(www.concretesubmarine.com)
This boat is a copy of the successful prototype duplicating it in scale. We are building this submarine yacht hull in Cartagena de Indias Colombia. Handover is sheduled for 14. october 2008. This project will be closly monitored and supervised by colombian navy and maritime authority DIMAR.
The prototype in 1996 testbed for the new concept of affordable submarine yachting at a cost compareable to surface yachts.
The new project in Cartagena de Indias. We build the hull and ship it for outfitting on its own keel to California.
This project will be closly monitored and supervised by colombian navy and maritime authority DIMAR.
44 comments:
Brent, i see no big problem in promoting submarine yachting. Argumenting the benefit is easy. (storm safe, burgler safe, independent, quiet sleep, economy, marina free operation, on open
ocean living, you name it - see it on my website ...)
The problem until now was that building a hull size and form thatwould allow "submarine yachting" was offered at "a couple of million dollars" building cost and a couple of million of dollars maintainance cost - nothing else. The only reasonable projects like carstens and peters, alicia from marlinsub, did not target the yachting segment, Ben Franklin was a concept study and a similar concept never got offered to yachting market.
So i am sure that as soon as we get the boat (we are building for Ian right now) to water and move it up to california (showing it to the public in each port) - we will end up with dozends or
hundreds of orders. Simply because the questions "can it be done", and "can it be economically
viable" will be definitifly answered with a 200 ton 18m long YES - and everybody can see it - no doubt about it.
In fact with the prototype testing all concept questions are answered since 1993/96 - the problem was that only a few habitants of a alpine lake knew about it...and those are not the people that we are targeting from a "marketing point of view" for implementing submarine yachting.
The breathing problem is a good example why making a yacht sub big enough is so essential - the size solves a lot of problems - from CO2 scrubbing, to ocean crossing, to live aboard, etc...
A person has a breating rate of 8liters/minute this gives you 125 minutes in a 1tonner to finish up the atmosphere of the artefact but it gives you 25.000 minutes (416 hours=17days) in a 200 tonner.
So this means a couple of days to come to the point where CO2 scrubbing is needed - problem solved - pellet cost cut - oxigen tank and sistem cost cut. Sistem danger like bottle explosion oxigen fire cut.
So if you like plants and closed ambient experiments - enjoy the challenge- but this is not a problem that will EVER come up in submarine yachting practice unless you run a crew of hundreds of mariners like a nuke sub.
You are imagining a submarine yacht as something that has a big energy need, giant battery banks, etc... you should get away from that picture - that is military - step away from it - far away.
The sistem we have in mind is floating on ocean currents, sitting on water layer (like BEN FRANKLIN) whale like locomotion 14kg diesel use per cruising day.
Much more economic in fuel than a motor yacht, submerged cruising needs 5 times less energy than surface cruising (http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/ay ) easy handling - in fact we are developing the concept to "open ocean living" concepts as we step it up in size.
The only "sistem" that a submarine yacht has that a normal yacht would NOT have is a hull capable to submerge, and a small ballast tank to do so.
So there is no "rocket science" involved and no "rocket science budget" needed to pull it off.
Of course there will be owners who will fill their submarine yacht with tons of tech stuff - just as there are yacht owners to do so - but this is not a MUST have -
There might also be a green minded owners floating around on open ocean, submerged, hearing whale songs moving with the currents extracting engery and a living from the sourrounding ocean.
The problem we have at the moment is that many people can not see this things as there is actually no boat out there DOING so - the last one was BEN FRANKLIN decades ago.
What we have to do is getting submarine yachting back on yachtmans map and the ultra luxury segment is not necessary the best segment to do so - the "individualisic yacht owner" is.
The best way to promote the concept is doing it in front of the public eye. This is what we are going to do and ians boat will be "first of a kind".
Wil
(www.concretesubmarine.com)
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] live aboard submarine yacht - affordable
From: MerlinSub@t-online.de
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:42:00 +0000
Hull is 25-30 % of the cost of a ship. So if you safe some 50 % on the hull you safe 0,5 x 0,3 = 15% of the ship overall cost. Not much. Lack of space and sun is a serious problem for this big guys.
Most owners come to us on the yard and say during developing the concept of there yachts: More glas - more windows more, space should be convertible to open sun areas..
Today there is a market for submersibles as yacht-tenders. 2-3 person and not longer than 6 meters not heavier than 2-3 ts. So they fits into the tenderbay of their yacht and they can have
both - sun, space and sometimes deep diving adventures.
Maybe one or two, perhaps three rich man on this planet will build there own autonom big superyacht-submarines. I know some of this guys which have the right feeling for that. But this guys will ask there own designers and ships crew for proffesional help - like there captains to look around. And this captains will ask a russian or US or maybe german naval submarine shipyard with some approved boat for an offer..
The way of building big motoryachts is not the direct way like: Owener ask yard. This way has much more filters:
Owner ask his house designer - this one ask a naval consult to select a yard - this consult ask a naval supervisor etc all this filters have there own long term expierence with yachting - and believe me - no experience with concret subs.. They will go for steel.
I will go with concret hull.. but I am just a not rich submadman..
regards Carsten
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:24:01 -0800 [02:24:01 PST]
De: Brent Hartwig brenthartwig@hotmail.comEstados Unidos
Para: PSUBSorg personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Well there ya go Wil, you will just have to push ahead with your ideas and then truly see what the yachting community thinks about it, when properly exposed to the finished product. Of course there are almost limitless sizes and layouts for yacht interiors, so not everybody will like your choice of layout, but if they truly understand this, they will start to get your vision, as well as add there own to it.
I to love allot of windows in recreational boats, and as you well know Wil, you can make it pretty bright inside a sub with enough view ports in the right locations. It would be hard to compare to allot of large motor yachts window wise, but compared to sailing yachts you can easily compete window wise.
In regards to allot of windows in a luxury live aboard sub, I've been for some time thinking about various configurations of free flooding top side spaces with loads of windows. The windows can be from automotive sources, polycarbonate, or Acrylic. Also a internal and external automated freshwater rinse system used shortly after you surface would be very useful in saltwater as well as in dirty freshwater locals. Having a enclosed top side area is very nice for allot of reasons. Protection from wind, sun, rain and seagulls is a real plus. Also with the right remote drive system, you can control the sub from a nice top side location when surfaced.
It might be possible since concrete sailboats are a well established and proven concept, to design a sailing concrete submarine with a telescoping collapsible mast and rigging system. Some of my first submarine ideas went along this line of thinking, but with a steel pressure hull and fiberglass outer hull. But at the moment I truly favor the towing kite concept, much like skysails.com is working on.
One small disadvantage I see to a concrete sub vs steel is that when surfaced you would have more freeboard weight to compensate for in ballast, to gain the same stability characteristics.
"What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?" (Vincent van Gogh)
Regards,
Brent Hartwig
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:10:34 -0800 [04:10:34 PST]
De: Ian Roxborough irox@ix.netcom.comEstados Unidos
Hi guys,
I guess this announcement is a little over due, but every time I start writing it I end up working on the design...
Anyway, I've managed to get the budget to hire Wilfried to build a 200ton concrete hull. I'm very exicited that I get to be one of first people to experiment with this type of submarine.
Funny, I start out (I like many of us) with grand large submarine designs 10 years ago, learning more and refining my designs as they get smaller (10man sub, to 4, to 2 person), then designing around the K350 hull rather than reinventing the small sub. It feels strange to have my first sub be so close to the fanciful designs I started with.
These are the rough and working specs, everything can change, if I make this a 370hp water ski towing sub, the range will be a lot less, if I run out of battery budget or space, then submerged
range will be less, if I end up with more money to spend and more space, the range will be greater. Also, so much space, I can add more fuel, more batteries, more heads, etc. very easily. These specs are far higher than my original hopes, so I don't mind if I have to cut things back because of cost or performance.
The Specs:
Displacement: 200tons
Length: 18meter
Width: 4.3meters
Height: 6.5meters (depending on sail design)
Operational dive depth:
50meters (unmanned 150M test required)
100-250meters (after refit/testing)
Delivery test is 30meters.
Surface range: 3000+miles
Submerged range: 300miles at slow speed (~1.5knots)
Submerged endurance: 4 people, 1 week (with 3x emergence)
or 10 people, 24hours (with 10x emergence)
Interior floor space: 40square meters (430sqft)
1 forward view port, diameter 1 meter
6 - 8 side facing view ports, 3-4 per side diamter (50cms)
1 hatch leading to the sail
1 hatch on the aft deck (for possible docking
with a small sub, diver lockout unit, loading/unloading
cargo/equipment/supplies)
Propulsion/power:
diesel engine belt drive 30-100hp
electric motor belt drive 3-10-30hp
diesel generator 100hp? (or 2x 50hp)
~3tons batteries
diesel fuel (~3000liters?)
electric bow truster
electric stern thruster
Life support:
12 x 3454 Liters O2 Cylinders (Luxfer Aluminum Oxygen Cylinders M-110-0760)
Providing 41448 Liters of airs.
10362 liters for operational supply.
31086 liters for emergency supply.
112 man days (16 weeks) of O2.
Ballast:
Forward and Aft external ballast tanks (maybe external side tanks as well)
3 ton internal tank with an electrical pump (can be VBT)
2 ton (1 ton + 2x 0.5ton) internal hard tanks for trim
and VBT, can be operated with presision electical pump or high pressure
gas
I've been testing out different CAD packages, I uploaded a couple of
images, so much stuff missing or in the wrong place. Just
kicking around some ideas. I'll have some better images ready soon.
http://monkeyview.net/id/2768/substuff/csub200/rough/index.vhtml
http://monkeyview.net/id/2768/substuff/csub200/rough/csub200_2d_000.jpg
http://monkeyview.net/id/2768/substuff/csub200/rough/subc200_3d.jpg
One the main goals I have with this sub is to keep it as flexible
and reconfigurable as possible. So I want to be able to do things
like detach the luxary yatch sail, and attach the ROV deployment
sail to go and investigate a shipwreck from a safe distance or
that is outside of my operational depth.
The working budget is fairly low for a project of this size.
The hull cost $90K usd, I hope to have the sub fitted out for
$45K, and hoping to keep an another $45K for extras, like ROVs
and plasma TV. We'll see how this works out, whatever happens,
I'm sure I can get this thing full operation even if I'm missing
the plasma TV.
I'm really looking forward to this adventure. Please feel free
to share your throughts and ideas about this project.
Thanks,
Ian.
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:19:47 +0100 [04:19:47 PST]
De: Øystein Skarholm skarholm@gmail.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Ian
It sounds like you are about to experience the adventure of your life. I am just being curious here, but since this a submarine that is to be capable of ocean crossing, do you think that 30 - 100 HP is enough to keep a 200 Te sub up against wind and wether in the ocean? If you submerge to 50 m during a storm you can still get seasick because of the movements down there. or maybe you can go deeper?
Øystein
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:23:00 -0500 [05:23:00 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hi Øystein,
not very much of the sub is above the surface, so not very much of the vessel is exposed to the wind and waves. I've heard Wil say this many times, but it wasn't until I did the bow/stern
thruster calculations. I'm still a tiny bit skeptical that a vessel this size can be moved so easily with so little power, but I will test out the calculations when the vessel arrives
and if needed I adjust engine requirements. Even if a 30hp engine does just fine, I'm kind of interested in finding out how it performs with a 370hp engine.
Yes, I think in big storms with 10meter waves you would feel it at 50meters. I remember reading some where about a small submersible report from a dive that came up in (I think) 2meter
waves, they said they could feel them at around 100feet. If I find the report I'll post it again, interesting read (just some passengers write up of trip in a small submersible). Of course, a large submarine might be less effected, but i'm sure large waves will be felt.
Going deeper? Yeah, I'd love to. I think the maximum operational depth for this sub will be 300M requiring an unmanned depth test to 600M. I'm not sure if the sub will ever get rated to 300M, I will most likely settle for less for fear of loosing my vessel. Each time I change the vessel's operational depth, I will do an unmanned test to x2 or x3 operational depth.
Maybe there is another way to solve wave motion effect, maybe so sort of realtime dynamic stability system (the sub is dynamically climbing and diving at the same rate as the wave
to cancel it out).
Cheers,
Ian.
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:54:56 -0500 [07:54:56 PST]
De: " Dan. H." jumachine@comcast.netEstados Unidos
Congratulations Ian!
It sounds like your on the way. I sealed my decision to build with my first purchase. I
suggest you do the same. I bought my mascot, a foam rubber turtle. Once I made that
first purchase, I know I wouldn't stop until the project was complete. It worked for me.
Again, congratulations on your decision. Your taking on a BIG one! Dan H.
Fecha: 23 Dec 2007 17:16 GMT [09:16:00 PST]
De: MerlinSub@t-online.de Alemania
Asunto: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 200ton 18meter Live aboard submarine
Hi Ian - sound great !
But if you go for a concret hull you may should decide for a much greater dive deep - and a FE-calculation.
And delifery test deep should be the greatest
test dive deep not the lowest..
Drive :
Hmm.. The A3 A British Holland Class of 1903 has some 180 ts and
a 450 hp petrol engine and a 150h p eletric drive.
They run surface 11,5 and submerge 7 knots.
UB I class - WWI German costal boats has 127 ts and a 120 hp / 60 hp drive - they run 5,5 / 6,5 and the description of there crew was: "fine boats but complete underpowered"
Yout boat is cloase in size and shape to some later Holland class - look there for real power and speed figures.
A mass of 200 ts run at 6 knots needs a lot of power for an emergency stop or just for harbour manover - or a lot of space..
Please note that a Germen one man WWII Delphin which has a similar shape configuration required due to tank test 25 % of his water resistance was to the sail.
2009 we will have a submarine convention in Kiel, Germany
Together with big midgets boats from Sweden, Denmark, Netherland, maybe some other countrys and of course Germany. Hope to see you there - is just a trip over the ocean..
- Drop weights ?
- keel to resting on the bottom ?
- anchor system ?
regards Carsten
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:14:58 -0500 [12:14:58 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.comEstados Unidos
Asunto: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 200ton 18meter Live aboard submarine
Øystein, thank you for the Orcina pointer. I'll download their
software and try it out, also I'll contact them for a quote on
simulating the sub (on the surface and submerged).
Handling during poor weather is definitely a concern. Here's an
extra from the Albacore website:
The round shape of Albacore's hull made for uncomfortable riding
on the surface in any kind of a sea. The natural tendency was for
the boat to submerge when running into any kind of a sea. A vivid
example was Albacore's encounter with a hurricane when returning
to Portsmouth from Florida after a trial period off Ft. Lauderdale.
Yeoman Butch Jordan: "I can remember we ran into a hurricane on
our way home from Florida. Heavy waves were pounding us and
coming over the top of the sail. We had to secure the bridge watch
and send the OOD and lookout down to the Control Room. Water was
coming into the boat through the main air induction and filling
the machinery space bilges. We had to keep the main induction open
to run the engines because our battery was pretty flat. Fortunately,
we ran out of the storm before we flooded the bilges or ran out of
battery. The control room watch observed the digital depth gauge
cycling between 9 and 60 feet - while running on the surface!"
There's also some pictures of the Albacore in a hurricane on the
same page (kind of near the bottom):
http://www.ussalbacore.org/html/albacore_story.html
Kind of sounds and looks like a nightmare. Although, with a 200ton
submarine, you might submerge to a safe depth and deploy the ROV
to continue operations while the storm passes over.
Cheers,
Ian.
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:42:13 -0800 [14:42:13 PST]
De: Cliff Redus cliffordredus@sbcglobal.net
personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Ian
Thanks for posting your boats design specs, 3-D rendering and profiles. This will be quite project.
I concur with Carsten that you are probably underpowered.
I have a couple of questions for you?
Looking at the boat shape, my guess is that the asymmetry of the hull caused by the sail will cause a significant pitching moment when the boat is fully submerged that will be more pronounced at higher speeds, i.e., as you go faster, the bow of the boat will want want to pitch up. I do not see any stern horizontal control surfaces. How are you going to null out this moment to be able to dynamically trim the boat?
It is obvious that you are trying to minimize drag by adopting a tear drop shaped hull. Looking at the profile, it looks like the hull length to diameter ratio is around 4. A length to diameter ratio around 6 yields the minimum total drag for a streamlined shape like this with values as high as 9 not increasing the drag significantly. Why use 4 when you could get more speed for the same horsepower with a value of 6? See "Some Aspects of Submarine Design Part 2. Shape of a Submarine 2026" By Prop. P.N. Joubert, Report # DSTO-TR-1920. Reference Figure 1, Drag components for constant volume form. www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/4897/DSTO-TR-1920.pdf. Look at the profile for the Soviet Lira ( Alfa Class ) boat www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/705.htm. At the time of her sea trials in 1972, she was the fastest sub in the world at 44.7 knots and still is to my knowledge. She was noisy but fast. Her length to diameter ratio is closer to 8.5.
With the novelty of using a concrete pressure hull for such a large boat, this will be a very interesting boat to follow. Please take lots of pics during the build. Best wishes.
Cliff
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:50:04 -0500 [14:50:04 PST]
De: "Smyth, Alec" Alec.Smyth@compuware.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Asunto: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 200ton 18meter Live aboard submarine
Ian,
Wow! I saw Willfried's reference to "Ian" in an earlier email and wondered if that was you. Knowing how long you've been reading and doodling about this, taking the plunge in a tangible way like that is really something. You know between this, Nautilus, and Euronaut, I wish I had a time machine to fast forward a couple of years. This is not a sub around the corner, it's a new era.
As for your specs, they put you in a different class to my midget subs, but I can relate to one of them very well. Forty square meters was exactly the size of the apartment my wife and I moved into when we married. Cozy for an apartment, but enormous for a submarine. And it certainly worked for us!
Merry Christmas!
Alec
Fecha: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:42:16 -0500 [23/12/07 15:42:16 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Asunto: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 200ton 18meter Live aboard submarine
Hi Carsten,
yes, I would like to do FE-calculation for hull failure depth.
If anybody has any pointers on where to have FEA work done or
software to look at, it would be much appreciated.
Drop weights: Yes, I would like some! I'm not sure how they will
be incorporated, maybe as part of a landing skid. Or maybe as
some sort of keel running a long the bottom. Several smaller
weights, say 4 to 10, totaling a 1000kg.
Keel to rest on the bottom: I'm still not sure about this one,
but I would like the hull to rest upright without any bracing
if it's taken into a dry dock.
Anchor system: I would love to have some sort of automated
system, but I think in the end it will be an anchor box on
the deck and manually setting and retrieving the anchor (maybe
with the help of an electric winch). Other than setting down
on the bottom, I don't think I will have any submerged
anchoring ability.
Thanks for the pointer to the "A class". The engine I can
use is really limited by what I can fit through the 1 meter
diameter hatch. Although I've not looked at many big engines,
there do seem to be engines in the 400hp range that could
fit through the 1 meter hatch.
I'll probably still be in the construction phase in 2009, maybe
I can attend the convention after that one.
Cheers,
Ian.
Wil,
You make a good point, however I would still find it important to have O2 and scrubbing back-up systems for emergency use, as well as redundant O2 and CO2 sensors and alarms . I find that for what ever reason I can sense if the air in a space has a lack of O2 and/or to much CO2. I sleep in a good size room measuring 15' X 25' by 8' high and if I have the door closed to the rest of the house and the forced air system off, I will wake up in the early morning with a desire to get good air. I wake up even sooner if I have my large dog sleeping in the same room.
I really enjoyed your page on whales and propulsion, thank you for putting that together. I would worry about having only a small diesel or electric drive system. Only since in my personal experience, if you don't have enough propulsion to to deal with some fast currents, tides, other boats, and/or a good backup propulsion system, you could very quickly find yourself on the rocks, above or below the surface. Allot of sailboat type clients don't mind a slower trip, but the motor yacht people love there power. So keep that in mind. As usual the sub would be tailored to the clients specs.
Regards,
Brent Hartwig
Albacore in storm
When i was working on my prototype i experienced several times that storms came up when i was at snorkel depth and i did not even notice it - when i came up and opened the hatch i found that sailing yachts of about the same size of my sub where in trouble, coast guard was taking yachts in with sails destroyed, trees have fallen etc... So yes i know some waves can be felt to some extent below surface - but my experience is: in a hull of the prototype shape and ballast distribution - movements are very small, and do not produce sea sickness.
If you check albacore story you should also read between the lines...the waves in that hurrican had 16m ?!! (depth gauge) albacore was NOT forced to dive to seek security (or the captain did not find it necessary to change plans - or was unable to do so...) Keep in mind that ANY vessel of any size that meets that kind of conditions is well served to survivive. A wave of that size broke tanker PRESTIGE in 2 pieces. For albacore it was "a little bumpy" - on surface...
The most important reason for the 1:4 ratio is static stability during dive. Due to the ballast configuration movement are up and down on even keel this is not provoking sea sickness. This design is meant for comfortable cruising avoiding some of the problems of military designes.
Market:
Carsten (...one or two superrich will build a submarine yacht...) be careful with market prognosis for things that do not yet exist (IBM estimated the need of computers above 100MB RAM with "maybe 5 worldwide" in a serious market study in the 70ies...)
I have heard a lot of people saying "internet is not of much use in practice for my profession" just 5 years ago...
If you come up with something new, useful, desireable, the market for this just appears although it might not have "existed" before.
I already have 12 serious interest contacts for hull building. I am sure that a lot more will go ahead when they see ians boat operating. I understand the complicated decision making process for a mega yachts - implementing business in complicated environments is basicy what i am doing for a living -
Building, operating Cost:
(hull 25-30 % of the cost of a ship...) The cost saver is not only in hull building it is also in engine size, in maintainance, fuel cost, crew cost, marina cost, surveillance cost, aircon cost,...
The general experience is: operating such a thing costs you very little compared to a surface yacht.
Engine Size:
Other than in surface yachts your engine is not your ticket to survive the storm and avoid the rocks. As any diver knows who enjoys drift diving, currents do not blow toward the reef as wind does, they go parallel. This is why whales driven by small engines are still "safe vehicles" cecked and proved by evolution...
CO2
I would keep a couple of pellet bags in a ballast compartment - ready to open if needed. CO2 detector is fine - O2 surplus, critical is CO2 increase not O2 drop.
pitching moment
I had a deep rudder planned on prototype but did not use it later - at the speeds i tested pitching moment was not significant (in prototype configuration). I am aware that for faster, leaner, military style boats it is useful to have that kind of surfaces.
Regards,
Wil
Fecha: 24 Dec 2007 15:25 GMT [07:25:00 PST]
De: MerlinSub@t-online.de Alemania
Ian, you really want to outfiting a 200 ts
boat via a 1 Diameter hatch ??
Sorry - but how many years you have time ?
For a 200 ts boat a drop weight of about
of something around 10 ts are more common.
best regards Carsten
Fecha: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:08:21 -0500 [24/12/07 14:08:21 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
I would much prefer to have the hull on land and split in two, kind of
like the Euronaut. But one of the down sides of this approach is not
getting to do that.
I'm hoping to fit out the sub using it as a floating workshop. I would
build some sort cradle which would fit threw the hatch and could be lifted
in and out via a crane.
Even with several cradles, a bunch of friends and a strong dock crane,
operations like loading several tons of batteries will be a pain in
the ass. Even worse will be a bulky unbalanced components that need
to re-orientated fit threw the hatch, like engines and machine parts.
These may need special frames built and many ropes and handlers...
Yes, I could spend several years building this if needed, live on the
sub to reduce rent overhead. But I'm hoping I can work full time for
one year and get most of the basic functions operational.
Cheers,
Ian.
Fecha: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:56:09 -0800 [24/12/07 14:56:09 PST]
De: Brian Cox ojaivalleybeefarm@dslextreme.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Ian,
I've thought long and hard about a concrete sub, and of course I'm working on the ferro-cement party of Esmae (Ezzy), I just came from Santa Paula where I've been wetting down the curring concrete. We're expecting 10% humidity and East winds so I am making sure my drip system is working properly. Anyway I have often thought if it would be possible to purchase prefab concrete pipe and somehow attach flanges to the ends so they could be connected. Hansen Pipe is a world wide concrete pipe company and they produce all kinds of pipe and structural concrete type things. Since they have it wired already it might be easier to have them do it. You could probably do a custom pipe to your specifications with extra steel matrix. Goggle Hansen Pipe.
Brian
Fecha: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:27:57 +0100 [01:27:57 PST]
De: Øystein Skarholm skarholm@gmail.comEstados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Never the less I am hoping for a lot of pictures when the big baby arrives......
Øystein
building trough hatch
In general the lack of space inside the hull (where building takes place) is a lot more problem than moving building materials trough a hatch. I am aware that block building is the state of art in bigship construction - it has the advantage that you can have working several groups of workers on different building places all at the same time whithout disturbing each other - when all groups are done you fit the blocks together to a final ship.
On the other hand if you work allone or with 3 buddies on your yacht, block building does not a lot of good as you do not have so many workers that will disturb each other anyway. Block building also needs big cranes and yard installations which is not in range for the private yacht builder. Many yachts get delivered as empty hull and get outfitting by owners living on them so it is quite common to build trough a hatch. Splitting in two is fine if you have not sufficient space inside to set up the workplace. For bigger subs such as ians building trough hatch on anchor place works just fine.
Kindest Regards,
Wil
pipe
Brian, concrete is a liquid material, so one of the major advantages is that you can shape it in any form. So why would you limit the form to a ugly pipe with endcaps ?! especially when hydrodynamic form is so important for a yacht. The only reason may be that your forming skills does not allow elegant blimp shapes. So before you go to a pipe form - a little upgrade in concrete forming skills might be a better way to go...
Kindest Regards,
Wil
Fecha: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:03:50 EST [27/12/07 00:03:50 PST]
De: ShellyDalg@aol.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Responder-A: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hello Ian. Congratulations on your project. It sure sounds exciting !
I live in Santa Cruz ( northern Calif. ) and am building my sub too. I would love to see more of your plans and like all the psubbers, pics or other info as the project gets under way. Your project is the most ambitious one on this side of the ocean and I wish you luck. Are you building models for testing ? I found it very useful in my project. After testing with my models, I made some changes that are great improvements to the original design. The concrete hull concept is really nice. It gives you great flexibility in shape. I expect your sub will in fact be very beautiful when done. Best of luck, Frank D.
Quoting Jon Wallace
jon@psubs.org:
Hi Ian,
This sounds like a very interesting project, and I wish you the best with
it. I've read the discussion you and Wilfried have had (posted on his
website) regarding the design of the vessel which was also very interesting.
Given that this type of vessel can be fabricated in multiple sizes, do you
know what size vessel Wil's prototype was, and what maximum depth he
achieved with it?
Wil suggests as part of your discussion with him, that using silicone
sealant alone to hold the viewports in the vessel is sufficient. However,
according to Stachiw a viewport retaining ring is an integral part of the
thru-hull design and the critical pressure for a viewport of a particular
size would be severely reduced without one. From what I can gather of your
discussions, the issue you and Wil appear to be discussing is the issue of
retaining the viewports in case of overpressure. However, the primary
purpose of the viewport retaining ring is not to deal with overpressure, but
to control flexing of the viewport as high pressure is applied to it during
a dive. Have I misread this part of the discussion? Have you resolved this
issue, and if so, what did you ultimately decide? Also, I found it
interesting that the reason Wil provided for not including a retaining ring
was because the metal ring and bolts could corrode (had you considered
Stainless Steel?), but on the other hand he recommends a metal hatch. Can
you comment on that?
Wil has been pretty straight forward in your discussions with him that he
has no structural calculations, reference data, or actual testing available
to determine the crush depth of the sub that he hands off to you.
Ultimately, it looks like you both agreed that he would test the sub to 30
meters before handing it off to you, even though you've made it clear that
you would like to reach 100-250 meters. Have you considered taking some of
the $90k for fitting out and extras, and putting it towards a deeper test
trial before taking delivery? Also, assuming the sub passes the 30 meter
test dive, will that be considered it's operational depth or will you employ
some safety factor and reduce the operational depth for "everyday" dives?
I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that your primary purpose for the vessel
is as a yacht, and that diving is a secondary purpose. Even 10 meters for a
200 ton "personal" sub would be an impressive depth, I would think.
I believe Wil is incorrect when he states, "...PVHO-1 recommended
proceedures are the standard production procedures in acrylic
manufacturing..." and in fact the reverse is true. Only acrylic
manufactured to PVHO-1 standards would be shrunk and annealed. You'll need
to discuss this with your supplier to be sure of what you are getting.
Regarding your viewports, if you follow PVHO-1 standards for flat disc
acrylic you'll need a 1.25 bearing ratio for them. I'm curious if the 50cm
viewport you mentioned is the viewable dimension from the inside of the sub,
or the overall dimension as viewed from the outside of the sub? You might
also check out the plane disc viewport calculator that is at
http://www.psubs.org/design/calculators.html to see if it matches with
calculations you might have already done regarding dimensions of the
viewports for your sub.
Jon
Jon, Good point you bring up here.
As soon as you change ANYTING your sistem becomes NOT PVHO-1 recommended and approved which means it can or cannot work you are in uncharted territory.
A PVHO-1 viewport is ONLY a PVHO viewport with the PVHO stamp and in a PVHO mounting - no matter what process it might (or might not) be trough during its fabrication.
So to reestablish safety you have to do testing - and you have to include proper safety factors (1:2-1:3 - H Victor et alt-) between test depth and operation depth and finally you have to retest frequently to make sure that cyclic effects still have not made your system unsafe.
I think i went the way i did with the prototype design for good reasons. Some may agree, some not, and decide for different solutions.
You may feel better to put a steel mounting into the concrete hull. Problem is PVHO-1 mountings are not thought to be "part of a concrete boat" - so you already have changed "something" - which brings you back to start you are in uncharted territory and have to do your own testing.
I understand why you are not comfortable with this approach jon, finally you are going for steel subs and for a small steel sub staying within the existing rules IS an option and you go for it - for concrete subs it is not and writing a new "concrete chapter" into existing ruling is very expensive so maybe we do on the long run but for now we are outside and have to live with that...
Calculations - of course i have calculations (calculate 1200m crash depth for the hull) - but calculations do not replace testing. You should leave calculation and simulation for things that are frankly impossible to test (buildings, dams) - a sub is not - so if you CAN test it you MUST test it - there is no excusion for calculate, leave it there, and take it for safe. For me only testing gives a valid answer i agree completly with carsten on that point. If you only calculate it, you should still take it as a "quite unknown".
Steel hatch - i had a acrylic hatch on my prototype it was damaged by a burglar intent - so i would go for a hatch that resists that kind of intent. As hatch is above waterline and at sight it is less problematic as ports that are under water and off sight - so this is a practical aproach to increase burglar safety.
There will not be any rings and bolts on the hatch either.
The primary purpose is to apply submarine yachting in a practical way. So what matters ist that the yacht can submerge to "any" depth and do long range trips.
From there "pushing dive limits down" will take a long series of tests - which inculde testing of the particular viewports of the particular boat including the mountings - as calculations suggest that viewports are the weakest part of the sistem.
How deep and how close to the calculated limits you want to go in such a test series depends on how easy you can afford loss during testing.
So my approach is keep it very very far from ANY limit calculated with ANY method for now - and leave the "testing out the limits" for the time when we run big series and can afford boat loss as part of the testing.
The 30m limit is not a limit the boat or any of its sistems imposes - it is the limit of easy recovery (by scuba divers) if anything goes wrong during testing.
regards,
Wil
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:13:29 +0100 [07:13:29 PST]
De: Øystein Skarholm skarholm@gmail.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Stress analyzes is an important part of all construction project. Before any real life test is being committed, one should have some ideas of what to expect. As for concrete, there are many resepies and concrete is not always to standard. Tests from the concrete should be made to make sure the quality is what one should expect. Concrete is stronger the less water it contains, down to 7%. Also consider the humidity in the air when pouring the concrete, maybe pouring at night.
Such large a project as this I don't think anything should be left to co incidents.
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:57:54 -0500 [12:57:54 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hi Jon,
Wil's prototype was 9meter long with a mass of around 20tons. I do not
know the maximum drive depth he took it to. Wil, can you enlighten us
please?
Viewport retaining rings. This is something I want to use, I've not
figured out exactly what/how yet, but I'm sure a solution can be found.
Could you point me to the page/pages in the Stachiw book (which i have
right here) that talk about the retaining ring being a major part of
the viewport's structure. I'm curious as to what is said about view
ports what are bolted on rather than retained with a ring.
The metal hatch vs metal viewports. This boat isn't coming out of the
water very often, so Wil is trying to reduce the maintainance required
below the water line. Avoiding putting metal components below the
water will help. The hatch will be above the water, so it can easily
be inspected, repaired or replaced as needed.
50cm is the inside diameter. If I don't pay for the Acrylic to be
shrunk and annealed when I buy it I will assume it hasn't been and
will either hire somebody else to do it or do it myself.
Dive depth. 10meters is a very respectable dive depth for a house
boat. 30meters will no be it's operational depth upon arrival, only
it's tested depth. Hard to give it an operational depth on arrival
since many things will change as it gets fitted out - but 30 meters
is enough to test most of the systems. I will think about more depth
testing before the hand over, although depth testing after the vessel
has been fitted out will still have to happen.
Cheers,
Ian.
(I hope I didn't miss any of your questions.)
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:49:14 EST [13:49:14 PST]
De: ShellyDalg@aol.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hello Ian.If you don't mind me asking, how thick is the hull ? Are there internal rings of concrete or steel ?
Is there reinforcing wire like a ferrous cement sailboat or just the re-bar.
Would it make sense to use stainless re-bar ? I would think retaining rings of stainless would be easily cast into the concrete hull, with anchor points welded so that they were embedded in the concrete and connected to the re-bar, but Wil is the expert on this. If 30 meter or 90 feet is your average depth, and you tested it to 90 meters, what are the pressure cycles like as it pertains to number of cycles before failure. It's one thing to make a structure from concrete and send it down and leave it, but repeated cycles are a different thing. Will you be doing any testing with mock-ups before you start the real thing ?
Sorry if I'm being too nosy, but the whole project just sounds so damn interesting. I know all the guys will be following this build very closely, and again, I wish you all the luck. Frank D.
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:22:18 -0800 [14:22:18 PST]
De: Brian Cox ojaivalleybeefarm@dslextreme.com Estados Unidos
I think the viewport flanges could be secured to the concrete similar to a bulkhead fitting and an appropriate epoxy used in the areas where there will be gaps between the steel and concrete. You would need to do it step by step.
Brian
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:42:29 -0500 [14:42:29 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.com Estados Unidos
Hi Frank,
I used to live in Santa Cruz as well.
Models, yes, I plan to use them. I've ordered two Ballfish hulls from
this guy:
http://modelluboot.de/KITS/Kugelfisch_Ordner/KugelfischE.html
I think there is a fair few psubbers living in the Bay Area, we should
get together for a drink and chat about submarines sometime.
Cheers,
Ian.
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:54:16 -0500 [14:54:16 PST]
De: irox irox@ix.netcom.com> Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hi Frank,
feel free to ask away, I'll do my best to answer everybodies questions,
issues and ideas.
For questions the hull's construction, I should defer these questions to
Wilfried, since he's the guy making the hull. I will say, the thickest
point of the hull is around 350mm. I don't think there is any need to
use stainless re-bar (since the re-bar won't be exposed to the elements).
Wilfried has constructed several concrete submarines before building
his 20tons 9meter submarine. We don't have plans to structurally test
mock ups of the hull for this project, just create a scaled up version
of Wil's successful 20tons submarine.
Cheers,
Ian.
Fecha: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:11:32 EST [20:11:32 PST]
De: ShellyDalg@aol.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Ian. I recently saw a documentary about some of the bridges along the Calif. coast, and even though the re-bar isn't directly exposed to salt water, there is a problem with it rusting out while inside the concrete of the bridges. It has to do with electrical activity. Anyway, one of the bridges was built using stainless re-bar and it is still like new after 70 years, where some of the others have required extensive repair because the concrete is spauling ( sp? ) around the re-bar where it has rusted and actually popped the concrete.
I don't know how much re-bar is going into the hull, but the cost of stainless re-bar is several times that of plain steel, but still cheaper in the long run.
I received my steel hatch back from the machinist today. He planed the ring and cut the groove for the ''O'' ring. Hope to have it installed soon. I'll add some pictures to my frappr site when it's on.
As for a drink together, that sounds good.
Are you planning on a trip to Wil's to see the progress ?
Have a good new years. Frank D.
Fecha: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:44:52 -0800 [00:44:52 PST]
De: Brent Hartwig brenthartwig@hotmail.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Hello Ian,
In the case of submerged cruising, I would think that a 10 meter depth wouldn't be deep enough to stay out of harms way with some of the larger ships out there. Even if they don't hit you at first, I've heard stories of submarines being sucked up into a ship and there massive props. Of course having good sonar is helpful, but if your taking a nap, you might get hit. I have some relatives that are avid sailer's, and they hit a massive basking shark, and the shark didn't like it one bit and came after them and bit a big chunk off there rudder. So I guess the moral of the story is don't snooze in the shallows, in the shipping lanes.
I was thinking of my personal experience with concrete used in building construction that for floor slabs we would have fibermesh ( short strands of fiberglass) added to the mixing truck to make are slabs much more resistant to cracking over time. The stress rating for this type of concrete was so much higher that some guys didn't even put in much if any rebar and/or the large binding mesh. I was thinking that fibermesh or something like it could be useful in your sub hull. There is also a type of special rebar that I see used on bridges and the like that is coated with a special (usually green) coating to keep them from rusting out when embedded in the concrete.
Fecha: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:07:09 -0800 [02:07:09 PST]
De: Brent Hartwig brenthartwig@hotmail.com Estados Unidos
Para: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
I was thinking about the subject of moister in the concrete of your hull, and was thinking that there must be allot of good books and articles on maintaining concrete sailboats out there that would be of good use for you. Keeping the concrete sealed will be a challenge, but since there are some great sealing products out there you should be able to do it to your satisfaction. I remember my father talking to me about the concrete poured into a foam block system for building homes like the Arxx Blocks brand, and I thought he said that one of the advantages to using this type of permanent form is it keeps in a fair bit of the moister that was put into the concrete to start with, and that made the concrete some what stronger then if it was allot more dry long term. I'll have to ask him again and then look to see if I can find any long term stress analysis data.
Regards,
Brent Hartwig
Fecha: 29 Dec 2007 11:28 GMT [03:28:00 PST]
De: MerlinSub@t-online.de Alemania
And the bow area should designed that way that the 200 ts
concret hull can survive a impact of around 3-4 knots.
For this reason most suface ships have a collison bulkhead.
On a concret sub I would say make the bow area strong.
regads Carsten
Fecha: 29 Dec 2007 11:24 GMT [03:24:00 PST]
De: MerlinSub@t-online.de Alemania
I remember that there is a maybe problem with stainless steel in concret.
I think both materials will get no real conection together..
If the normal steel is deep sealed in he concret and the surface is covered by a good
layer of some good epoxy paint there should be no problem with normal steel in concret.
More important is that the design and construction concept with all drawings
is complete done and all troughhulls are build before they build the hull - otherwhise Ian has later a lot of more work with some 40-60 troughhulls for shaft rudders mast, exhaust pipes, bowthrusters, air piped, drop weights etc, etc.
On a steel hull it is later easy to modyfied it with additional troughhulls
- even hatches or windows - on concrete this should be much more difficult.
regrads Carsten
Hello Ian,
Very clever the "Kugelfisch" this is the same shape we are going for - so this is the best way to test out which sail configuration will work best. The sharkfin is the equivalent of a 15m snorkel mast - never tested this at the prototype but the model indicates it still could work.
Best is you can really test out how long, thick a optimal snorkel for your project will be. I also would like to get real sistematic data about snorkel hose configurations that work best. I got the experience that hose snorkels work well in general but in 1:1 you can not test literally hundreds of configurations (tested only a couple of - generally work better than masts) with that model you can really test it out.
Testing sail configurations can be as easy as molding plastilin on the upside and run the model over a pre-measured distance...the model will also give you a good answer to wave behavior.
Keep in mind that speed also depends very much on optimizing the propeller for the speed you have in mind.
Regards, Wil
Carsten, the impact resistance of concrete seems to be a real concern for you - in fact it is - in ferrocement that works with thinn wall applications. On contrary the walls of ians boat will have "bunker size" obviously a bunker can take some impact. (i also have a couple of nice stories of impacts the prototype took during testing - will tell you when taking some beers... since then i take the approach - if anything should "impact" that boat - BAD for the collision partner ...
...troughhulls complicated - is true for ferrocement...found a easy way to do it on my prototype - worked very well.
Regards, Wil
Looks good...
Fecha: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:36:59 +0800 [29/12/07 20:36:59 PST]
De: mark newman marknewmanperth@hotmail.com
Australia
Dear wellmer,
I found your website while i was researching ferroment yachts , originally i was working towards the idea of buying a 25 -30 meter yacht as alive aboard,however i have had a facination with subs for most of my life ...wistfully looked at us subs site but just a dream for the price being far and above what i can afford in the forseeable future, anyway what you have done is fantastic ,genuis.
i am considering the possibility of a "liveaboard " concrete sub ,it would however take about 7mths to obtain a 50% deposit as i work for wages in the bulk earthworks construction side of building mining infrastructure for iron ore mines in western australian as a machine operator , i know nothing of outfitting a sub but no doubt would be able to find out if keeping it simple , and perhaps get the work done in thailand. to keep costs down.Anyway this at this time is just a pipe dream for me until i obtain the finances ,i just found the concept so impressive and practical that i wanted to congradulate you as no doubt many others have done ,i will watch the progress and should i get close and practical to reality of my dream i would like to inquire at a future time as to the possibility of getting a hull built,anyway many thanks for opening the door for mere mortals like myself
kind regards
mark newman [perth australia]
looks great wil !!!
Fecha: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:36:59 +0800 [29/12/07 20:36:59 PST]
De: mark newman Australia
Dear wellmer,
I found your website while i was researching ferroment yachts , originally i was working towards the idea of buying a 25 -30 meter yacht as alive aboard,however i have had a facination with subs for most of my life ...wistfully looked at us subs site but just a dream for the price being far and above what i can afford in the forseeable future, anyway what you have done is fantastic ,genuis.
i am considering the possibility of a "liveaboard " concrete sub ,it would however take about 7mths to obtain a 50% deposit as i work for wages in the bulk earthworks construction side of building mining infrastructure for iron ore mines in western australian as a machine operator , i know nothing of outfitting a sub but no doubt would be able to find out if keeping it simple , and perhaps get the work done in thailand. to keep costs down.Anyway this at this time is just a pipe dream for me until i obtain the finances ,i just found the concept so impressive and practical that i wanted to congradulate you as no doubt many others have done ,i will watch the progress and should i get close and practical to reality of my dream i would like to inquire at a future time as to the possibility of getting a hull built,anyway many thanks for opening the door for mere mortals like myself
kind regards
mark newman [perth australia]
Dear Mark,
Thanks for your kind words.
Yes the prices for submarine yachts offered so far are not realistic - i always argument that a sub is basicly a boat with a pressure resistant hull and a tank for bouancy control. This is not quantum physics and it can be done for less than billionaire budgets.
Outfitting is not a big deal either somebody who can outfit an apartment also can outfit a boat and when you can outfit a boat a sub is not so different. Let do in Thailand is a great idea - one of the benefits of a seagoing hull.
I am still looking for parners in australia to move the "affordable submarine yacht" segment forward.
Kindest Regards,
Wil
great proyect and new alternetive for the personal yatch industry
Good post.
Post a Comment