<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Theoretical crush depth.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2020 7:20 PM, Rick Patton via
Personal_Submersibles wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAODkcU_ecT1fdiuZU4qNo3GO2v3-YwOFet2wTcFwQ3rOVKhDyw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Jon,
<div>Are you talking about test or crush depth on the 350? </div>
<div>Rick</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:50
AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <<a
href="mailto:personal_submersibles@psubs.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">personal_submersibles@psubs.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jon<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>