[PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
Marc de Piolenc via Personal_Submersibles
personal_submersibles at psubs.org
Sun Jul 2 18:43:46 EDT 2023
I mentioned The New Yorker's generally left-wing slant because it
provides a built-in bias against individual initiative. Despite this,
TNY usually adheres to standards of journalistic integrity, with at
least this one exception.
Marc de Piolenc
On 7/2/2023 11:42 PM, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
> 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 <
> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> 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"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> I have done the calculation again for a spherical shell sector
>> window with conical edge 160Mpa and CF 4.
>>
>> According to this, a window with 530/376 & 60° would have to be
>> would have a wall thickness of 161 mm - according to photos it
>> was 140 mm at 60° or 110 mm at a 90° fit.
>> A 90° window would have needed 132 mm thickness according to the
>> code.
>> Now.. 140 to 161 mm or 110 to 132 mm is not far off - and
>> considering the window was inside straight - means there was more
>> material there.
>>
>> I now think the window was OK from a pressure design point of
>> view. To be precise you would need a cross-section drawing with
>> the real geometry.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic
>> site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:29:35+0200
>>
>> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> If I use these 120 mm (STCP) and a CF of 4 it was good for
>> around 1000 m.
>>
>> With 120 mm thickness it was at collapse deep.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic
>> site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T22:18:31+0200
>>
>> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> I found a much better picture and correct the figures as follow:
>>
>> Diameter hull 1600 mm (given)
>>
>> Diameter front porthole outside 614 mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole inside 436 mm
>>
>> But given with the outer window diamter given by Jon of just 530
>> I come to
>>
>> Diameter hull 1381mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole outside 530 mm (given)
>>
>> Diameter front porthole inside 376 mm
>>
>> If I do with the 530 / 376 a little reverse enginering on a
>> conical seat of 60°
>>
>> I come to a thickness of just 120 mm for a inside and outside
>> flat conical frustrum window.
>>
>> According to PVHO-1-1987 t /Di = 0,348 with t = 0,348 x 376 mm
>> = 162 mm at 40 Mpa (4000m)
>>
>> (for Short term critical presssure)
>>
>> But from Jon's picture it seems more a Sperical Sector Window
>> with Conical Edge. and flat inside.
>>
>> The code has no figures for such a window.
>>
>> But if I use for Sherical Shell windows t/di shall 0,195 means t
>> = 0,195 x 376 = 73 mm
>>
>> To be diplomatic I just mix up the flat with the sperhical and
>> got (162 + 73) / 2 = 117,5 mm
>>
>> (for Short term critical presssure)
>>
>> The code says if you have not a standard geometrie - you have to
>> test 5 windows to destroy dephs
>>
>> and use the lowest failture pressure for your calculation.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> .
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic
>> site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T16:11:40+0200
>>
>> Von: "Antoine Delafargue via Personal_Submersibles"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> Hello Carsten,
>> for the thickness, I read that the viewport should have been
>> rated for 1300meters depth, so I think that the designer designed
>> for a short term critical pressure of 5200m/52MPa, and perhaps
>> thought it would be fine using a 1.3X margin to get to 4000m
>> rather than the 4X margin we can find in Stachiw book and PVHO
>> rules for low temperatures (to be checked but I believe it is 4x).
>> regards
>> Antoine
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:03 PM MerlinSub at t-online.de via
>> Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>
>> I check out some pictures and based on a given length of 6500mm
>>
>> I come to the following rough figures:
>>
>> Diameter hull 1600 mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole outside 700 mm
>>
>> Diameter front porthole inside 466 mm
>>
>> (these diameters indicate that the porthole could be original
>> designed as entrance..)
>>
>> Now idear about the thickness of the acrylic
>>
>> - but will check out PHSME about standard flange angles tonight.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at
>> Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-30T15:31:14+0200
>>
>> Von: "MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> For me it looks like the biggest diameter porthole used in
>> that deep.
>>
>> Has somebody here inner and outer diameter and the thickness?
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at
>> Titanic site
>>
>> Datum: 2023-06-29T21:11:55+0200
>>
>> Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion"
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>>
>> The pictures of Titan that I see in water show 16 bolts
>> holding the retaining ring in place. See attached photo.
>> Jon
>> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:49:18 AM EDT,
>> MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles
>> <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have seen a video how they make the carbon cylinder and can
>> imagine that the boat imploded in longitudinal direction.
>>
>> Create a massive shock wave with push the window out (not
>> in). As I saw in another video the window was hold by only 4
>> bolts outside.
>>
>> All titan parts in the video seems undamaged.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>
> --
> Archivale catalog:http://www.archivale.com
> Mass Flow (ducted fans):http://massflow.archivale.com
> ProZ profile:https://www.proz.com/profile/639380
> Substack account:https://fmarcdepiolenc.substack.com
> Pinterest:https://www.pinterest.ph/piolenc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230703/18614f98/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Personal_Submersibles
mailing list