From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Nov 20 10:11:04 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:11:04 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion Message-ID: Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Nov 20 11:52:58 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 17:52:58 +0100 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005a01da1bd2$043b05b0$0cb11110$@airesearch.nl> Hi Sean, I agree with you that even our small subs should have a backup depth (or other vital readings) gauge. I always dive with a nice classic analoge and a digital( easy to see if you are rising or sinking) depth gauge. Eventual a scuba bottom timer on the outside. If one is giving a strange reading you will notice immediately. Br, Emile Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: maandag 20 november 2023 16:11 Aan: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Nov 20 12:09:09 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Daniel Lance via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:09:09 -0500 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sean , I think a good recommendation for Psubs is to not conduct dive operations in water depths greater then the safe operating depth of whatever craft is being operated at that particular time ? On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 10:12 AM Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class > submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a > result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth > when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the > situation before it became a castastrophe. > > Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't > necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should > endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically > calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also > periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect > malfunctioning instruments. > > Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument > verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be > part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional > verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per > trip? > > This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily > avoidable problem. > > FWIW. > > 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 Mon Nov 20 14:56:38 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 19:56:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74589088.6195832.1700510198872@mail.yahoo.com> True,You could be risking your life on the reading of one instrument.I am thinking that an external pressure sensing module could be made up, with 3 electronic pressure sensors in it.Oil filled with a diaphragm to transfer the pressure.The wires for all three come in through one through hull to a computer like an arduino that compares the readings.Alan Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 5:57 am, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. 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 Mon Nov 20 18:41:49 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <777556050.3331369.1700523709081@mail.yahoo.com> It's interesting that they "observed" some backup depth instruments:? Seems that any depth instruments would have some type of alarm system (audible and/or strobe) to say, "Hey, buddy..."? Perhaps it did, and the report just wasn't being that specific. Jim T. In a message dated 11/20/2023 11:27:51 AM Central Standard Time, personal_submersibles at psubs.org writes:? Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. 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 Tue Nov 21 07:23:28 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your sub's capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the PSUBS operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2.? Using multiple sensors for either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good idea except could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors.? A pressure transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in the $150 each range. What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be effective?? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface observation. Jon On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. 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 Tue Nov 21 08:00:34 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:00:34 -0500 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That would only add the danger of entanglement. I would add a pressure gauge (analog) in series of the digital sensor or scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. Al On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your sub's > capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the PSUBS > operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2. Using multiple sensors for > either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good idea except > could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors. A pressure > transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in the $150 each > range. > > What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be > effective? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked > rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface > observation. > > Jon > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class > submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a > result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth > when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the > situation before it became a castastrophe. > > Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't > necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should > endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically > calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also > periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect > malfunctioning instruments. > > Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument > verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be > part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional > verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per > trip? > > This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily > avoidable problem. > > FWIW. > > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Virus-free.www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 08:26:54 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:26:54 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> I wasn't thinking of verification at depth, but rather verification of the transducer(s) / gauges prior to the dive, as distinct from a full calibration. Having, for example, a process connection on the vessel that would allow you to tie in a pressure source and a reference gauge, and doing a quick two-point verification of the gauge readings at 20% and 80% of nominal range - all before getting wet. Incidentally, here is the ABS language on the subject. It seems that redundant systems are " 13.3 Monitoring Equipment (2007) Life support instrumentation systems, including power supplies, are to be provided in duplicate or an alternative means of measurement is to be provided. Changes in temperature, humidity and total pressure are not to affect the accuracy of measurements. Electronic life support instrumentation is to incorporate provisions for calibration. Internal pressure is to be monitored using a mechanical type instrument in addition to any other type of pressure indicating instrument. " Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Nov. 21, 2023, 06:00, Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > That would only add the danger of entanglement. I would add a pressure gauge (analog) in series of the digital sensor > or scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. > > Al > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > >> As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your sub's capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the PSUBS operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2. Using multiple sensors for either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good idea except could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors. A pressure transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in the $150 each range. >> >> What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be effective? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface observation. >> >> Jon >> >> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: >> >> Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. >> >> Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. >> >> Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? >> >> This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. >> >> FWIW. >> >> Sean >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free.[www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail)#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 09:18:20 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:18:20 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> References: <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: <9FE03186-CBEA-44FF-B40D-CBA4A1C5780C@yahoo.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 09:22:31 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] =?utf-8?q?Vanguard_class_sub_=28UK=29_unintended_?= =?utf-8?q?depth=09excursion?= In-Reply-To: <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> References: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> Message-ID: <1183192227.6499902.1700576551022@mail.yahoo.com> The O2 and CO2 electronic sensors I use can be calibrated in open air.? Of course that requires that the sensors can be removed from the vessel and taken to an open area, which mine can.? In situ, you'd have to use a test gas of known purity which would be another tank to drag around.? Pressure transducer testing could be done with just a scuba tank as the supply gas. If a vessel is diving in water shallower than it's rated depth would a pressure transducer verification still be critical? Jon On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 08:29:05 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I wasn't thinking of verification at depth, but rather verification of the transducer(s) / gauges prior to the dive, as distinct from a full calibration. Having, for example, a process connection on the vessel that would allow you to tie in a pressure source and a reference gauge, and doing a quick two-point verification of the gauge readings at 20% and 80% of nominal range - all before getting wet. Incidentally, here is the ABS language on the subject. It seems that redundant systems are " 13.3 Monitoring Equipment (2007) Life support instrumentation systems, including power supplies, are to be provided in duplicate or an alternative means of measurement is to be provided. Changes in temperature, humidity and total pressure are not to affect the accuracy of measurements. Electronic life support instrumentation is to incorporate provisions for calibration. Internal pressure is to be monitored using a mechanical type instrument in addition to any other type of pressure indicating instrument. " Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Nov. 21, 2023, 06:00, Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: That would only add the danger of entanglement.? I would add a pressure gauge (analog) in series of the?digital sensoror scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. Al On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your sub's capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the PSUBS operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2.? Using multiple sensors for either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good idea except could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors.? A pressure transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in the $150 each range. What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be effective?? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface observation. Jon On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the situation before it became a castastrophe. Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect malfunctioning instruments. Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per trip? This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily avoidable problem. FWIW. Sean _______________________________________________ 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 | | Virus-free.www.avg.com | _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 21 10:35:56 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (David Colombo via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:35:56 -0800 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: <1183192227.6499902.1700576551022@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1311771696.4563533.1700569408163@mail.yahoo.com> <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> <1183192227.6499902.1700576551022@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I run an external analog outside the dome as well as the (2) sidescan units for depth to bottom, one set with a min setting alarm as max depth alarm when on the surface to determine if I'm in a safe dive area. David On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 6:23 AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > The O2 and CO2 electronic sensors I use can be calibrated in open air. Of > course that requires that the sensors can be removed from the vessel and > taken to an open area, which mine can. In situ, you'd have to use a test > gas of known purity which would be another tank to drag around. Pressure > transducer testing could be done with just a scuba tank as the supply gas. > > If a vessel is diving in water shallower than it's rated depth would a > pressure transducer verification still be critical? > > Jon > > > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 08:29:05 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > I wasn't thinking of verification at depth, but rather verification of the > transducer(s) / gauges prior to the dive, as distinct from a full > calibration. > > Having, for example, a process connection on the vessel that would allow > you to tie in a pressure source and a reference gauge, and doing a quick > two-point verification of the gauge readings at 20% and 80% of nominal > range - all before getting wet. > > Incidentally, here is the ABS language on the subject. It seems that > redundant systems are > > " > 13.3 Monitoring Equipment (2007) Life support instrumentation systems, > including power supplies, are to be provided in duplicate or an alternative > means of measurement is to be provided. Changes in temperature, humidity > and total pressure are not to affect the accuracy of measurements. > Electronic life support instrumentation is to incorporate provisions for > calibration. Internal pressure is to be monitored using a mechanical type > instrument in addition to any other type of pressure indicating instrument. > " > > Sean > > -------- Original Message -------- > On Nov. 21, 2023, 06:00, Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > > That would only add the danger of entanglement. I would add a pressure > gauge (analog) in series of the digital sensor > or scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. > > Al > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your sub's > capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the PSUBS > operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2. Using multiple sensors for > either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good idea except > could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors. A pressure > transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in the $150 each > range. > > What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be > effective? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked > rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface > observation. > > Jon > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class > submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a > result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth > when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the > situation before it became a castastrophe. > > Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't > necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should > endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically > calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also > periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect > malfunctioning instruments. > > Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter (instrument > verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments needs to be > part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of functional > verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then perhaps per > trip? > > This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily > avoidable problem. > > FWIW. > > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > Virus-free.www.avg.com > > <#m_1175315230563247904_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 21 11:55:46 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:55:46 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question Message-ID: Hi All Anyone got any suggestions for this? I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat. I designed it up using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than i need really. I can run on just the rear for surface driving. On the new boat i will have 4 motors. Im thinking of smaller ones. Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb would probably be ok. The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's. The location is ok if the cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the armature\commutator\brush assembly. Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. Rubbish drawing attached. You can see the blue part is the potted connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky. [image: image.png] Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the shaft hole is in a more convenient place? Any suggestions? Kind Regards James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 12:36:32 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:36:32 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James, if I understand correctly, your cable exit is potted and cannot be modified, and so you are having to connect your motor leads to the inside end of the potted electrodes, and then you insert your motor axially while having to accommodate the consequent slack in the motor leads. Do I understand this correctly? Short of drilling out the potting and re-terminating, I might address this by attempting to eliminate the flexible leads entirely. Would it be possible to install some sort of bus bar arrangement in the known radial clearance gap, connected to the potted leads, and then with a mechanically sliding connection on the motor side? (Or vise versa if you have fixed electrode positions at the penetrator)? If such a fixed arrangement isn't possible, my next thought is to pair the motor leads with a stiffening element that might simulate an energy chain in a larger system, whereby a plastic or wire element is bent into a loop and provides physical support to the current carrying conductors in order to keep them clear of the armature. Sean -------- Original Message -------- On Nov. 21, 2023, 09:55, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > Hi All > > Anyone got any suggestions for this? > > I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat. I designed it up using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. > > On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than i need really. I can run on just the rear for surface driving. > > On the new boat i will have 4 motors. > > Im thinking of smaller ones. Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb would probably be ok. > > The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's. The location is ok if the cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the armature\commutator\brush assembly. > > Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. > > Rubbish drawing attached. You can see the blue part is the potted connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky. > > [image.png] > > Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the shaft hole is in a more convenient place? > > Any suggestions? > Kind Regards > James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 13:29:28 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <673882518.6637865.1700591368613@mail.yahoo.com> James,I do not have this problem with the smaller motors, the brushes are at the other end of the motor, opposite the propeller end. ?On my DDW, I am using 4X ?30 lb thrust motors. ?I find with the visibility we have there is no need for faster bottom travel. ?I would say being similar in size to your new sub, no more than 50 LB is needed. ? I have a video on how to modify them and it takes about 20 min per motor. ? I also have 50 lb motors that I actually drilled the motor body and screwed in penetrators with short leads that plug into the brushes.Hank On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 09:55:59 AM MST, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi All Anyone got any suggestions for this? I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat.? I designed it up using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than i need really.? I can run on just the rear for surface driving. On the new boat i will have 4 motors. Im thinking of smaller ones.? Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb would probably be ok. The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's.? The location is ok if the cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the armature\commutator\brush assembly. Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. Rubbish drawing attached.? You can see the blue part is the potted connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky.?? Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the shaft hole is in a more convenient place? Any suggestions? Kind Regards James _______________________________________________ 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 13:34:00 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:34:00 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: <9FE03186-CBEA-44FF-B40D-CBA4A1C5780C@yahoo.ca> References: <6gQHcPtDcaULyJjP39Q1298yjC4nfTIEP-aTZeeRRGdMVfyIrMDKFfSdEDn7w1Te-vizNeuL8TFZt7hIFBd1kFgfdP_EqbG2IVY7BnSjicU=@protonmail.com> <9FE03186-CBEA-44FF-B40D-CBA4A1C5780C@yahoo.ca> Message-ID: Hank, what is the max limit of your scuba depth gauge and what kind is it? On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:19?AM hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > I have onboard sonar to establish depth from bottom. I have just added a > scuba depth gauge outside my dome that I really like. The DW is kinda > tight inside, so the gauge outside is real nice to look at. > Hank > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 21, 2023, at 6:27 AM, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > ?I wasn't thinking of verification at depth, but rather verification of > the transducer(s) / gauges prior to the dive, as distinct from a full > calibration. > > Having, for example, a process connection on the vessel that would allow > you to tie in a pressure source and a reference gauge, and doing a quick > two-point verification of the gauge readings at 20% and 80% of nominal > range - all before getting wet. > > Incidentally, here is the ABS language on the subject. It seems that > redundant systems are > > " > 13.3 Monitoring Equipment (2007) Life support instrumentation systems, > including power supplies, are to be provided in duplicate or an alternative > means of measurement is to be provided. Changes in temperature, humidity > and total pressure are not to affect the accuracy of measurements. > Electronic life support instrumentation is to incorporate provisions for > calibration. Internal pressure is to be monitored using a mechanical type > instrument in addition to any other type of pressure indicating instrument. > " > > Sean > -------- Original Message -------- > On Nov. 21, 2023, 06:00, Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > > That would only add the danger of entanglement. I would add a pressure > gauge (analog) in series of the digital sensor > or scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. > > Al > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your >> sub's capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the >> PSUBS operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2. Using multiple >> sensors for either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good >> idea except could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors. >> A pressure transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in >> the $150 each range. >> >> What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be >> effective? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked >> rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface >> observation. >> >> Jon >> >> >> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via >> Personal_Submersibles wrote: >> >> >> Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class >> submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a >> result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth >> when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the >> situation before it became a castastrophe. >> >> Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't >> necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should >> endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically >> calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also >> periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect >> malfunctioning instruments. >> >> Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter >> (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments >> needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of >> functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then >> perhaps per trip? >> >> This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily >> avoidable problem. >> >> FWIW. >> >> Sean >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > Virus-free.www.avg.com > > <#m_5778357503182970459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 21 14:48:15 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:48:15 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sean Yes, thats exactly what I mean. However, thats on my K350. I have learnt to live with the difficulty of dismantling the motors and try to do so as little as possible. I was just asking if anyone has any experience with different types that dont have this issue, so I can avoid it on my new boat.. There are loads of different ones available on amazon of all sorts of makes and prices. I have been looking at the ones with the brushed at the other end. As hank mentions in the next email. Thanks again James On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 17:37, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > James, if I understand correctly, your cable exit is potted and cannot be > modified, and so you are having to connect your motor leads to the inside > end of the potted electrodes, and then you insert your motor axially while > having to accommodate the consequent slack in the motor leads. Do I > understand this correctly? > > Short of drilling out the potting and re-terminating, I might address this > by attempting to eliminate the flexible leads entirely. Would it be > possible to install some sort of bus bar arrangement in the known radial > clearance gap, connected to the potted leads, and then with a mechanically > sliding connection on the motor side? (Or vise versa if you have fixed > electrode positions at the penetrator)? > > If such a fixed arrangement isn't possible, my next thought is to pair the > motor leads with a stiffening element that might simulate an energy chain > in a larger system, whereby a plastic or wire element is bent into a loop > and provides physical support to the current carrying conductors in order > to keep them clear of the armature. > > Sean > -------- Original Message -------- > On Nov. 21, 2023, 09:55, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > > Hi All > > Anyone got any suggestions for this? > > I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat. I designed it up > using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. > > On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than > i need really. I can run on just the rear for surface driving. > > On the new boat i will have 4 motors. > > Im thinking of smaller ones. Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb > would probably be ok. > > The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire > location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's. The location is ok if the > cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can > pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the > cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the > armature\commutator\brush assembly. > > Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. > > Rubbish drawing attached. You can see the blue part is the potted > connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky. > > [image: image.png] > > Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the > shaft hole is in a more convenient place? > > Any suggestions? > Kind Regards > James > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 21 14:49:18 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:49:18 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: <673882518.6637865.1700591368613@mail.yahoo.com> References: <673882518.6637865.1700591368613@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Hank. I think i have seen your video. I will take another look. On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 18:30, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > James, > I do not have this problem with the smaller motors, the brushes are at the > other end of the motor, opposite the propeller end. On my DDW, I am using > 4X 30 lb thrust motors. I find with the visibility we have there is no > need for faster bottom travel. I would say being similar in size to your > new sub, no more than 50 LB is needed. I have a video on how to modify > them and it takes about 20 min per motor. > > I also have 50 lb motors that I actually drilled the motor body and > screwed in penetrators with short leads that plug into the brushes. > Hank > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 09:55:59 AM MST, James Frankland via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Hi All > > Anyone got any suggestions for this? > > I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat. I designed it up > using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. > > On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than > i need really. I can run on just the rear for surface driving. > > On the new boat i will have 4 motors. > > Im thinking of smaller ones. Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb > would probably be ok. > > The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire > location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's. The location is ok if the > cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can > pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the > cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the > armature\commutator\brush assembly. > > Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. > > Rubbish drawing attached. You can see the blue part is the potted > connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky. > > [image: image.png] > > Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the > shaft hole is in a more convenient place? > > Any suggestions? > Kind Regards > James > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Nov 22 01:01:35 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <218381209.6863447.1700632895803@mail.yahoo.com> James,buy a brushless motor. There are Chinese trolling motors in that range with brushless motors.Alan Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 5:57 am, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hi All Anyone got any suggestions for this? I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat.? I designed it up using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than i need really.? I can run on just the rear for surface driving. On the new boat i will have 4 motors. Im thinking of smaller ones.? Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb would probably be ok. The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's.? The location is ok if the cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the armature\commutator\brush assembly. Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. Rubbish drawing attached.? You can see the blue part is the potted connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky.?? Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the shaft hole is in a more convenient place? Any suggestions? Kind Regards James _______________________________________________ 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Nov 22 11:20:06 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:20:06 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: <218381209.6863447.1700632895803@mail.yahoo.com> References: <218381209.6863447.1700632895803@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks again all for the advice. I'll have a look for brushless ones. That seems like a good idea. @ Alec. Thanks for the offer of the motors. Do you know what they are? I need 4 so i'd have to get a couple more. I would prefer all the same. I can see if they would be suitable for me and if i can get any similar. I shall keep researching for now. Regards James On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 06:02, Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > James, > buy a brushless motor. There are Chinese trolling motors in that range > with brushless motors. > Alan > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 5:57 am, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles > wrote: > Hi All > > Anyone got any suggestions for this? > > I am thinking about what motors to get for my new boat. I designed it up > using dimensions from my existing Minn Kota 80's. > > On Jodie B I have 3 of these which totals 240lb thrust. which is more than > i need really. I can run on just the rear for surface driving. > > On the new boat i will have 4 motors. > > Im thinking of smaller ones. Something along the lines of 4 x 40-50lb > would probably be ok. > > The biggest thing I want to try and avoid is the difficulty of the wire > location that i have on the Minn Kota 80's. The location is ok if the > cable runs up the shaft as intended in the standard motor design as you can > pull them tight and clear, but once I potted the replacement shaft, the > cables then become very troublesome to keep out of the way of the > armature\commutator\brush assembly. > > Some other people have experienced this as we have discussed it before. > > Rubbish drawing attached. You can see the blue part is the potted > connections which make the wires onto the brushes really tricky. > > [image: image.png] > > Does anyone know of a motor that would be easier to modify or where the > shaft hole is in a more convenient place? > > Any suggestions? > Kind Regards > James > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 16860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Nov 22 11:58:38 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:58:38 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8181BBAE-477F-437C-AB92-E1755FD5A8B6@yahoo.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Nov 22 13:10:02 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:10:02 -1000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Vanguard class sub (UK) unintended depth excursion In-Reply-To: <8181BBAE-477F-437C-AB92-E1755FD5A8B6@yahoo.ca> References: <8181BBAE-477F-437C-AB92-E1755FD5A8B6@yahoo.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Hank Rick On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 6:59?AM hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > The one I have on for now is 160 feet > Hank > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 21, 2023, at 11:34 AM, Rick Patton via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > ? > Hank, what is the max limit of your scuba depth gauge and what kind is it? > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:19?AM hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> I have onboard sonar to establish depth from bottom. I have just added a >> scuba depth gauge outside my dome that I really like. The DW is kinda >> tight inside, so the gauge outside is real nice to look at. >> Hank >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 21, 2023, at 6:27 AM, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> ?I wasn't thinking of verification at depth, but rather verification of >> the transducer(s) / gauges prior to the dive, as distinct from a full >> calibration. >> >> Having, for example, a process connection on the vessel that would allow >> you to tie in a pressure source and a reference gauge, and doing a quick >> two-point verification of the gauge readings at 20% and 80% of nominal >> range - all before getting wet. >> >> Incidentally, here is the ABS language on the subject. It seems that >> redundant systems are >> >> " >> 13.3 Monitoring Equipment (2007) Life support instrumentation systems, >> including power supplies, are to be provided in duplicate or an alternative >> means of measurement is to be provided. Changes in temperature, humidity >> and total pressure are not to affect the accuracy of measurements. >> Electronic life support instrumentation is to incorporate provisions for >> calibration. Internal pressure is to be monitored using a mechanical type >> instrument in addition to any other type of pressure indicating instrument. >> " >> >> Sean >> -------- Original Message -------- >> On Nov. 21, 2023, 06:00, Al Secor via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> That would only add the danger of entanglement. I would add a pressure >> gauge (analog) in series of the digital sensor >> or scuba depth gauge mounted outside in view of the pilot. >> >> Al >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:24?AM Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: >> >>> As Dan mentioned, for psubbers, not diving in water deeper than your >>> sub's capability is good advice and we have this concept codified in the >>> PSUBS operating guidelines section 4.1.2 paragraph 2. Using multiple >>> sensors for either backup or a weighted result between them is also a good >>> idea except could be an expensive option given the price of some sensors. >>> A pressure transducer of mediocre accuracy for example is going to be in >>> the $150 each range. >>> >>> What kind of protocol for verification of a single sensor would be >>> effective? The only thing I can think of for depth would be tying a marked >>> rope to the vessel and comparing the pilot's observation to surface >>> observation. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 11:57:50 AM EST, Sean T. Stevenson via >>> Personal_Submersibles wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just read an article about an incident with a British Vanguard Class >>> submarine that had an incident where it went far too deep, apparently as a >>> result of faulty instrumentation. Engineers became aware of the sub's depth >>> when they observed some backup depth instrument(s) and rectified the >>> situation before it became a castastrophe. >>> >>> Just wanted to prompt some discussion here, because PSubs don't >>> necessarily employ robust backup systems, and at minimum, we should >>> endeavour to ensure that all critical instrumentation is periodically >>> calibrated to some reference standard to ensure accuracy, and also >>> periodically verified in order to have some mechanism in place to detect >>> malfunctioning instruments. >>> >>> Backup instrumentation is a great method to achieve the latter >>> (instrument verification), but comparing the primary and backup instruments >>> needs to be part of SOPs. Where backups don't exist, some means of >>> functional verification should at least be employed, if not per dive, then >>> perhaps per trip? >>> >>> This was a military sub that was almost lost because of an easily >>> avoidable problem. >>> >>> FWIW. >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> Virus-free.www.avg.com >> >> <#m_8136129519580718021_m_5778357503182970459_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Nov 22 14:02:52 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Motor Question In-Reply-To: References: <218381209.6863447.1700632895803@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1293463697.7135441.1700679772494@mail.yahoo.com> James,there are an increasing number of brushless motors for water activities out there. A lot are for items like electric outboards that have fast speeds, which you dont want.Cliff & I made enquiries about an electric boat motor that looked good, but it had electronics with large capacitors in the? motor housing. This was unusual, & the capacitors could have crushed at depth if the housing was compensated.So if you go that route get as much info as you can.If you find something you like, you can post it & I will giveyou my thoughts. I did build my own, but a lot of work.Alan Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 5:22 am, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 23 06:55:16 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:55:16 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor Message-ID: Im just thinking out loud here all, so this could be a stupid idea. Has anyone made or modified a normal trolling motor to be inside a pressure can? I was just thinking about the possibility of doing so? Put a normal Minn Kota or similar inside a can with some sort of heat transfer layer in between the motor casing and the inside of the can. Then pass the shaft through a high pressure shaft seal? Something like this. https://ahpseals.com/product/vs-rs19a-2/ Would eliminate a lot of the pressure compensating issues, but then i suppose have its own complexities. Any thoughts? Regards James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Nov 23 07:44:21 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1522806054.7358347.1700743461664@mail.yahoo.com> Kittredge used this method for his K series using regular electric motors and mechanical seals.? No heat transfer was used even with the 70 amp 3hp motor he put in the stern.? Having seen Kittredge's design up close and personal, I don't think any available trolling motor would have a shaft long enough to build a 1-ATM housing around it utilizing mechanical seals.? If there were not some other compact way of sealing the existing shaft, an extension would have to be welded on and machined.? Then of course you'd have to fabricated a 1-ATM housing for each motor.? For me personally, the fabrication effort involved pushes me to the compensation model.? While there are some nuisance issues with compensation we should collectively come up with a "standard" for both air and oil that "just works" with reasonable maintenance. Jon On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 06:57:57 AM EST, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Im just thinking out loud here all, so this could be a stupid idea. Has anyone made or modified a normal trolling motor to be inside a pressure can? I was just thinking about the possibility of doing so?? Put a normal Minn Kota or similar inside a can with some sort of heat transfer layer in between the motor casing and the inside of the can.? Then pass the shaft through a high pressure shaft seal?? Something like this. https://ahpseals.com/product/vs-rs19a-2/ Would eliminate a lot of the pressure compensating issues, but then i suppose have its own complexities. Any thoughts? Regards James _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 23 12:41:25 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: <1522806054.7358347.1700743461664@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1522806054.7358347.1700743461664@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1779438179.5144394.1700761285175@mail.yahoo.com> Jon,I have a trouble free air compensation system, proven to 400 feet and many dives.Hank On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 05:44:39 AM MST, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Kittredge used this method for his K series using regular electric motors and mechanical seals.? No heat transfer was used even with the 70 amp 3hp motor he put in the stern.? Having seen Kittredge's design up close and personal, I don't think any available trolling motor would have a shaft long enough to build a 1-ATM housing around it utilizing mechanical seals.? If there were not some other compact way of sealing the existing shaft, an extension would have to be welded on and machined.? Then of course you'd have to fabricated a 1-ATM housing for each motor.? For me personally, the fabrication effort involved pushes me to the compensation model.? While there are some nuisance issues with compensation we should collectively come up with a "standard" for both air and oil that "just works" with reasonable maintenance. Jon On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 06:57:57 AM EST, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Im just thinking out loud here all, so this could be a stupid idea. Has anyone made or modified a normal trolling motor to be inside a pressure can? I was just thinking about the possibility of doing so?? Put a normal Minn Kota or similar inside a can with some sort of heat transfer layer in between the motor casing and the inside of the can.? Then pass the shaft through a high pressure shaft seal?? Something like this. https://ahpseals.com/product/vs-rs19a-2/ Would eliminate a lot of the pressure compensating issues, but then i suppose have its own complexities. Any thoughts? Regards James _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 23 14:47:46 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 19:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <655862952.7481776.1700768867011@mail.yahoo.com> James,I like our air & oil compensating methods. I would think a seal capable of sealing to the depth we want would be expensive & require preparatory work on the propellor shaft to get it to the required smoothness. Also there would be more of a power loss compared with air compensation.The thruster I built used a 6374 out-runner hobby motor that a manufacturer kindly modified with a longer? propellor shaft made of 316, a finer motor winding to give it more torque, a hall sensor board was added & I had them put the wires out the back of the motor, rather than the top. I then built the housing & used a ceramic mechanical seal.? I was oil compensating it but using 5psi of air pressure to keep the oil in the housing. ( Centrifugal force was throwing the oil out & up the compensator / wiring hose).?The out-runner motor has more torque & less speed than an in-runner motor, but the outside spins around & so there has to be a gap between the motor & housing. This means it cant be cooled directly through the motor housing & hence the use of oil.?I like brushless motors rather than brushed. More efficient & better for oil compensating, as the oil tends to deteriorate the brushes & can lift them. Also, if anything goes wrong with a brushless motor it is most likely going to be the motor controller, which will be more accessible.?I like the motor housings with the bolts running the length of the motor, clamping everything together, but I didnt have the skill or ability to make mine like that. So have had my eye open for a large inn runner brushless boat motor that I can easily air compensate.?The other awkward part was adapting the stainless shaft to the propeller. So anyway, I prefer a ready made solution.I am also going for at least 100lb thrust with the theory that you dont have to use the power, but its there if you get into trouble in current.Alan? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 12:57 am, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Im just thinking out loud here all, so this could be a stupid idea. Has anyone made or modified a normal trolling motor to be inside a pressure can? I was just thinking about the possibility of doing so?? Put a normal Minn Kota or similar inside a can with some sort of heat transfer layer in between the motor casing and the inside of the can.? Then pass the shaft through a high pressure shaft seal?? Something like this. https://ahpseals.com/product/vs-rs19a-2/ Would eliminate a lot of the pressure compensating issues, but then i suppose have its own complexities. Any thoughts? Regards James _______________________________________________ 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: Screenshot_20210208_174925.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 383172 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Nov 23 17:38:17 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:38:17 -0500 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Friends, Cliff and I have a joint R&D project this winter to adapt higher performance lip seals to the Minn Kota 101. The seals themselves are custom made by Parker and have a lead time of several months. We haven't received them yet, but at least according to Parker's specs, they should enable 101s to become 1-atmosphere thrusters to pressures that exceed typical PSUBS depths. They also should minimize friction under pressure, compared to the stock seals. We'll keep you guys posted... Best, Alec On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 6:56?AM James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Im just thinking out loud here all, so this could be a stupid idea. > > Has anyone made or modified a normal trolling motor to be inside a > pressure can? > > I was just thinking about the possibility of doing so? Put a normal Minn > Kota or similar inside a can with some sort of heat transfer layer in > between the motor casing and the inside of the can. Then pass the shaft > through a high pressure shaft seal? Something like this. > > https://ahpseals.com/product/vs-rs19a-2/ > > Would eliminate a lot of the pressure compensating issues, but then i > suppose have its own complexities. > > Any thoughts? > Regards > James > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 23 20:43:08 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> Alec,I just had a heads up from Cliff on this.What sort of shaft preparation do you need?Also are the shafts likely to deteriorate causing an undetectable ingress of water.My thoughts are to keep the air compensation as we seem to be perfecting that. And with the over- air pressure any failure will be visible with air leaking out.Alan??? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:40 am, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 23 22:36:16 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 22:36:16 -0500 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't plan to prep the shaft surface at all. According to the Parker documentation, the seal will polish the shaft so that it improves with use. We shall see! We're planning to run extended tests in an instrumented pressure chamber. Eventually, of course, the shaft would wear out. But consider how many hours we put on our subs compared to the hours an avid fisherman would. At least on my part, I probably put as many hours on it in a year as a fisherman does in a day or two. :) Alec On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:44?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Alec, > I just had a heads up from Cliff on this. > What sort of shaft preparation do you need? > Also are the shafts likely to deteriorate causing an undetectable ingress > of water. > My thoughts are to keep the air compensation as we seem to be perfecting > that. And with the over- air pressure any failure will be visible with air > leaking out. > Alan > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:40 am, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles > wrote: > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 23 22:54:32 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Tim Novak via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 19:54:32 -0800 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hank, how did your pressure sealed motor with the magnetic coupling to the propellor work out? Tim On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 7:36?PM Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > I don't plan to prep the shaft surface at all. According to the Parker > documentation, the seal will polish the shaft so that it improves with use. > We shall see! We're planning to run extended tests in an instrumented > pressure chamber. Eventually, of course, the shaft would wear out. But > consider how many hours we put on our subs compared to the hours an avid > fisherman would. At least on my part, I probably put as many hours on it in > a year as a fisherman does in a day or two. > > :) > Alec > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:44?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> Alec, >> I just had a heads up from Cliff on this. >> What sort of shaft preparation do you need? >> Also are the shafts likely to deteriorate causing an undetectable ingress >> of water. >> My thoughts are to keep the air compensation as we seem to be perfecting >> that. And with the over- air pressure any failure will be visible with air >> leaking out. >> Alan >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android >> >> >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:40 am, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles >> wrote: >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Nov 24 03:49:40 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1865276592.7586133.1700815780408@mail.yahoo.com> You guys are a bad influence on me.I just bought a brushless electric outboard lower unit only,from China to evaluate.? If I had bought the whole unit, with freight it would have been about twice the price.I have a few motor controllers, so didnt need theres.Price on attachment below.Alan Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 4:56 pm, Tim Novak via Personal_Submersibles wrote: _______________________________________________ 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: Screenshot_20231124-213458.png Type: image/png Size: 163597 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screenshot_20231124-213328.png Type: image/png Size: 198566 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screenshot_20231124-213307.png Type: image/png Size: 199995 bytes Desc: not available URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Nov 24 07:36:48 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 12:36:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1229244823.7632632.1700829409005@mail.yahoo.com> Tim,?My air compensation system works so well I did not bother to follow up on that idea. ?I need air compensation for the arm also, so one system takes care of both.Hank On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 08:54:56 PM MST, Tim Novak via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Hank, how did your pressure sealed motor with the magnetic coupling to the propellor work out? Tim On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 7:36?PM Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles wrote: I don't plan to prep the shaft surface at all. According to the Parker documentation, the seal will polish the shaft so that it improves with use. We shall see! We're planning to run extended tests in an instrumented pressure chamber. Eventually, of course, the shaft would wear out. But consider how many hours we put on our subs compared to the hours an avid fisherman would. At least on my part, I probably put as many hours on it in a year as a fisherman does in a day or two. :)Alec On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:44?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Alec,I just had a heads up from Cliff on this.What sort of shaft preparation do you need?Also are the shafts likely to deteriorate causing an undetectable ingress of water.My thoughts are to keep the air compensation as we seem to be perfecting that. And with the over- air pressure any failure will be visible with air leaking out.Alan??? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:40 am, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles wrote: _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Nov 25 18:50:17 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (irox via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 23:50:17 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 2023 Underwater intervention Message-ID: Anybody going to Underwater Intervention next week? If so let me know and we can try to meet up. Cheers, Ian. From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Sun Nov 26 07:55:55 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 12:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] 2023 Underwater intervention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1545358630.7808988.1701003355593@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Ian, I was but my plans have changed and I'm not going to make it there this year.? I think some others are attending however. Jon On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 06:52:37 PM EST, irox via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Anybody going to Underwater Intervention next week? If so let me know and we can try to meet up. Cheers, Ian. _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 28 08:01:43 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:01:43 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: <1229244823.7632632.1700829409005@mail.yahoo.com> References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> <1229244823.7632632.1700829409005@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hey Alan, I was looking at that exact motor! Will be interesting to see how you get on with it. Take loads of pics for us if you can. Regards James On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 12:38, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Tim, > My air compensation system works so well I did not bother to follow up on > that idea. I need air compensation for the arm also, so one system takes > care of both. > Hank > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 08:54:56 PM MST, Tim Novak via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > Hank, how did your pressure sealed motor with the magnetic coupling to the > propellor work out? > Tim > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 7:36?PM Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > I don't plan to prep the shaft surface at all. According to the Parker > documentation, the seal will polish the shaft so that it improves with use. > We shall see! We're planning to run extended tests in an instrumented > pressure chamber. Eventually, of course, the shaft would wear out. But > consider how many hours we put on our subs compared to the hours an avid > fisherman would. At least on my part, I probably put as many hours on it in > a year as a fisherman does in a day or two. > > :) > Alec > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 8:44?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > > Alec, > I just had a heads up from Cliff on this. > What sort of shaft preparation do you need? > Also are the shafts likely to deteriorate causing an undetectable ingress > of water. > My thoughts are to keep the air compensation as we seem to be perfecting > that. And with the over- air pressure any failure will be visible with air > leaking out. > Alan > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 11:40 am, Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles > wrote: > _______________________________________________ > 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: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Nov 28 12:49:22 2023 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Pressure proof motor In-Reply-To: References: <166803982.6709522.1700790188386@mail.yahoo.com> <1229244823.7632632.1700829409005@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <282572577.442878.1701193762076@mail.yahoo.com> James,will let you know when it arrives.I will test it out with a Vesc motor controller.There is a free program "Vesc tool" for computer or iphone that lets you set up the motor controller based on the motor parameters & live feedback from the motor.I was looking at another brushless motor, the "X250" which is advertised as 24V. Sometimes a manufacturer will wind the motor to your requirements so that you have a higher voltage, more torque & less top speed.This motor has 4 bolts running through it rather than the 3 in the one I bought. I am not sure why I didn't pursue this motor. Picture below.?Alan Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 2:07 am, James Frankland via Personal_Submersibles wrote: _______________________________________________ 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: Screenshot_20231129-062729.png Type: image/png Size: 196029 bytes Desc: not available URL: