From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 3 19:40:33 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:40:33 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Naval Institute book about the Trieste Message-ID: /????? Opening the Great Depths: The Bathyscaph Trieste and Pioneers of Undersea Exploration/ https://usni.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e971c577684d30446b18f75bf&id=4ff5d603da&e=243b5a2922 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 4 14:58:06 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Naval Institute book about the Trieste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1288723583.3769007.1622833086824@mail.yahoo.com> Michael,?Looks a good book by some qualified authors, thanks.?Alan On Friday, June 4, 2021, 11:44:48 AM GMT+12, Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ????? Opening the Great Depths: The Bathyscaph Trieste and Pioneers of Undersea Exploration ?????https://usni.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e971c577684d30446b18f75bf&id=4ff5d603da&e=243b5a2922 _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 4 15:25:14 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 19:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Naval Institute book about the Trieste In-Reply-To: <1288723583.3769007.1622833086824@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1288723583.3769007.1622833086824@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1198159252.2068174.1622834714861@mail.yahoo.com> Got my copy a couple of weeks ago. Good stuff. A few of my mentors are front and center. It's nice to see them being recognized,Vance -----Original Message----- From: Alan James via Personal_Submersibles To: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles Sent: Fri, Jun 4, 2021 2:58 pm Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Naval Institute book about the Trieste Michael,?Looks a good book by some qualified authors, thanks.?Alan On Friday, June 4, 2021, 11:44:48 AM GMT+12, Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ????? Opening the Great Depths: The Bathyscaph Trieste and Pioneers of Undersea Exploration ?????https://usni.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e971c577684d30446b18f75bf&id=4ff5d603da&e=243b5a2922 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 03:45:52 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:45:52 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. Message-ID: Hi all, If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve. It was very difficult. The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it goes on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better. Might get another turn with ptfe and the wrench. Regards James https://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 07:01:21 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 11:01:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1338164840.4384116.1623063681060@mail.yahoo.com> Good work! Jon On Monday, June 7, 2021, 03:48:01 AM EDT, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi all,If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve.? It was very difficult.The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it goes on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better.? Might get another turn with ptfe and the wrench.Regards?Jameshttps://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 07:22:39 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 11:22:39 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5PRa4Q9rMyVc0DgbDLMktmiWpZTX5Y-dbd4O5gmEbUZ-9fL-pHV08YWq2JyYmbvqYhRMwBHCscXRA89CSFvSXUHt0f9NnXdXROwpZ-7A52U=@protonmail.com> Glad you got it sorted. I don't know how much experience you have working with dies, but I have found that you always want to use a cutting / tapping fluid with them to lubricate the cut. That 2" die has a lot of flutes, so it may be less of an issue, but with a lot of smaller taps and dies I find they have a tendency to bind if I don't peck it by e.g. repeatedly advancing 1 turn, then backing off 1/2 turn etc. to facilitate clearing the chips. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 7, 2021, 01:45, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > Hi all, > If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve. It was very difficult. > The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it goes on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better. Might get another turn with ptfe and the wrench. > Regards > James > https://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 07:52:09 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:52:09 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. In-Reply-To: <5PRa4Q9rMyVc0DgbDLMktmiWpZTX5Y-dbd4O5gmEbUZ-9fL-pHV08YWq2JyYmbvqYhRMwBHCscXRA89CSFvSXUHt0f9NnXdXROwpZ-7A52U=@protonmail.com> References: <5PRa4Q9rMyVc0DgbDLMktmiWpZTX5Y-dbd4O5gmEbUZ-9fL-pHV08YWq2JyYmbvqYhRMwBHCscXRA89CSFvSXUHt0f9NnXdXROwpZ-7A52U=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sean, Yes, i did have cutting fluid on, you might not have seen it, but it was definitly there. Warren Bestobell Trefolex, the green stuff. Definitly had to peck at it, i turned it about 20 degrees, then back. Took ages. But, its done and all seems good. Thanks for the tips all. Regards James On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:23, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Glad you got it sorted. I don't know how much experience you have working > with dies, but I have found that you always want to use a cutting / tapping > fluid with them to lubricate the cut. That 2" die has a lot of flutes, so > it may be less of an issue, but with a lot of smaller taps and dies I find > they have a tendency to bind if I don't peck it by e.g. repeatedly > advancing 1 turn, then backing off 1/2 turn etc. to facilitate clearing the > chips. > > Sean > > > -------- Original Message -------- > On Jun. 7, 2021, 01:45, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve. It > was very difficult. > The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it goes > on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better. Might get another turn > with ptfe and the wrench. > Regards > James > https://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 18:21:22 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today.? I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine.? The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs.? Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel.? These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm).? This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically.? Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing.? As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot.? The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel.? The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel.? Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_6290-1.HEIC Type: application/octet-stream Size: 393236 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 18:46:46 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> Good work Jon.?But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it??Alan On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today.? I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine.? The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs.? Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel.? These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm).? This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically.? Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing.? As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot.? The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel.? The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel.? Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 19:07:39 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 23:07:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> I don't, in fact, know that.? However, I will likely use headphones in the submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that is responsible for the garbled audio.? I base that on the fact that topside I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many times asked someone else "What did he say?"? When I dove R-300 and used headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to comprehend spoken word from topside.? That is at least anecdotal evidence that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones.? But there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at the surface, both with the headphone attachment.? I'm was forced into a corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in the field. Jon On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Good work Jon.?But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it??Alan On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today.? I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine.? The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs.? Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel.? These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm).? This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically.? Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing.? As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot.? The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel.? The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel.? Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. Jon _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 19:54:56 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 23:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1319638.4722991.1623110096314@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Jon,?I will be having to purchase at some stage so very interested in all this information.?And yes just from a power standpoint it makes sense to have 2 x 101s. They possibly? have a less powerful diver unit because of the bulkiness of larger batteries.?Alan On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 11:09:33 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I don't, in fact, know that.? However, I will likely use headphones in the submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that is responsible for the garbled audio.? I base that on the fact that topside I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many times asked someone else "What did he say?"? When I dove R-300 and used headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to comprehend spoken word from topside.? That is at least anecdotal evidence that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones.? But there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at the surface, both with the headphone attachment.? I'm was forced into a corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in the field. Jon On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Good work Jon.?But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it??Alan On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today.? I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine.? The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs.? Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel.? These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm).? This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically.? Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing.? As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot.? The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel.? The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel.? Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. Jon _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 20:20:01 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:20:01 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Just wanted to point out that the SSB-2010 has now been superceded by the Powercom 3000D, which offers 25 Watts of transmit power versus the SSB-2010's 5 Watts. There's nothing wrong with the SSB-2010, and there may be more opportunities to pick these up on the used market as professional teams phase them out in favour of the 3000D. That said, the STX-101 surface station doesn't actually offer more transmit power than the SSB-2010. It is also rated at 5 Watts unless you have one of the 101M or 101SB variants. The surface box just gives you the ability to broadcast audio locally via the speaker, record via the line-level RCA out, allows for external power, and of course provides local control of channel, volume, and squelch without having to navigate voice menus. More convenient than the SSB-2010, but perhaps not an ideal form factor if you are operating it from a very small boat. The diver units with a conversion kit (headset) are much more portable and tolerant of getting wet. Interesting that OTS has not updated their surface box to match the 3000D power rating. As it stands, the most powerful surface unit at the moment would be a Powercom 3000D with a surface conversion kit, as opposed to a surface station box. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 7, 2021, 17:07, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > I don't, in fact, know that. However, I will likely use headphones in the submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that is responsible for the garbled audio. I base that on the fact that topside I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many times asked someone else "What did he say?" When I dove R-300 and used headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to comprehend spoken word from topside. That is at least anecdotal evidence that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. > > Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones. But there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. > > My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at the surface, both with the headphone attachment. I'm was forced into a corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in the field. > > Jon > > On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > Good work Jon. > But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it? > Alan > > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today. I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine. The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs. Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. > > The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel. These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm). This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically. Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. > > A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing. As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. > > I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot. The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel. The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel. Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 7 21:03:49 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 01:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2054534708.4714355.1623114229096@mail.yahoo.com> I've got the 101M, 8 channels and 10 watts. On Monday, June 7, 2021, 08:21:55 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Just wanted to point out that the SSB-2010 has now been superceded by the Powercom 3000D, which offers 25 Watts of transmit power versus the SSB-2010's 5 Watts. There's nothing wrong with the SSB-2010, and there may be more opportunities to pick these up on the used market as professional teams phase them out in favour of the 3000D. That said, the STX-101 surface station doesn't actually offer more transmit power than the SSB-2010. It is also rated at 5 Watts unless you have one of the 101M or 101SB variants. The surface box just gives you the ability to broadcast audio locally via the speaker, record via the line-level RCA out, allows for external power, and of course provides local control of channel, volume, and squelch without having to navigate voice menus. More convenient than the SSB-2010, but perhaps not an ideal form factor if you are operating it from a very small boat. The diver units with a conversion kit (headset) are much more portable and tolerant of getting wet. Interesting that OTS has not updated their surface box to match the 3000D power rating. As it stands, the most powerful surface unit at the moment would be a Powercom 3000D with a surface conversion kit, as opposed to a surface station box. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 7, 2021, 17:07, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: I don't, in fact, know that.? However, I will likely use headphones in the submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that is responsible for the garbled audio.? I base that on the fact that topside I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many times asked someone else "What did he say?"? When I dove R-300 and used headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to comprehend spoken word from topside.? That is at least anecdotal evidence that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones.? But there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at the surface, both with the headphone attachment.? I'm was forced into a corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in the field. Jon On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Good work Jon.?But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it??Alan On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today.? I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine.? The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs.? Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel.? These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm).? This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically.? Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing.? As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot.? The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel.? The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel.? Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. Jon _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 8 01:35:11 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:35:11 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. In-Reply-To: References: <5PRa4Q9rMyVc0DgbDLMktmiWpZTX5Y-dbd4O5gmEbUZ-9fL-pHV08YWq2JyYmbvqYhRMwBHCscXRA89CSFvSXUHt0f9NnXdXROwpZ-7A52U=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: Hey James Why did you have to do that? Rick On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:53 AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > Yes, i did have cutting fluid on, you might not have seen it, but it was > definitly there. Warren Bestobell Trefolex, the green stuff. > > Definitly had to peck at it, i turned it about 20 degrees, then back. > Took ages. > > But, its done and all seems good. Thanks for the tips all. > > Regards > James > > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:23, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> Glad you got it sorted. I don't know how much experience you have working >> with dies, but I have found that you always want to use a cutting / tapping >> fluid with them to lubricate the cut. That 2" die has a lot of flutes, so >> it may be less of an issue, but with a lot of smaller taps and dies I find >> they have a tendency to bind if I don't peck it by e.g. repeatedly >> advancing 1 turn, then backing off 1/2 turn etc. to facilitate clearing the >> chips. >> >> Sean >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On Jun. 7, 2021, 01:45, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve. It >> was very difficult. >> The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it >> goes on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better. Might get another >> turn with ptfe and the wrench. >> Regards >> James >> https://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 8 08:21:47 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Flood valve repaired. In-Reply-To: References: <5PRa4Q9rMyVc0DgbDLMktmiWpZTX5Y-dbd4O5gmEbUZ-9fL-pHV08YWq2JyYmbvqYhRMwBHCscXRA89CSFvSXUHt0f9NnXdXROwpZ-7A52U=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: <258635428.4843029.1623154907767@mail.yahoo.com> Hi James, you are one determined guy. ?That had to be a real bugger, in that tight space. ?Hank On Monday, June 7, 2021, 11:35:37 PM MDT, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hey James Why did you have to do that?? Rick On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:53 AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Sean, Yes, i did have cutting fluid on, you might not have seen it, but it was definitly there.? Warren Bestobell Trefolex, the green stuff.?? Definitly had to peck at it, i turned it about 20 degrees, then back.? Took ages.?? But, its done and all seems good.? Thanks for the tips all. Regards James On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 at 12:23, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Glad you got it sorted. I don't know how much experience you have working with dies, but I have found that you always want to use a cutting / tapping fluid with them to lubricate the cut. That 2" die has a lot of flutes, so it may be less of an issue, but with a lot of smaller taps and dies I find they have a tendency to bind if I don't peck it by e.g. repeatedly advancing 1 turn, then backing off 1/2 turn etc. to facilitate clearing the chips. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 7, 2021, 01:45, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: Hi all,If anyone is interested, I managed to re thread the 2? flood valve.? It was very difficult.The camera battery went flat as I tested the fit of the valve, but it goes on 4 turns now just hand tight, so much better.? Might get another turn with ptfe and the wrench.Regards?Jameshttps://youtu.be/cZlKWu04mVQ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 8 11:54:55 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:54:55 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jon, I like your logic! On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 7:08 PM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > I don't, in fact, know that. However, I will likely use headphones in the > submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that > is responsible for the garbled audio. I base that on the fact that topside > I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many > times asked someone else "What did he say?" When I dove R-300 and used > headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to > comprehend spoken word from topside. That is at least anecdotal evidence > that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. > > Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I > can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent > modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones. But > there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's > have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully > will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. > > My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at > the surface, both with the headphone attachment. I'm was forced into a > corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in > the field. > > Jon > > > On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Good work Jon. > But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would > it? > Alan > > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today. I intend to reverse the > roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to > my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes > more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine. The OTS STX-101 case, > however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up > too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a > Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs. Additionally, the case cover > raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes > placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. > > The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to > carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the > STX-101 panel. These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by > submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the > STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm). This > substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact > allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed > vertically. Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built > case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. > > A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar > outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing. As well, the STX-101 > electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the > "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. > > I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot. The > backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel. The box will be covered with multiple > coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel. Since all connections > enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or > modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. > > Jon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 8 12:23:08 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 16:23:08 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] STX-101 repackaging In-Reply-To: <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> References: <49695946.4671215.1623104482853.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <49695946.4671215.1623104482853@mail.yahoo.com> <316325885.4679851.1623106006352@mail.yahoo.com> <1551171441.4671893.1623107259548@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jon, if you were inclined to buy a SSB-2010 or Powercom 3000D with a CDK-6 kit instead, I might consider buying that STX-101M from you. FWIW. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 7, 2021, 17:07, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > I don't, in fact, know that. However, I will likely use headphones in the submarine and I do believe it is the STX-101 weather-proofed speaker that is responsible for the garbled audio. I base that on the fact that topside I had a very difficult time understanding comms with STX-101 and too many times asked someone else "What did he say?" When I dove R-300 and used headphones with the SSB-2010, comms was nearly perfect with easy to comprehend spoken word from topside. That is at least anecdotal evidence that the STX-101 microphone was not the issue, nor the SSB-2010 headphone. > > Assuming the weather-proof speaker in STX-101 is in fact the problem, I can bypass it and use a better external speaker without any permanent modification to the electronics should I choose not to use headphones. But there are other reasons for my choice, including the fact that the 101's have more power and should there be another 101 at the surface I hopefully will experience better comms/range simply based upon power alone. > > My recommendation to others is to use SSB_2010's in both submarine AND at the surface, both with the headphone attachment. I'm was forced into a corner because I had already purchased the STX-101 before ever using it in the field. > > Jon > > On Monday, June 7, 2021, 06:48:39 PM EDT, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > Good work Jon. > But how do you know it is going to work better in the sub? And why would it? > Alan > > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 10:23:52 AM GMT+12, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > I built a "thin-box" for the OTS STX-101 today. I intend to reverse the roles of the STX-101 and the SSB-2010 having convinced myself that due to my previous experiences with the 101 topside (none of them good) it makes more sense to have the 101 inside the submarine. The OTS STX-101 case, however, is very bulky at 6.5 inches in depth (165 mm ) and simply takes up too much real estate, primarily protruding too far within the cabin of a Kittredge sub when mounted on the ribs. Additionally, the case cover raises only 90 degrees and is essentially non-removable which makes placement within the confines of a K-sub almost impossible. > > The STX-101 case is required to be bulky only because it is designed to carry two 6-vdc lantern batteries as power in the field, underneath the STX-101 panel. These lantern batteries are unnecessary when powered by submarine main batteries and it turns out that the electronics for the STX-101 will fit easily into a box only 1.5 inches deep (39 mm). This substantially reduces the real-estate required by the device and in fact allows it to sit recessed within the ribs of the submarine if installed vertically. Even when mounted horizontally across two ribs the home-built case protrudes 75% less into the cabin than the stock STX-101 case. > > A separate carrying case can be purchased from Harbor Freight or similar outfit to protect the STX-101 in it's new housing. As well, the STX-101 electronics can be reinstalled into the original case at anytime since the "thin-box" requires no modifications to the electronics. > > I built the box out of 3/4 x 1.5 composite trim found at Home Depot. The backing is a 1/4 inch plywood panel. The box will be covered with multiple coats of paint to seal and protect the back panel. Since all connections enter through the STX-101 front panel, there are no holes to drill or modifications to be made for power, mic, speaker, or transducer. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 15:19:59 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and report back on it?? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25.? That would seem like a bit of a "stretch" installing the 2-471. There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require less stretching, but...??? Will post on FB as well. Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 15:59:37 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent faster?? George, you left us with many questions. Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mbt-vent.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 350314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 16:07:25 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 20:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port References: <1170834727.5509283.1623269245668.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1170834727.5509283.1623269245668@mail.yahoo.com> One more thing...hey, am I the only one not working today...anyone know why George designed a conical viewport into the hatch rather than a flat one? Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 16:20:23 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 20:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1524374727.3019781.1623270023594@mail.yahoo.com> It's straight off a World War II sub--I wonder if Lloyds made him do that.Vance -----Original Message----- From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Sent: Wed, Jun 9, 2021 3:59 pm Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent faster?? George, you left us with many questions. Jon_______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 17:22:42 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 21:22:42 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7V7dDQ4NfBRbnNCymabYI8cnC_AJzuQDwxKyolQW_YLVbOcUT_fBJqLW3NPCbRNLAuvaV5TYTqo4_bvxlV1sm7ZHI01M1YZXgryFL1SqUVg=@protonmail.com> Per ORD5700, stretch should be limited generally to no more than 5%. A 2-471 O-ring (21.955" ID) on a 23.25" gland is 5.90% stretch. A 2-472 O-ring (22.940" ID) on that same 23.25" gland is only 1.35% stretch. Sometimes it is advantageous to specify an O-ring which must be stretched for installation in order to create friction against the gland in order to prevent the O-ring from slipping out of the groove if it isn't retained by other means (e.g. dovetail). At 5% stretch however, the cross-sectional diameter of the O-ring is reduced by about 2.5% (and at 5.9% squeeze, almost 4%) so the gland depth may need to be reduced accordingly in order to achieve the design squeeze on the O-ring. Per ORD5700, for face seal glands in sizes 425 through 475, that design squeeze is 21% to 29% with no extrusion gap. For face seals subject to external pressure, the gland is usually sized with its inside diameter equal to the mean diameter of the O-ring, with tolerance of +1% of that mean ID, but not more than 0.060". The reason for this is that by ensuring that the O-ring is situated on the correct side of the groove for the anticipated pressure, it won't experience premature failure as a result or being shifted across the groove on every pressurization cycle. For a 2-471, that mean diameter would be 22.230", and for a 2-472, 23.215", which would correspond to 1.25% and 1.20% installation stretch respectively, but these are recommended design minimums. My guess is that the 23.25" gland ID just provides enough stretch to keep the O-ring from slipping out, and performance in that embodiment was good enough. Provided the cross-sectional diameter reduction and associated gland depth changes are accommodated, the only downside to greater installation stretch is premature aging of the O-ring. (See ORD5700, 3.6). Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 9, 2021, 13:19, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit of a "stretch" installing the 2-471. > > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require less stretching, but...??? > > Will post on FB as well. > > Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 17:23:37 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (irox via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 21:23:37 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port Message-ID: <30452db4-f5a7-8492-d939-22572a7677f7@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 19:18:08 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: <7V7dDQ4NfBRbnNCymabYI8cnC_AJzuQDwxKyolQW_YLVbOcUT_fBJqLW3NPCbRNLAuvaV5TYTqo4_bvxlV1sm7ZHI01M1YZXgryFL1SqUVg=@protonmail.com> References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <7V7dDQ4NfBRbnNCymabYI8cnC_AJzuQDwxKyolQW_YLVbOcUT_fBJqLW3NPCbRNLAuvaV5TYTqo4_bvxlV1sm7ZHI01M1YZXgryFL1SqUVg=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: <1705079465.5576102.1623280688680@mail.yahoo.com> Sean, thanks for that analysis.? See attached image for reference to K350. I screwed up some of the K600 numbers based upon the plans which turn out not to be accurate.? Specifically, the actual K600 hatch seal configuration I see does not match either the K600 plans nor the K350 plans, so somewhere along the way the details were changed without documentation (which Lloyds didn't catch) or I don't have the final set of K600 drawings. K600 groove - 23.5 ID, 24 OD, 23.75 mean diameter K350 groove - 23.25 ID, 23.75 OD, 23.5 mean diameter, according to the plans. BOTH have a groove width of 1/4 inch as shown in K350 image (including dovetail on ID side) and a depth of .215 inches. Cross section diameter of both 2-471 and 2-472 is .271 inches.? On the K600 that's a 2.1% stretch which would be within the limits you wrote about, but now I'm wondering if Kittredge used the 2-471 on the K350 to reduce the cross-sectional diameter enough to counter the relatively hefty .271 o-ring inside a .25 x .215 channel.? Too big of a diameter would cause extrusion at some point, wouldn't it? Jon On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 05:25:03 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Per ORD5700, stretch should be limited generally to no more than 5%. A 2-471 O-ring (21.955" ID) on a 23.25" gland is 5.90% stretch. A 2-472 O-ring (22.940" ID) on that same 23.25" gland is only 1.35% stretch. Sometimes it is advantageous to specify an O-ring which must be stretched for installation in order to create friction against the gland in order to prevent the O-ring from slipping out of the groove if it isn't retained by other means (e.g. dovetail). At 5% stretch however, the cross-sectional diameter of the O-ring is reduced by about 2.5% (and at 5.9% squeeze, almost 4%) so the gland depth may need to be reduced accordingly in order to achieve the design squeeze on the O-ring. Per ORD5700, for face seal glands in sizes 425 through 475, that design squeeze is 21% to 29% with no extrusion gap. For face seals subject to external pressure, the gland is usually sized with its inside diameter equal to the mean diameter of the O-ring, with tolerance of +1% of that mean ID, but not more than 0.060". The reason for this is that by ensuring that the O-ring is situated on the correct side of the groove for the anticipated pressure, it won't experience premature failure as a result or being shifted across the groove on every pressurization cycle. For a 2-471, that mean diameter would be 22.230", and for a 2-472, 23.215", which would correspond to 1.25% and 1.20% installation stretch respectively, but these are recommended design minimums. My guess is that the 23.25" gland ID just provides enough stretch to keep the O-ring from slipping out, and performance in that embodiment was good enough. Provided the cross-sectional diameter reduction and associated gland depth changes are accommodated, the only downside to greater installation stretch is premature aging of the O-ring. (See ORD5700, 3.6). Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Capture-3.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 52144 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 19:46:50 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 23:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port In-Reply-To: <30452db4-f5a7-8492-d939-22572a7677f7@ix.netcom.com> References: <30452db4-f5a7-8492-d939-22572a7677f7@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <376027762.5615613.1623282410198@mail.yahoo.com> Ian, I think the weight of acrylic removed to form the conical shape would be overall insignificant (in totality) given that the hatch by itself is upwards of 70 pounds, but that's as good a guess as any. Jon On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 05:25:08 PM EDT, irox via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Could it be that it's weighs less overall than a flat viewport? which in turn makes that hatch easier to lift. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sent: Jun 9, 2021 1:07 PM To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion personal_submersibles at psubs.org Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port One more thing...hey, am I the only one not working today...anyone know why George designed a conical viewport into the hatch rather than a flat one? Jon _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 20:14:33 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (irox via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:14:33 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 20:18:05 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:18:05 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: <1705079465.5576102.1623280688680@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <7V7dDQ4NfBRbnNCymabYI8cnC_AJzuQDwxKyolQW_YLVbOcUT_fBJqLW3NPCbRNLAuvaV5TYTqo4_bvxlV1sm7ZHI01M1YZXgryFL1SqUVg=@protonmail.com> <1705079465.5576102.1623280688680@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That particular drawing does not appear to call out the O-ring groove diameter by annotation. Is that on another drawing? I guess you could scale it off. It also appears to show a half-dovetail groove, with a 10? taper on the ID surface, which would negate the need for stretch to hold the O-ring in as long as the narrowest width of the gland is narrower than the O-ring. Even still, you probably want a bit of installation stretch for reasons given earlier. What reference are you using for O-ring dimensions? Per ORD5700, 400 series are 0.275" width. A 0.275" ring in a 0.215" gland depth at zero extrusion gap is 28% squeeze, which is acceptable but at the upper limit of the acceptable range for 400 series face seals. A few percent of installation stretch would reduce the cross-sectional diameter just enough to make the resultant squeeze comfortably within the range. Extrusion should not be a problem provided the groove is sufficiently wide that when the flanges come metal-to-metal, you don't end up with an excess amount of gland fill. I might shoot for 75% - 85% maximum. Particularly with a dovetail on the inside per that drawing, which will push the elastomer against the acute angle. Also, with 0% squeeze (where the extrusion gap still exists), you don't want a lot of area subject to the external pressure compared to the hatch area acting axially. As pressure increases, you want the squeeze to win over the tendency to extrude. 0% installation stretch on a 0.275" thick O-ring would start you at 0.060" gap. With 5% installation stretch you would start at 0.053" gap. Not significantly different. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 9, 2021, 17:18, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > Sean, thanks for that analysis. See attached image for reference to K350. > > I screwed up some of the K600 numbers based upon the plans which turn out not to be accurate. Specifically, the actual K600 hatch seal configuration I see does not match either the K600 plans nor the K350 plans, so somewhere along the way the details were changed without documentation (which Lloyds didn't catch) or I don't have the final set of K600 drawings. > > K600 groove - 23.5 ID, 24 OD, 23.75 mean diameter > > K350 groove - 23.25 ID, 23.75 OD, 23.5 mean diameter, according to the plans. > > BOTH have a groove width of 1/4 inch as shown in K350 image (including dovetail on ID side) and a depth of .215 inches. > > Cross section diameter of both 2-471 and 2-472 is .271 inches. On the K600 that's a 2.1% stretch which would be within the limits you wrote about, but now I'm wondering if Kittredge used the 2-471 on the K350 to reduce the cross-sectional diameter enough to counter the relatively hefty .271 o-ring inside a .25 x .215 channel. Too big of a diameter would cause extrusion at some point, wouldn't it? > > Jon > > On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 05:25:03 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > Per ORD5700, stretch should be limited generally to no more than 5%. A 2-471 O-ring (21.955" ID) on a 23.25" gland is 5.90% stretch. A 2-472 O-ring (22.940" ID) on that same 23.25" gland is only 1.35% stretch. > > Sometimes it is advantageous to specify an O-ring which must be stretched for installation in order to create friction against the gland in order to prevent the O-ring from slipping out of the groove if it isn't retained by other means (e.g. dovetail). > > At 5% stretch however, the cross-sectional diameter of the O-ring is reduced by about 2.5% (and at 5.9% squeeze, almost 4%) so the gland depth may need to be reduced accordingly in order to achieve the design squeeze on the O-ring. Per ORD5700, for face seal glands in sizes 425 through 475, that design squeeze is 21% to 29% with no extrusion gap. > > For face seals subject to external pressure, the gland is usually sized with its inside diameter equal to the mean diameter of the O-ring, with tolerance of +1% of that mean ID, but not more than 0.060". The reason for this is that by ensuring that the O-ring is situated on the correct side of the groove for the anticipated pressure, it won't experience premature failure as a result or being shifted across the groove on every pressurization cycle. For a 2-471, that mean diameter would be 22.230", and for a 2-472, 23.215", which would correspond to 1.25% and 1.20% installation stretch respectively, but these are recommended design minimums. > > My guess is that the 23.25" gland ID just provides enough stretch to keep the O-ring from slipping out, and performance in that embodiment was good enough. Provided the cross-sectional diameter reduction and associated gland depth changes are accommodated, the only downside to greater installation stretch is premature aging of the O-ring. (See ORD5700, 3.6). > > Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 20:49:57 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 00:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <7V7dDQ4NfBRbnNCymabYI8cnC_AJzuQDwxKyolQW_YLVbOcUT_fBJqLW3NPCbRNLAuvaV5TYTqo4_bvxlV1sm7ZHI01M1YZXgryFL1SqUVg=@protonmail.com> <1705079465.5576102.1623280688680@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1239428.5608468.1623286197905@mail.yahoo.com> No annotations for the groove in either set of plans.? Directly measured on K600; interpreted from drawing for K350.? The seat is marked #10 and in the materials list it shows 5/8 x 1.5 x 25 inches.? That dimension along with the drawing I attached earlier allows calculation of groove diameters.? The K600 drawing does not specify an o-ring, but the K350 materials list calls for a 471 o-ring. You are correct on the 471 and 472 cross-section diameter at .275.? I typed it wrong in earlier message. Sounds like either one will work.? I'm likely to go with the 472 as long as it's not too pricey.? It might be cheaper to purchase a kit and just make my own hatch o-ring.? I've only found pricing at one supplier which was $48 USD and that seems rather steep to me. On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 08:19:45 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: That particular drawing does not appear to call out the O-ring groove diameter by annotation. Is that on another drawing? I guess you could scale it off. It also appears to show a half-dovetail groove, with a 10? taper on the ID surface, which would negate the need for stretch to hold the O-ring in as long as the narrowest width of the gland is narrower than the O-ring. Even still, you probably want a bit of installation stretch for reasons given earlier. What reference are you using for O-ring dimensions? Per ORD5700, 400 series are 0.275" width. A 0.275" ring in a 0.215" gland depth at zero extrusion gap is 28% squeeze, which is acceptable but at the upper limit of the acceptable range for 400 series face seals. A few percent of installation stretch would reduce the cross-sectional diameter just enough to make the resultant squeeze comfortably within the range. Extrusion should not be a problem provided the groove is sufficiently wide that when the flanges come metal-to-metal, you don't end up with an excess amount of gland fill. I might shoot for 75% - 85% maximum. Particularly with a dovetail on the inside per that drawing, which will push the elastomer against the acute angle. Also, with 0% squeeze (where the extrusion gap still exists), you don't want a lot of area subject to the external pressure compared to the hatch area acting axially. As pressure increases, you want the squeeze to win over the tendency to extrude. 0% installation stretch on a 0.275" thick O-ring would start you at 0.060" gap. With 5% installation stretch you would start at 0.053" gap. Not significantly different. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Jun. 9, 2021, 17:18, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: Sean, thanks for that analysis.? See attached image for reference to K350. I screwed up some of the K600 numbers based upon the plans which turn out not to be accurate.? Specifically, the actual K600 hatch seal configuration I see does not match either the K600 plans nor the K350 plans, so somewhere along the way the details were changed without documentation (which Lloyds didn't catch) or I don't have the final set of K600 drawings. K600 groove - 23.5 ID, 24 OD, 23.75 mean diameter K350 groove - 23.25 ID, 23.75 OD, 23.5 mean diameter, according to the plans. BOTH have a groove width of 1/4 inch as shown in K350 image (including dovetail on ID side) and a depth of .215 inches. Cross section diameter of both 2-471 and 2-472 is .271 inches.? On the K600 that's a 2.1% stretch which would be within the limits you wrote about, but now I'm wondering if Kittredge used the 2-471 on the K350 to reduce the cross-sectional diameter enough to counter the relatively hefty .271 o-ring inside a .25 x .215 channel.? Too big of a diameter would cause extrusion at some point, wouldn't it? Jon On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 05:25:03 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Per ORD5700, stretch should be limited generally to no more than 5%. A 2-471 O-ring (21.955" ID) on a 23.25" gland is 5.90% stretch. A 2-472 O-ring (22.940" ID) on that same 23.25" gland is only 1.35% stretch. Sometimes it is advantageous to specify an O-ring which must be stretched for installation in order to create friction against the gland in order to prevent the O-ring from slipping out of the groove if it isn't retained by other means (e.g. dovetail). At 5% stretch however, the cross-sectional diameter of the O-ring is reduced by about 2.5% (and at 5.9% squeeze, almost 4%) so the gland depth may need to be reduced accordingly in order to achieve the design squeeze on the O-ring. Per ORD5700, for face seal glands in sizes 425 through 475, that design squeeze is 21% to 29% with no extrusion gap. For face seals subject to external pressure, the gland is usually sized with its inside diameter equal to the mean diameter of the O-ring, with tolerance of +1% of that mean ID, but not more than 0.060". The reason for this is that by ensuring that the O-ring is situated on the correct side of the groove for the anticipated pressure, it won't experience premature failure as a result or being shifted across the groove on every pressurization cycle. For a 2-471, that mean diameter would be 22.230", and for a 2-472, 23.215", which would correspond to 1.25% and 1.20% installation stretch respectively, but these are recommended design minimums. My guess is that the 23.25" gland ID just provides enough stretch to keep the O-ring from slipping out, and performance in that embodiment was good enough. Provided the cross-sectional diameter reduction and associated gland depth changes are accommodated, the only downside to greater installation stretch is premature aging of the O-ring. (See ORD5700, 3.6). Sean _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 18:43:19 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:43:19 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jon I?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. Rick Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ? > Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit of a "stretch" installing the 2-471. > > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require less stretching, but...??? > > Will post on FB as well. > > Jon > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 18:51:43 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:51:43 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8FE3F1FF-EFB8-40C6-B6B6-D75D2594CB68@gmail.com> Jon Dan Hycroft has been my mentor while building my sub as the captain I think got tired of my calling him for clarification on things due to the plans lacking in various places. I would try him as he is a wealth of information. I stay in touch with him so let me know if you need his number. Rick Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ? > I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976. Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points. The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside. Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians? Did it vent faster? George, you left us with many questions. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Jun 9 21:07:28 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <8FE3F1FF-EFB8-40C6-B6B6-D75D2594CB68@gmail.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <8FE3F1FF-EFB8-40C6-B6B6-D75D2594CB68@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2023876947.5627052.1623287248264@mail.yahoo.com> Good to know.? Thanks Rick. On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 08:54:13 PM EDT, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: JonDan Hycroft has been my mentor while building my sub as the captain I think got tired of my calling him for clarification on things due to the plans lacking in various places. I would try him as he is a wealth of information. I stay in touch with him so let me know if you need his number.Rick? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ?I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent faster?? George, you left us with many questions. Jon_______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 09:53:02 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:53:02 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jon, Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions? I can measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. Regards James On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Jon > I?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. > > Rick > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > ? > Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and > report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID > of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm > thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit of a > "stretch" installing the 2-471. > > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require > less stretching, but...??? > > Will post on FB as well. > > Jon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 10:25:04 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <175087416.5795478.1623335104434@mail.yahoo.com> James, if you can measure it please do.? I've only got the numbers that I calculated from drawings.? Also interested in size of the o-ring, diameter/thickness.? Did you purchase one or did you make your own??? Jon On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:54:54 AM EDT, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Jon, Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions?? ?I can measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. RegardsJames On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: JonI?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. Rick? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ?Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and report back on it?? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25.? That would seem like a bit of a "stretch" installing the 2-471. There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require less stretching, but...??? Will post on FB as well. Jon _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 13:39:56 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (River Dolfi via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:39:56 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] original MBT Vent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That vent valve arrangement was rejected for two reasons I would imagine: 1- This arrangement wouldn't meet the requirements for stop valves on through hull pipes. Openings to external seawater require two shutoff devices. That's why the cabin flood valve in the k350 plans has a valve AND a threaded pipe cap on the inside. That detail gets skipped alot. 2- How would you install, leak test, or do regular maintenance, inspection, or repairs on that valve? The inspectors are big on that, and I doubt they would have accepted "angle grinder" as an answer. River J Dolfi Rdolfi7 at gmail.com On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 10:26 via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to > personal_submersibles at psubs.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Original MBT vent? (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) > 2. Re: K-sub hatch o-ring (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) > 3. Re: K-sub hatch o-ring (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:07:28 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? > Message-ID: <2023876947.5627052.1623287248264 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Good to know.? Thanks Rick. > On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 08:54:13 PM EDT, Rick Patton via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > JonDan Hycroft has been my mentor while building my sub as the captain I > think got tired of my calling him for clarification on things due to the > plans lacking in various places. I would try him as he is a wealth of > information. I stay in touch with him so let me know if you need his > number.Rick? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > > ?I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated > March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into > the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing > is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates > VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower > with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he > considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent > faster?? George, you left us with many questions. > Jon_______________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20210610/30cada9f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:53:02 +0100 > From: James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring > Message-ID: > UDSDF4Oh-xDbE3ZPJNg020Nt51uM9G8QUrmVv6Pse9skw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Jon, > > Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions? I can > measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on > this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. > > Regards > James > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > Jon > > I?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. > > > > Rick > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > > ? > > Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and > > report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID > > of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm > > thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit > of a > > "stretch" installing the 2-471. > > > > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would > require > > less stretching, but...??? > > > > Will post on FB as well. > > > > Jon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20210610/e19cf911/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:25:04 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring > Message-ID: <175087416.5795478.1623335104434 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > James, if you can measure it please do.? I've only got the numbers that I > calculated from drawings.? Also interested in size of the o-ring, > diameter/thickness.? Did you purchase one or did you make your own??? > Jon > > > On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:54:54 AM EDT, James Frankland via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions?? ?I can > measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on > this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. > RegardsJames > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > JonI?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. > Rick? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > > ?Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and > report back on it?? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID > of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm > thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25.? That would seem like a bit of a > "stretch" installing the 2-471. > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require > less stretching, but...??? > Will post on FB as well. > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20210610/c7767874/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 96, Issue 10 > ***************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 16:42:13 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:42:13 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <2023876947.5627052.1623287248264@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <8FE3F1FF-EFB8-40C6-B6B6-D75D2594CB68@gmail.com> <2023876947.5627052.1623287248264@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jon sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday. My OD on the hatch groove is 23.75" and 23.25" OD with a just under a 1/4" dia groove, but haven't looked on what the drawings say. Don't have my O ring to give you that data you wanted. Hope that helps Rick On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 3:08 PM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Good to know. Thanks Rick. > > On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 08:54:13 PM EDT, Rick Patton via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Jon > Dan Hycroft has been my mentor while building my sub as the captain I > think got tired of my calling him for clarification on things due to the > plans lacking in various places. I would try him as he is a wealth of > information. I stay in touch with him so let me know if you need his number. > Rick > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > ? > I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated > March 23, 1976. Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into > the cabin and offered multiple leak points. The date listed on the drawing > is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates > VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower > with just the valve stem protruding inside. Was this something he > considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians? Did it vent > faster? George, you left us with many questions. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 17:41:34 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:41:34 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: <175087416.5795478.1623335104434@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <175087416.5795478.1623335104434@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I will measure and check on sat. I made my own o ring from cord but I did it all to the plans as I can remember. I was very careful to follow the instructions properly. Will get back to you with measurements. Regards James On Thursday, 10 June 2021, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > James, if you can measure it please do. I've only got the numbers that I > calculated from drawings. Also interested in size of the o-ring, > diameter/thickness. Did you purchase one or did you make your own? > > Jon > > > > On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:54:54 AM EDT, James Frankland via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Hi Jon, > > Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions? I can > measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on > this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. > > Regards > James > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > Jon > I?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. > > Rick > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > ? > Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and > report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID > of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm > thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit of a > "stretch" installing the 2-471. > > There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require > less stretching, but...??? > > Will post on FB as well. > > Jon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 18:00:38 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <8FE3F1FF-EFB8-40C6-B6B6-D75D2594CB68@gmail.com> <2023876947.5627052.1623287248264@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <941574370.5999531.1623362438745@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Rick, that confirms what the drawing is showing. Jon On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 04:44:36 PM EDT, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Jon? sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday. My OD on the hatch groove is 23.75" and 23.25" OD with a just under a 1/4" dia groove, but haven't looked on what?the? drawings say. Don't have my O ring to give you that data you wanted.Hope that helps Rick On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 3:08 PM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Good to know.? Thanks Rick. On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 08:54:13 PM EDT, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: JonDan Hycroft has been my mentor while building my sub as the captain I think got tired of my calling him for clarification on things due to the plans lacking in various places. I would try him as he is a wealth of information. I stay in touch with him so let me know if you need his number.Rick? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ?I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent faster?? George, you left us with many questions. Jon_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 18:32:41 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <1524374727.3019781.1623270023594@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <1524374727.3019781.1623270023594@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <596634115.5981265.1623364361624@mail.yahoo.com> I like the simplicity of this vent valve set up. It could be built with bolt together flanges allowing for maintenance. ?Stop valves should not be needed because the valve is so close to the hull, and really how much different is it to having a valve with a nipple into a penetration. ? I can see it not passing but,,,,Hank On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 02:20:43 PM MDT, via Personal_Submersibles wrote: It's straight off a World War II sub--I wonder if Lloyds made him do that.Vance -----Original Message----- From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Sent: Wed, Jun 9, 2021 3:59 pm Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? I found this K-600 drawing (see attached image) of MBT vent valve dated March 23, 1976.? Rejected I suspect because it brought a water source into the cabin and offered multiple leak points.? The date listed on the drawing is interesting because even going back to the MK-III vessel which predates VAST, I'm seeing the traditional MBT vent valve outside the conning tower with just the valve stem protruding inside.? Was this something he considered an improvement that was rejected by the Norwegians?? Did it vent faster?? George, you left us with many questions. Jon_______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 18:36:59 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:36:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Hatch view port In-Reply-To: <1170834727.5509283.1623269245668@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1170834727.5509283.1623269245668.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1170834727.5509283.1623269245668@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1952339759.5987779.1623364619442@mail.yahoo.com> Easy to remove to open hatch dogsHank On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 02:07:41 PM MDT, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: One more thing...hey, am I the only one not working today...anyone know why George designed a conical viewport into the hatch rather than a flat one? Jon_______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Jun 10 21:45:57 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 01:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <596634115.5981265.1623364361624@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <1524374727.3019781.1623270023594@mail.yahoo.com> <596634115.5981265.1623364361624@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <607667577.6044970.1623375957111@mail.yahoo.com> What about a union? On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 06:34:37 PM EDT, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I like the simplicity of this vent valve set up. It could be built with bolt together flanges allowing for maintenance. ?Stop valves should not be needed because the valve is so close to the hull, and really how much different is it to having a valve with a nipple into a penetration. ? I can see it not passing but,,,,Hank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 11 02:53:41 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Original MBT vent? In-Reply-To: <607667577.6044970.1623375957111@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1910388581.5491809.1623268777874@mail.yahoo.com> <1524374727.3019781.1623270023594@mail.yahoo.com> <596634115.5981265.1623364361624@mail.yahoo.com> <607667577.6044970.1623375957111@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1784768406.6076137.1623394421819@mail.yahoo.com> Jon,For sure, an o-ring style so the pipes don't move to remove the valve.Hank On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 07:46:37 PM MDT, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: What about a union? On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 06:34:37 PM EDT, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I like the simplicity of this vent valve set up. It could be built with bolt together flanges allowing for maintenance. ?Stop valves should not be needed because the valve is so close to the hull, and really how much different is it to having a valve with a nipple into a penetration. ? I can see it not passing but,,,,Hank _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 11 08:55:44 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] props References: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242@mail.yahoo.com> Has anyone found propellers that work better in reverse for Minn Kota motors. ?Alan? ?were you experimenting with bow thruster props?Hank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 11 10:11:56 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:11:56 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] props In-Reply-To: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242@mail.yahoo.com> References: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <222074490.6152516.1623416144242@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Make your motors flip 180 degrees Hank.... :) On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 13:56, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Has anyone found propellers that work better in reverse for Minn Kota > motors. Alan? were you experimenting with bow thruster props? > Hank > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 11 10:30:26 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:30:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] props In-Reply-To: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242@mail.yahoo.com> References: <222074490.6152516.1623416144242.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <222074490.6152516.1623416144242@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1908268092.6172517.1623421826551@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Hank,?I only experimented with the motor I built & didn't get any data on reverse.?There were also very few propellors in the low HP (2hp) range that fitted my set up. There were aluminium propellor but from memory a plastic propellor won out.?Come to think of it Cliff has a data sheet on?the performance of various propellors with a Minnkota motor. He is 10 x more organised than me, if he can't supply you with it I may be able to dig it up!?Alan On Saturday, June 12, 2021, 12:57:35 AM GMT+12, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Has anyone found propellers that work better in reverse for Minn Kota motors. ?Alan? ?were you experimenting with bow thruster props?Hank_______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sat Jun 12 13:18:26 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:18:26 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <175087416.5795478.1623335104434@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jon I measured the inside diameter of the hatch O ring groove. I measured it at 588mm or 23.14" Its difficult to measure super accurately due to the paint thickness but I know It was made it exactly to the plans, including the bevel. I had an engineering company skim it and put the groove in as I couldnt fit it on my machine. The O ring I am using is 0.25" 60D one that I made out of cord. I went for 60D as opposed to 70 on advice as its easier to crank the hatch down tight. I experimented with different cords of very slightly different thicknesses and then just went for the one I felt was right. I glued it together with "special" glue that the company I got the cord from sold me. Later I discovered that its just superglue if you check the ingredients. I always take the hatch O ring off after diving to make sure I dont get corrosion in the groove. Its the only one ive ever used on the sub and its never leaked, not even a bit. Not sure thats much help, but my 1p's worth. Regards James On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 22:41, James Frankland wrote: > I will measure and check on sat. I made my own o ring from cord but I > did it all to the plans as I can remember. I was very careful to follow > the instructions properly. > Will get back to you with measurements. > Regards > James > > On Thursday, 10 June 2021, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> James, if you can measure it please do. I've only got the numbers that I >> calculated from drawings. Also interested in size of the o-ring, >> diameter/thickness. Did you purchase one or did you make your own? >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:54:54 AM EDT, James Frankland via >> Personal_Submersibles wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jon, >> >> Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions? I can >> measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on >> this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. >> >> Regards >> James >> >> >> >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> Jon >> I?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. >> >> Rick >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> ? >> Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and >> report back on it? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID >> of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm >> thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25. That would seem like a bit of a >> "stretch" installing the 2-471. >> >> There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would >> require less stretching, but...??? >> >> Will post on FB as well. >> >> Jon >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 15 08:02:16 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-sub hatch o-ring In-Reply-To: References: <1985729883.5481299.1623266399599@mail.yahoo.com> <175087416.5795478.1623335104434@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <672974443.1049043.1623758536321@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you for the info James.? I got my #472 o-ring which is .275 cross-section and it seems way too fat for the channel. Jon On Saturday, June 12, 2021, 01:20:37 PM EDT, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Jon I measured the inside diameter of the hatch O ring groove. I measured it at 588mm or 23.14" Its difficult to measure super accurately due to the paint thickness but I know It was made it exactly to the plans, including the bevel.? I had an engineering company skim it and put the groove in as I couldnt fit it on my machine. The O ring I am using is 0.25" 60D one that I made out of cord.? I went for 60D as opposed to 70 on advice as its easier to crank the hatch down tight.? I experimented with different cords of very slightly different thicknesses and then just went for the one I felt was right.? I glued it together with "special" glue that the company I got the cord from sold me.? Later I discovered that its just superglue if you check the ingredients. I always take the hatch O ring off after diving to make sure I dont get corrosion in the groove. Its the only one ive ever used on the sub and its never leaked, not even a bit. Not sure thats much help, but my 1p's worth. RegardsJames On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 22:41, James Frankland wrote: I will measure and check on sat. ? I made my own o ring from cord but I did it all to the plans as I can remember.? I was very careful to follow the instructions properly.Will get back to you with measurements.RegardsJames On Thursday, 10 June 2021, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: James, if you can measure it please do.? I've only got the numbers that I calculated from drawings.? Also interested in size of the o-ring, diameter/thickness.? Did you purchase one or did you make your own??? Jon On Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:54:54 AM EDT, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Jon, Do you have the info you need on the K-350 hatch dimentions?? ?I can measure mine this weekend if required, i just missed the email threads on this one, but happy to assist with any requests if need be. RegardsJames On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 01:53, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles wrote: JonI?ll be home in a couple of hours and I?ll let you know. Rick? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: ?Can someone with a K-350 measure the ID of the hatch o-ring channel and report back on it?? The K350 plans specify a 2-471 O-ring which has an ID of 21.995 inches but I'm measuring an ID of 23.25 on the K600 and I'm thinking the K350 also has an ID of 23.25.? That would seem like a bit of a "stretch" installing the 2-471. There's a 2-472 O-ring that has an ID of 22.995 inches which would require less stretching, but...??? Will post on FB as well. Jon _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sun Jun 20 14:32:38 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 19:32:38 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber Message-ID: Hi all. Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works for me. Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge. This has turned out really well. Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath through. I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist. Nothing really worked, but this new one is really good. Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 absorbent which makes it easy to breath through. I used various different masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and comfortable. I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm to 600ppm I think. The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one was taking the most of it. Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and modifications, which were super simple. Pic attached and a video of me using it. Skip to 7:35 for the manual scrubber test. Regards James https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q [image: 20210619_170803.jpg] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sun Jun 20 16:06:49 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:06:49 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on the Psub site? Steve On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Hi all. > Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for > use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works > for me. > > Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge. This has turned out > really well. > > Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main > scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath > through. I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and > even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist. Nothing really worked, but > this new one is really good. > > Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 > absorbent which makes it easy to breath through. I used various different > masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and > comfortable. > > I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm > to 600ppm I think. The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one > was taking the most of it. > > Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. > > If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and > modifications, which were super simple. > > Pic attached and a video of me using it. Skip to 7:35 for the manual > scrubber test. > > Regards > James > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q > > > [image: 20210619_170803.jpg] > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sun Jun 20 16:55:28 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 20:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <739822567.2860197.1624222528465@mail.yahoo.com> James,?maybe just have a spare fan!?If the scrubber failed it would either be the power supply or the fan, or clogging with soggy absorbent (which could be replaced).?It would take a while for the sub to get to dangerous CO2 levels if the scrubber broke down. And you would just head for the surface anyway.?Perhaps look at ways of switching between power sources easily.?On my build, which is a small one person, I am having two scrubbers (as Deep Worker does).?Another thought is to tip out half the absorbent and try the manual method through a thinner layer of absorbent!?Alan On Monday, June 21, 2021, 06:35:01 AM GMT+12, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi all.Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works for me.?? Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge.? This has turned out really well. Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath through.? I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist.? Nothing really worked, but this new one is really good. Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 absorbent which makes it easy to breath through.? I used various different masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and comfortable. I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm to 600ppm I think.? The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one was taking the most of it.?? Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and modifications, which were super simple. Pic attached and a video of me using it.? Skip to 7:35 for the manual scrubber test. RegardsJames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q ?? _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 22 07:57:00 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> I agree with Steve, would be a nice addition to the Community Project page.? Seems pretty intuitive in terms of putting it together but can you send me a list of where you sourced the parts?? Part numbers if you have them? Jon On Sunday, June 20, 2021, 04:09:01 PM EDT, Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles wrote: James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on the Psub site?Steve On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi all.Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works for me.?? Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge.? This has turned out really well. Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath through.? I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist.? Nothing really worked, but this new one is really good. Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 absorbent which makes it easy to breath through.? I used various different masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and comfortable. I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm to 600ppm I think.? The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one was taking the most of it.?? Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and modifications, which were super simple. Pic attached and a video of me using it.? Skip to 7:35 for the manual scrubber test. RegardsJames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q ?? _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 22 08:05:14 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Trolling Motor calculations References: <1413182922.3452367.1624363514447.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1413182922.3452367.1624363514447@mail.yahoo.com> I've added some trolling motor calculators to the web site, thrust-to-hp and running-time duration for a given battery capacity.?? http://www.psubs.org/design/calculators.html | | | | PSUBS.ORG | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Jun 22 09:42:46 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:42:46 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> References: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jon, I'll send you all the details of where everthing came from and how i put it together. Will have to do this later. REgards James On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 12:57, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > I agree with Steve, would be a nice addition to the Community Project > page. Seems pretty intuitive in terms of putting it together but can you > send me a list of where you sourced the parts? Part numbers if you have > them? > > Jon > > On Sunday, June 20, 2021, 04:09:01 PM EDT, Steve McQueen via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on the > Psub site? > Steve > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > Hi all. > Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for > use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works > for me. > > Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge. This has turned out > really well. > > Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main > scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath > through. I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and > even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist. Nothing really worked, but > this new one is really good. > > Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 > absorbent which makes it easy to breath through. I used various different > masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and > comfortable. > > I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm > to 600ppm I think. The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one > was taking the most of it. > > Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. > > If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and > modifications, which were super simple. > > Pic attached and a video of me using it. Skip to 7:35 for the manual > scrubber test. > > Regards > James > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q > > > [image: 20210619_170803.jpg] > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 25 07:42:51 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:42:51 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: James, can you send me an email outside the discussion @ psub101 at gmail.com? I thought I had your direct email but can't seem to find it. Thanks, Steve On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:43 AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I'll send you all the details of where everthing came from and how i put > it together. Will have to do this later. > > REgards > James > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 12:57, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> I agree with Steve, would be a nice addition to the Community Project >> page. Seems pretty intuitive in terms of putting it together but can you >> send me a list of where you sourced the parts? Part numbers if you have >> them? >> >> Jon >> >> On Sunday, June 20, 2021, 04:09:01 PM EDT, Steve McQueen via >> Personal_Submersibles wrote: >> >> >> James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on the >> Psub site? >> Steve >> >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for >> use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works >> for me. >> >> Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge. This has turned out >> really well. >> >> Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main >> scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath >> through. I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and >> even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist. Nothing really worked, but >> this new one is really good. >> >> Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 >> absorbent which makes it easy to breath through. I used various different >> masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and >> comfortable. >> >> I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from >> 5000ppm to 600ppm I think. The main scrubber was on, but obviously the >> manual one was taking the most of it. >> >> Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. >> >> If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and >> modifications, which were super simple. >> >> Pic attached and a video of me using it. Skip to 7:35 for the manual >> scrubber test. >> >> Regards >> James >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q >> >> >> [image: 20210619_170803.jpg] >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Jun 25 09:34:23 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:34:23 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Trolling Motor calculations In-Reply-To: <1413182922.3452367.1624363514447@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1413182922.3452367.1624363514447.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1413182922.3452367.1624363514447@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jon, these are handy. Thanks. Steve On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:06 AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > I've added some trolling motor calculators to the web site, thrust-to-hp > and running-time duration for a given battery capacity. > > > http://www.psubs.org/design/calculators.html > > PSUBS.ORG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 28 05:32:54 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:32:54 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jon did you get my email about the manual scrubber? I sent it to your jon at psubs address? Thanks James On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 12:44, Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > James, can you send me an email outside the discussion @ psub101 at gmail.com? > I thought I had your direct email but can't seem to find it. > Thanks, > Steve > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:43 AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jon, >> >> I'll send you all the details of where everthing came from and how i put >> it together. Will have to do this later. >> >> REgards >> James >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 12:57, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Steve, would be a nice addition to the Community Project >>> page. Seems pretty intuitive in terms of putting it together but can you >>> send me a list of where you sourced the parts? Part numbers if you have >>> them? >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Sunday, June 20, 2021, 04:09:01 PM EDT, Steve McQueen via >>> Personal_Submersibles wrote: >>> >>> >>> James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on >>> the Psub site? >>> Steve >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < >>> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all. >>> Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers >>> for use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that >>> works for me. >>> >>> Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge. This has turned out >>> really well. >>> >>> Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main >>> scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath >>> through. I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and >>> even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist. Nothing really worked, but >>> this new one is really good. >>> >>> Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 >>> absorbent which makes it easy to breath through. I used various different >>> masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and >>> comfortable. >>> >>> I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from >>> 5000ppm to 600ppm I think. The main scrubber was on, but obviously the >>> manual one was taking the most of it. >>> >>> Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. >>> >>> If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and >>> modifications, which were super simple. >>> >>> Pic attached and a video of me using it. Skip to 7:35 for the manual >>> scrubber test. >>> >>> Regards >>> James >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q >>> >>> >>> [image: 20210619_170803.jpg] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Jun 28 22:00:03 2021 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 02:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Manual Scrubber In-Reply-To: References: <788243761.3434905.1624363020357@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1821618765.1808567.1624932003685@mail.yahoo.com> James, I did not receive it.? Please send it to jon.wallace at yahoo.com Jon On Monday, June 28, 2021, 05:35:06 AM EDT, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Jon did you get my email about the manual scrubber?? I sent it to your jon at psubs address? ThanksJames On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 12:44, Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles wrote: James, can you send me an email outside the discussion?@ psub101 at gmail.com? I thought I had your direct email but can't seem to find it.Thanks,Steve? On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 9:43 AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi Jon, I'll send you all the details of where everthing came from and how i put it together.? Will have to do this later. REgardsJames On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 12:57, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I agree with Steve, would be a nice addition to the Community Project page.? Seems pretty intuitive in terms of putting it together but can you send me a list of where you sourced the parts?? Part numbers if you have them? Jon On Sunday, June 20, 2021, 04:09:01 PM EDT, Steve McQueen via Personal_Submersibles wrote: James, good info. Maybe this is a good project to document and put on the Psub site?Steve On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 2:34 PM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi all.Ive been experimenting with various manual "breath through" scrubbers for use in an emergency, and i have finally come up with a solution that works for me.?? Ive been testing an anesthesia scrubber cartridge.? This has turned out really well. Previously I made breathing tubes and masks that utilized the main scrubber, but the trouble is that they were all too difficult to breath through.? I made one with a battery electric fan to assist in breathing and even one with a CPR bulb in line to assist.? Nothing really worked, but this new one is really good. Its a cartridge for an anesthesia machine and has spherical balls on CO2 absorbent which makes it easy to breath through.? I used various different masks until i got one that was easy enough to adapt to the hose and comfortable. I only did half an hour as it was so hot, but I got cabin CO2 from 5000ppm to 600ppm I think.? The main scrubber was on, but obviously the manual one was taking the most of it.?? Anyway, I feel much more confident I can control CO2 in an emergency now. If anyone is interested, i can send more details of the parts used and modifications, which were super simple. Pic attached and a video of me using it.? Skip to 7:35 for the manual scrubber test. RegardsJames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHlPgrN57Q ?? _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210619_170803.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 187411 bytes Desc: not available URL: