point of view. To 
> be precise you would need a cross-section drawing with the real geometry.
>
> Carsten
>
> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:29:35+0200
>
> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> If I use these 120 mm (STCP) and a CF of 4  it was good for around 
> 1000 m.
>
> With 120 mm thickness it was at collapse deep.
>
> Carsten
>
> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:18:31+0200
>
> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> I found a much better picture and correct the figures as follow:
>
> Diameter hull            1600 mm (given)
>
> Diameter front porthole outside    614 mm
>
> Diameter front porthole inside      436 mm
>
> But given with the outer window diamter given by Jon of just 530 I 
> come to
>
> Diameter hull            1381mm
>
> Diameter front porthole outside    530 mm (given)
>
> Diameter front porthole inside      376 mm
>
> If I do with the 530 / 376 a little reverse enginering on a conical 
> seat of 60°
>
> I come to a thickness of just 120 mm for a inside and outside flat  
> conical frustrum window.
>
> According to PVHO-1-1987  t /Di = 0,348  with  t = 0,348 x 376 mm = 
> 162 mm at 40 Mpa (4000m)
>
> (for Short term critical presssure)
>
> But from Jon's picture it seems more a Sperical Sector Window with 
> Conical Edge. and flat inside.
>
> The code has no figures for such a window.
>
> But if I use for Sherical Shell windows t/di shall 0,195 means t =  
> 0,195 x 376 = 73 mm
>
> To be diplomatic I just mix up the flat with the sperhical and got 
> (162 + 73) / 2 = 117,5 mm
>
> (for Short term critical presssure)
>
> The code says if you have not a standard geometrie - you have to test 
> 5 windows to destroy dephs
>
> and use the lowest failture pressure for your calculation.
>
> Carsten
>
> .
>
> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
> Datum: 2023-06-30T16:11:40+0200
>
> Von: "Antoine Delafargue via Personal_Submersibles" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" 
> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
> Hello Carsten,
> for the thickness, I read that the viewport should have been rated for 
> 1300meters depth, so I think that the designer designed for a short 
> term critical pressure of 5200m/52MPa, and perhaps thought it would be 
> fine using a 1.3X margin to get to 4000m rather than the 4X margin we 
> can find in Stachiw book and PVHO rules for low temperatures (to be 
> checked but I believe it is 4x).
> regards
> Antoine
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:03 PM MerlinSub at t-online.de via 
> Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>
>     I check out some pictures and based on a given length of 6500mm
>
>     I come to the following rough figures:
>
>     Diameter hull                                   1600 mm
>
>     Diameter front porthole outside         700 mm
>
>     Diameter front porthole inside            466 mm
>
>     (these diameters indicate that the porthole could be original
>     designed as entrance..)
>
>     Now idear about the thickness of the acrylic
>
>     - but will check out PHSME about standard flange angles tonight.
>
>     Carsten
>
>     -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
>     Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
>     Datum: 2023-06-30T15:31:14+0200
>
>     Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"
>     <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
>     An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>     <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
>     For me it looks like the biggest diameter porthole used in that deep.
>
>     Has somebody here inner and outer diameter and the thickness?
>
>     Carsten
>
>     -----Original-Nachricht-----
>
>     Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>
>     Datum: 2023-06-29T21:11:55+0200
>
>     Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles"
>     <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
>     An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>     <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>
>     The pictures of Titan that I see in water show 16 bolts holding
>     the retaining ring in place.  See attached photo.
>     Jon
>     On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:49:18 AM EDT,
>     MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles
>     <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>
>     I have seen a video how they make the carbon cylinder and can
>     imagine that the boat imploded in longitudinal direction.
>
>     Create a massive shock wave with push the window out (not in). As
>     I saw in another video the window was hold by only 4 bolts outside.
>
>     All titan parts in the video seems undamaged.
>
>     Carsten
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

-- 
Archivale catalog:http://www.archivale.com
Mass Flow (ducted fans):http://massflow.archivale.com
ProZ profile:https://www.proz.com/profile/639380
Substack account:https://fmarcdepiolenc.substack.com
Pinterest:https://www.pinterest.ph/piolenc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20230702/9c7102c3/attachment-0001.html>