[PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site

Sun Jul 2 11:42:03 EDT 2023

The controller as a technical concern is a red herring, but the anecdote about having to remap the controller inputs during a dive in order to accommodate a thruster wired backwards speaks to a concerning general lack of attention to detail. This is something that should have been easily caught during a pre-dive inspection / checklist. Stockton is on record as saying that a primary reason that he chose to forgo classing was that the greatest safety concerns are procedural, as opposed to design / technical, and class doesn't address the latter. This isn't strictly true of course, but the thruster wiring fiasco further serves to suggest a bit of hypocrisy there.

The article clearly reads as an op ed with an angle (i.e. condemning Rush and OceanGate), but I don't see the political connection? What about this is specifically left wing?

Sean

-------- Original Message --------
On Jul. 1, 2023, 23:00, Marc de Piolenc via Personal_Submersibles wrote:

> And the character assassination and innuendos are running full blast. Despite its heavy leftism, I would have expected something more like journalistic integrity from The New Yorker.
>
> The article did reveal one fact that I had not seen, namely that the occupants had time enough to release weights before the fatal implosion. The acoustic sensors did work, but did not give sufficient margin.
>
> The rest is essentially irrelevant but damaging floss. Endless harping about the controller, which was completely irrelevant to this accident, as the author and his informants must have known.
>
> Marc de Piolenc
>
> On 7/2/2023 3:53 AM, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
>
>> [The Titan Submersible Implosion Was “an Accident Waiting to Happen” | The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan-submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen?fbclid=IwAR0CN7CyK3Ok72HX4Mf0n6sB6uc95sE-nH5_N1KDrqA5XHU1vx_k8eUCbfo)
>>
>> Best insider description so far.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-07-01T12:13:41+0200
>>
>> Von: ["MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"](mailto:MerlinSub at t-online.deviaPersonal_Submersibles) [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> I have done the calculation again for a spherical shell sector window with conical edge 160Mpa and CF 4.
>>
>> According to this, a window with 530/376 & 60° would have to be
>> would have a wall thickness of 161 mm - according to photos it was 140 mm at 60° or 110 mm at a 90° fit.
>> A 90° window would have needed 132 mm thickness according to the code.
>> Now.. 140 to 161 mm or 110 to 132 mm is not far off - and considering the window was inside straight - means there was more material there.
>>
>> I now think the window was OK from a pressure design point of view. To be precise you would need a cross-section drawing with the real geometry.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:29:35+0200
>>
>> Von: ["MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"](mailto:MerlinSub at t-online.deviaPersonal_Submersibles) [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> If I use these 120 mm (STCP) and a CF of 4 it was good for around 1000 m.
>>
>> With 120 mm thickness it was at collapse deep.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:18:31+0200
>>
>> Von: ["MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"](mailto:MerlinSub at t-online.deviaPersonal_Submersibles) [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> I found a much better picture and correct the figures as follow:
>>
>> Diameter hull 1600 mm (given)
>>
>> Diameter front porthole outside 614 mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole inside 436 mm
>>
>> But given with the outer window diamter given by Jon of just 530 I come to
>>
>> Diameter hull 1381mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole outside 530 mm (given)
>>
>> Diameter front porthole inside 376 mm
>>
>> If I do with the 530 / 376 a little reverse enginering on a conical seat of 60°
>>
>> I come to a thickness of just 120 mm for a inside and outside flat conical frustrum window.
>>
>> According to PVHO-1-1987 t /Di = 0,348 with t = 0,348 x 376 mm = 162 mm at 40 Mpa (4000m)
>>
>> (for Short term critical presssure)
>>
>> But from Jon's picture it seems more a Sperical Sector Window with Conical Edge. and flat inside.
>>
>> The code has no figures for such a window.
>>
>> But if I use for Sherical Shell windows t/di shall 0,195 means t = 0,195 x 376 = 73 mm
>>
>> To be diplomatic I just mix up the flat with the sperhical and got (162 + 73) / 2 = 117,5 mm
>>
>> (for Short term critical presssure)
>>
>> The code says if you have not a standard geometrie - you have to test 5 windows to destroy dephs
>>
>> and use the lowest failture pressure for your calculation.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> .
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T16:11:40+0200
>>
>> Von: "Antoine Delafargue via Personal_Submersibles" [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" [<personal_submersibles at psubs.org>](mailto:personal_submersibles at psubs.org)
>>
>> Hello Carsten,
>>
>> for the thickness, I read that the viewport should have been rated for 1300meters depth, so I think that the designer designed for a short term critical pressure of 5200m/52MPa, and perhaps thought it would be fine using a 1.3X margin to get to 4000m rather than the 4X margin we can find in Stachiw book and PVHO rules for low temperatures (to be checked but I believe it is 4x).
>>
>> regards
>> Antoine
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:03 PM MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I check out some pictures and based on a given length of 6500mm
>>>
>>> I come to the following rough figures:
>>>
>>> Diameter hull 1600 mm
>>>
>>> Diameter front porthole outside 700 mm
>>>
>>> Diameter front porthole inside 466 mm
>>>
>>> (these diameters indicate that the porthole could be original designed as entrance..)
>>>
>>> Now idear about the thickness of the acrylic
>>>
>>> - but will check out PHSME about standard flange angles tonight.
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>>
>>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>>
>>> Datum: 2023-06-30T15:31:14+0200
>>>
>>> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>>
>>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>>
>>> For me it looks like the biggest diameter porthole used in that deep.
>>>
>>> Has somebody here inner and outer diameter and the thickness?
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>>
>>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>>>
>>> Datum: 2023-06-29T21:11:55+0200
>>>
>>> Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>>
>>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>>
>>> The pictures of Titan that I see in water show 16 bolts holding the retaining ring in place. See attached photo.
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:49:18 AM EDT, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have seen a video how they make the carbon cylinder and can imagine that the boat imploded in longitudinal direction.
>>>
>>> Create a massive shock wave with push the window out (not in). As I saw in another video the window was hold by only 4 bolts outside.
>>>
>>> All titan parts in the video seems undamaged.
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>>
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>
> --
> Archivale catalog:
> http://www.archivale.com
> Mass Flow (ducted fans):
> http://massflow.archivale.com
> ProZ profile:
> https://www.proz.com/profile/639380
> Substack account:
> https://fmarcdepiolenc.substack.com
> Pinterest:
> https://www.pinterest.ph/piolenc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20230702/5eeab7b2/attachment-0001.html>