Concrete submarine

[Submarine Tom]

Catstrophic failure depth of Willy's c-sub destructive test wager board:

bntii: 85 m

watson: 0 m

s-tom: 312 m

KnutS: 74 m

Apex: 60 m

gonzo: 16.3 m

hoytodow: 45 m

That's an average of ~99 m (excluding watson who doesn't think the sub

will ever get wet). And ~56 m if you throw out my optimistic 312 m.

Lets go diving Willy!

[safffff]

Those who can, do, those who can't, give personally untested criticism on forum boards and call other names like children.

It should be an easy test of his sub to attach a remote control cable and safety chain to it, to allow unmanned depth tests, which I bet the owners will do. I would.

Considering the deep see oil platform was not cast all at once of it's 1000 ft length and is still in use at that depth 20+ yrs latter I would think Wil"s sub should go at least that deep, but I have no history of building a c-sub so that advice is pretty much useless.

[Ken Johansson]

Here you are wrong, dear safffffffffffff/Willmer.

I'm quite sure that the legs of the oil platform were cast in one continous pour with sliding moulds.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by safffff

Please show me the pictures of a completed sub that you have produced, that is better than what Wellmer has produced. End of story, thank you.

.

So only chickens can grade eggs, then?

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by safffff

It should be an easy test of his sub to attach a remote control cable and safety chain to it, to allow unmanned depth tests, which I bet the owners will do. I would.

Long before you go to the expense and trouble of such testing, why not do a bit of NON destructive testing with X-rays or ultrasound to verify the soundness (or lack thereof) of the basic hull WRT voids, discontinuities, etc.? Has that even been done? I think not!
If it has not been done at this point, when so much finishing work has apparently been done to the hull, speaks volumes about the competency of the project manager.

Jimbo

[safffff]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Long before you go to the expense and trouble of such testing, why not do a bit of NON destructive testing with X-rays or ultrasound to verify the soundness (or lack thereof) of the basic hull WRT voids, discontinuities, etc.? Has that even been done? I think not!
If it has not been done at this point, when so much finishing work has apparently been done to the hull, speaks volumes about the competency of the project manager.

Jimbo

Was that done on his 1st sub that successfully went 33m?

That's a great productive suggestion. If I was Willmer, I would not discuss to much of how I do things, that would be business secretes.

.

[Submarine Tom]

Ya, ya, ya... So, what's your failure depth number safffffy?

Oh, and when's the test?

-Tom

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by safffff

If I was Willmer, I would not discuss to much of how I do things, that would be business secretes.
.

All builders of steel, grp, epoxy will state their type of material, not all the details of course, but the general type, and its average properties.

Also, for a pressurized hull/tank, it got to comply with some standards for design, these are not business secrets. Also the factor of safety at operational dept, may be of interest to some costumers, or at least me (but do not mistake me for a costumer...!).

I see that there's a statement here that it's twice as strong as the concrete structure of the Troll platform... I've still not seen an explanation that I quite understand - yet.

Still waiting for some details and numbers, material properties.. etc...

Have also not seen a good explanation of how they have solved the reinforcment problem along the row of windows...

Also to have the ballast water; internally? Is that the best option?

Will not hold my breath..

Will not place bet with Apex either

[dskira]

Originally Posted by safffff

Was that done on his 1st sub that successfully went 33m?

That's a great productive suggestion. If I was Willmer, I would not discuss to much of how I do things, that would be business secretes.

.

Saffffffffffffffffwllemer it is not business secrets it is ignorance, incompetence and second agenda. Mostly the sub will not dive or float or even exist. The pictures of the so call 200 tons crap show an object in carboard painted in black.
As for your website Saffffffwellmer you are calling for investors.
Shame on you, you are a fake.
Don't try, I know you.

[bntii]

Lets see...

A builder that is criticized because they:

-Lie about their experience.
-Lie about their products.
-Falsify research that contradicts them.
-Clone their blog so they can claim to be part of an "International Manufacturer".
-Lie on the new blog about their experience.
-Clone their identity on forums to argue their case from another point of view.
-Only restate their deceptions when ever challenged to provide information about their product.

The critics are harsh because there is so much valid criticism to be leveled at this project.

I am with Par on this one- I believe this is a bald cover for construction of a vessel that will be used for illicit trade. Any technical assistance provided here will be used to aid this effort- on the part of Wellmer or others who are following his lead.

Bntii

do´nt call him a builder, please.

Wilfried Ellmer is a cheater, liar and tricky bastard. But not a builder.

Regards
Richard

[bntii]

Noted..

I am often careless before coffee.

The additional points may get you awake....................

[wellmer]

Originally Posted by wellmer

Yes, seems to me that "lack of load case understanding in a submerged concrete hull" is a crowded corner here - it does not come as a suprise - given the amount of "concrete submarine semesters" the people talking here have studied...and the willingness to read the offered "studies list" to aquire the knowledge required to understand. Seems that some are reading my material only with the intention to find a point to mob me, instead of finding answers and understand things...

As i said before i am not a static engineer, i am not a material scientist, i have listened carefully to some experts on my advisor board, so i believe i can understand "a little bit" of what is the basics - as a result of a "serious effort of understanding" i made in that field.

So what i say may not be laser sharp in detail but it should give a "general picture" of the very basics - here comes the info:

Concrete compression strength is not a fixed number i can give you - from the moment of pour, concrete starts to gain compression strength, civil engineers normally handle 5 day strenght, 28 day strength, (depends on country). There are studies that show that the concrete keeps gaining strength up to 250% even some decades after the last worker leaved the building site. This is why i will not give you a "single number" for the concrete quality - to know what numbers you put into ANY calculation you need to have that kind of "basic understanding" of the material and its properties. The right way is to read basics and understand the material and load case - then calculate - and make predictions, then do testing and look if prediction was right and the "underlying math and therories" makes any sense at all. It happens that sometimes it does'nt especially if you try to use sophisticated computer models without understanding the basics. (sleipner - failure report)

A civil engineer given the indication "high quality concrete" knows what range of numbers in what timeline, for what load case, he has to calculate with. Basic concrete engineering books are full of orientation on that.

Prestressing is not a measure to give concrete compression strength - i suggest you build 2 small model hulls, one pre-stressd, one not, and test them to destruction - from what you have said here, i am sure you will be VERY surprised by the results.

Rebar, stressed rebar, is a measure to take "strange forces" tension, flexion, torsion, shear forces, - you should do some model testing to get a clearer understanding of the magnitude of "strange forces" in hydrostatic loading.

A real world structure always needs to takes some amount of strange forces so you certainly will need to take care of strange forces.

Having a closer look to the picture you see that we are moving the sub hull over uneven terrain so that it is only supported in the middle of the hull at the moment of the photo - this brings A LOT of strange forces into the structure - there are few ships that can stand that kind of "one point load" in drydock. So you see somehow we have sucessfully taken care of the tension, flexion, torsion forces.

As always we do our testing - to make sure that the correspondent security factors are in place and the basic theories, building strategies, and practices, lead to the expected results.



You also can see that the prototype was transported by truck some 500km from tyrol to lake Atter. I would assume that there have been A LOT of strange forces at work during that trip.

So in general i would say the way we take care of those forces seems to be OK . Especially i would say that any catastrophic failure theory, or misdesign theory should be dismissed by the simple fact that there is obvious prove that we build and sail submarine yachts made of concrete for decades - and still live to do more of it ...

I agree with daniel, if this is "DREAMING" ... international firm,...shareholders.... successful launches... tested all tech aspects....30 years experience... the dreamers obviously know "how to dream".



As mentioned before, our interest in exposing to the e-mob, or explaining tech basics repeatedly to people that still have not yet read the studies on the "basic reading list" ( http://imulead.com/tolimared/concret...ne/anuncios/du ), proving invented claims we never made, proving the obvious, revealing details on the companies R&D, responding to kindergarten level insults, pointless failure and misdesign predictions... - is not very high...so this leaves conversation a bit dry ...

For me (and probably for any reasonable person listening ) any question that brings up a point, or can lead to a chat that makes sense, is answered already.
So i am out and leave the e-mobbers speaking with themselves. - (the serious guys please contact me off forum...)

Cheers,
Wil

Have to say the same - sorry ! - but post this new picture series...still waiting for my critics to post THEIR achievements ... waiting for "talkworthy" input... - sorry tom if i missed to communicate - pls. contact if you still want to become part of the project ...

When will you idiot stop that nonsense? This is wasting the Forum resources.

And you did not "say" anything. Never...............you only drivel