Concrete submarine

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by PanAmMan

2) some subs use hydraulic water motors and pumps to eliminate moving through holes for control surfaces.

Thats good - I couldnt see any hydroplanes on Wils sub.

Imagine the roll it will get in a moderate seaway! Yachts at a mooring are bad enough, but a cylinder with no 'planes of any sort - eeeuuuch.

[Milan]

Originally Posted by rwatson

… permission … make money, and/or even sea miles in an uninsurable balloon of concrete … personal liabilities for the slightest incident.

Rwatson, that paper work is probably complicated but I don’t think that it isn’t possible. Some people are already doing it, in Europe, of all places, full of regulations…

http://www.vimeo.com/976560

These guys are not there yet, but they are getting close and it seems that they know what they are doing.

http://www.euronaut.org/

[pkoken]

Insurance companies figured out a long time ago to stay away from concrete boats. I don't think they will be 'lining up' to write paper on a concrete submarine.

Then again, maybe I am just a pessimist.

[rwatson]

Beat me to it pkoken - some people just dont 'get it'. They go and show pictures of 'real' submarines to support the concept.

Its not just fricken 'paperwork', its convincing hard nosed, steel headed businessmen to risk money!!!!!! Paperwork is just the receipt.

These guys would rather eat their children than lose millions in an insurance case, and they love their children very, very, very much!

[Milan]

Originally Posted by rwatson

… not just fricken 'paperwork', its convincing … businessmen… Paperwork is just the receipt….

So are you now focusing on the business part of the story and “paperwork” is suddenly not so important? In the previous posts you said that exactly that paperwork would be impossible to solve because:

Originally Posted by rwatson

… very few officials … are going to stick their professional careers on the line ...

every … maritime nation … insists on financial guarantees from boat owners ... behemoth into any civilized berthing facility without the requisite insurance cover ?

… Coastguards … are very averse to "risky" new ventures, (odd bits of "legislation" notwithstanding) … you are going to be flat out convincing them to let you go for a test cruise, let alone make any substantial voyage.

The Navy won't … let an untried and massive vessel out amongst their expensive toys without some kind of financial guarantees.

Even moving the thing to the water is going to be a major administrative exercise in liability cover, and you are going to need some big funds to cover the exercise. The crane or transport company will not be keen pay for the personell cover involved.

Well, as you see, at least in the EU bureaucratic paradise is possible to operate privately owned and amateur built, sizable submarine. Peter Madsden is not particularly wealthy so I don’t think that he paid millions for various insurances and such.

By the way, I don’t understand this:

Originally Posted by rwatson

… I cant even store a 26 foot trailer sailer in a yacht club marina without 5 million dollars of third party insurance.

I also have 26 footer in Dutch commercial marina and I have a minimum third party insurance, (about 100 Euros /year), but nobody in marina ever even asked to see that insurance when their crane takes it in/out of the water.

[rwatson]

Originally Posted by Milan

So are you now focusing on the business part of the story and “paperwork” is suddenly not so important? In the previous posts you said that exactly that paperwork would be impossible to solve because:
.

I dont know how you can be confused about this. Basically I am saying that the 'paperwork' is only the *appeal* to authorities and organisations for services Anyone can fill in a few forms. Its getting it all *approved* that is the problem. People have to risk money in the case of insurers, their career in the case of decisions involving government services. Anything that is 'usual' and 'ordinary' gets through very quickly. As soon as you get something radicaly different, the process stretches out dramtically.

Originally Posted by Milan

Well, as you see, at least in the EU bureaucratic paradise is possible to operate privately owned and amateur built, sizable submarine. Peter Madsden is not particularly wealthy so I don’t think that he paid millions for various insurances and such. .

I agree. But what you have to appreciate is the Peter Madsden submarine is built in a proven engineered way, by competant, qualified people, associated with a recognised professional association. People are very happy to support tried and proven processes. Its not a case of how *much* you pay in insurance, in this case its IF you can get ANY insurance. Concrete floating structures are WAY out of the normal run of events.

Originally Posted by Milan

By the way, I don’t understand this:

I also have 26 footer in Dutch commercial marina and I have a minimum third party insurance, (about 100 Euros /year), but nobody in marina ever even asked to see that insurance when their crane takes it in/out of the water.

Of course you have no problems with insurance. But, if for some reason insurers decided that 26ft boats were uninsurable, you would not be able to stay at the marina, if someone found out. 26ft boats have been around for years, the risks are known, their handling and behaviour are well understood. There is no comparison to a huge concrete monolith. The crane drivers can refuse to even lift a concrete submarine it in case it breaks apart and they could be sued. The crane driver may even have to refer the job to their insurer for permission. What if the lifting caused a stress fracture that resulted in the sub sinking at sea, and the owners sued the transport company? It goes on and on.

I remember reading the account of a 40ft yacht that went aground, and the skipper requested a naval boat to tow them off. The skipper had to swim two hundred metres to the navy boat to sign a disclaimer so that any damage incurred in being towed would not be the navys responsibility.

If you get in trouble at sea, a rescuing boat cannot even offer to save you. *you* have to make a request. The rescuing boat should not even suggest that they are offering to save you, because in a court of law, this is regarded as soliciting a service, and therefore the rescue boat assumes a responsibility, and therefore liability for your safety. Hows *that* for legal complexity. You cant even rush in and save an obviouly sinking vessel without the legalities being accomplished.

The legal minefield that a concrete floating vessel will get mired down, in will extend to the approved mooring methods (I am waiting to see mooring cleats on Wils sub), to the qualifications of the crew. The boats that occupy the same mooring as a submarine will want to know that in rough weather 200 tonnes of concrete won't drag anchor and smash pontoons and boats. Seen any sign of anchor, and cable handling on Wils sub yet? Peter Marsdens sub has a flush mounted, watertight anchor cable compartment in accordance with proven naval design. Try doing *that* in a concrete hull.

To the enthusiastic inventor, all this 'stuff' is mere detail. To the lawyers and legislators, - its a lot of money, and time.

My comments on the difficulty of launching in Columbia stem from the account of just one balsa wood raft expedition. If a pissing little 30 foot log raft had to go through 12 months of beauracracy to get into the water (also after being built in a naval yard), a concrete submarine is likley to end up as someones home on the beach.

Its a tough world out there man!

[rasorinc]

To me, just the words Concrete Submarine represent an Oxy *****.

[mydauphin]

So in summary....

In todays world you may build a better mouse trap...
But is the mouse going to sue you.... and can you get liability insurance...

[PanAmMan]

Originally Posted by rwatson

Thats good - I couldnt see any hydroplanes on Wils sub.

Imagine the roll it will get in a moderate seaway! Yachts at a mooring are bad enough, but a cylinder with no 'planes of any sort - eeeuuuch.

Yea, no question you are going to want some "Active" roll control. Allthough if you load a lot of weight real low you get a very slow moment as long as you "DO NOT HAVE A SAIL" sticking out of the water!

Cement sphere bouy are surprisingly stable when moored just at or below the surface. Again no sail and you have the damping of the low weight and morring line.

Another solution uses the rear elevator surface combined with the mooring line to achieve very good stability given a good chain.

[PanAmMan]

Will,

I wish you the best of luck. Nothing wrong in my mind with concrete for your aplication but i think it would be best to achive capability in stages.

1) safe and stable mooring.
2) safe and stable surface operation in seaways and waves (no ability to dive)
3) safe and stable underwater operataion with emergency balast drop (drive it down) test emergency surfacing with 50% flooding.

P.s. you never want a sub with a hatch or window in the top where a failure would allow > 50% flooding at max operating depth. Trapping air is the only thing that keeps a sub from becoming a lawn dart on the sea bed..

[mydauphin]

Also consider that although a cylinder is the most hydrodynamic form for a submarines, a more boat like hull would be more stable. Something like shape of WWII, Gato or even Nautilus class sub. I known you think that cylinder is much stronger, but considering everything a double wall sub might be best. You build cylinder, then foam in ballast tanks then build ship like shape on outside. Then remove foam by pouring solvent to eat it up.

[PanAmMan]

Actually boat look alike subs are NOT a good idea. They actually create many of the stability problems by increasing interaction of the sea and hull.

Egg shapes have very low coupling and I have even seen sphere that use simple gyro to turn and stabalize rocking. The great part was that the system was only necissary when near the surface where snorkle power would be available.

Wills sub could use low slung ballast for passive stability and a gyro to eliminate the need for protruding dive planes for lateral stability. It does not look like he is going for spee that would require "banking" during under water operation so a simple elevator, rudder and twin screws would provide a very simple, redundant and comfortable ride.

I actually think he is correct in not having a sail while under way under water or on the surface. A simple 50' fold down snorkle with video, radar, GPS, SAT Phone and a strobe are much more effective than a sail. Again I would have two snorkle for emergencies and dedicate one to the diesels to eliminate preasure changes in the cabin.

All very simple actually!

You were right. Set that sat phone to send the DEA an SMS of your location every time you surface and you might not get boarded more than a couple of time per voyage.

What everyone is not talking about is the air managment system when operating submerged below snorkel depth. worse yet is the submariners real enemy. Hydrogen! Baterries, even sealed ones, generate it and it is a real pain to get rid off. Even CO2 scrubbing gets expensive when you consider it is not regeneratable. Typical costs are $5/hr per person. The only non mill option to that is a cryogenic plant that creates liquid O2 when snorkeling and uses the low cryogenic temps of the liquid O2 to remove BAD gasses while submerged. These systems can be as low as $100k and cost as little as $0.15/hr/person.

I have even seen a very simple, compact and low cost versions that use factory liquified O2 to achieve very long submerged performance as long as you operate out of a port where liquified O2 is readily available. Such as san francisco.

Again if you are morred 90% of the time, run on snorkel 90% of the time while under way, and then make the occasional dive you can build a pretty simple system using factory O2.

Of course this begs the obvious extension to a fuel cell based sub, but a close look would quickly show a massive increase in cost and complexity. After all this is a "Pleasure" not a "Comercial" or "Militarty Stealth" craft!

If you think your trying to achieve military capabilities, I agree with watson, you won't make it out of the shed, much less near any body of water leading to the ocean!

[PanAmMan]

I probably did not mention that the 200 ton sub could maintain safe CO2 (<1%) and O2 levels for 8 people for a full 24 hr day w/o any special mechanical systems. Although you need to have something to last at least a day if you have to wait for help from the surface.

A 2 gallon cylinder of LOX ($10) (1600 cuft O2) and 5lb ($2) of absorber will extend that time to 200hrs!

Or you could replace that small 3'x2'x2' system with an 8000cuft air tank and an engine heat regeneratable CO2 absorber. it's bigger and more expensive but simple and regeneratable.

My personal favorite will always be the LOX or Liquid air powered cryogenic system. But those systems are more complex than necissary for a sub that plans on surfacing or at least snorkeling every day or two!

[mydauphin]

I would be worried about some cargo ship or cruise simply running sub over. They might feel a bump in the road. Opps, we hit a whale. Of course submariners would be ....

Perhaps a very large conning tower would be good.... Paint it red reflective...

[stevevall]

Hi, I am Steve Vallance, and I am the first US representative for the company producing the 200 ton submarine.
The delivery dates, as you can see have been moved. The pictures of the completed hull are at www.concretesubmarine.com. There are a lot of factors involving delivery of a sub that large and it is absolutely imparitive that all export/import permits are done properly, and that safety is the ultimate deciding factor before it leaves on it's own power to S. Cal.
I would not put my name here if I did not believe in the company and their commitment in getting it done.
Although I am not at the delivery site, I can get specifics as to when it will be on the way.