Concrete submarine

like i said it can go all the way to the bottom of the marinas trench and what with plate tectonics may one day surface

 

Not so much the industry as the internet culture. I am on several forums and only one doesn't have that kind of people, triumphowners.net.

Oh well, give a jacka$$ a keyboard to hide behind (no fear of getting his a$$ kicked) and that's what happens.

 

I don't think it is about trashing Mr Ellmer that most posters write about. More about saving lives.

If Mr Ellmer made the prototype, he should have tried to develop that idea more. It is not a bad idea to make a small submarine that can be used to explore shallow waters, 50m deep or maybe up to 100m. On the pictures it looks well built and with a neat interior.

The larger one on the other hand looks just like a piece of crap. Mr Ellmer is talking about 34cm uniform thickness of the hull, but you can clearly see on the pictures and the videos that it is far from an even surface. He also don't understand basic submarine necessities like air processing. He thinks you don't need that as we have seen in his posts. He should do a little more research on carbon dioxide poisoning before he claims that.

Conclusion:
Small well engineered concrete sub = Possible
Large, badly built concrete sub = Dangerous death-trap

 

There is a lot of talk abot how "ugly" the cement sub is.

Thats a load of crazy talk - its like saying the rusty hull of a steel boat is rubbish before sandblasting.

If welmer was intent on getting a profoundly good shell built, the cosmetic outer skin is still to go on, and is really superfluous. And Ken - you saying that its "badly built" !!! How the &&%^%(^ would you know - in Indonesia. Even Fibreglass boats look pig-ugly before they are painted. The prototypes in his web site look fine to me.

I have been "pushing" Wellmer for years now about stuff that he should think about, but the latest tirades are just plain vindictive.

And all this rubbish about ridiculing Wellnmer to save lives !!!.... its just some big ego trips being taken out for parade.

Soem people need to grow up a bit.

 

And some people need to get an engineering degree.

 

You should have skimped on that watson! There was no comment like that, but poor quality was the issue.
That has nothing to do with the appearance of the hull. The black hull shows that Mr Ellmer has no clue how to cast a concrete structure, and that´s a question of strength properties! His replies to the material question have proven he does´nt know anything about concrete and the way to process a rigid structure. Ugly? No, not only!
The shown hull is crap. period.........

You might have overlooked that you´ll find two parties here, the amateurs mainly supporting that layman, and the professionals contributing his rubbish. I hope the majority of the readers does notice that!

Well observed, and that is valid mainly for the ones supporting the premature claims and plans of Mr Ellmer.

Just face it, there are pretty good and well engineered dive boats, built by DIYérs.
This guy claims to be professional, but he knows far less than most of his amateur collegues.
So, he is a danger for any prospective customer, like it or not.

Regards
Richard

 

Hmm, no need to be rude Richard...
We could use sensible arguments...?

A boiled hotdog burst in the lengthwise direction, due to the internal pressure pushing outwards. It (close to) never burst in the ends or across. Now a sub is just the other way, the pressure pushing inwards....

Therfore it will be safe to conclude that the shape, the fairness/ roundness of the hull is critical, as every dent or radius change/ curvature change will result in locally increase in the stress. Now Willmer goes for the compression strength in the concrete. That strength can only be considered to be present in an close to absolute fair/ round structure. Not so, not here on the encloised pictures.

Now, as the hotdog burst along its length its normally considered unwise to attach or remove material over some of these larger areas. That's probably why subs considered for use for almost any considerable depth doesen't come equipped with windows... Here there is a row of windows.... (rip, here??!)

THAT doesn't add strength to the most stressed parts of the hull either...

I'll not be riding that one, and that's my word as a postproffesional crash test dummy....

 

On second thoughts....
(dammit a "second" thought, as in "one more"???!)

If rude saves lives... Its acceptable rudeness...

About being careful..... Isn't there someone out there with a Hayabusa...?

 

Hmm, Hayabusa... and did you notice that this guy survived that for more than 40 years now?

And to the rudeness: I do´nt see any reason to stay polite when a proven idiot claims to be a professional and starts to promote a coffin as a seagoing vessel!
And when constructive critics given for free by professionals are commented as attacks of laymen, as the proven idiot has done, I feel even less the need of being polite.

And when the harsher tone holds just one single (prospective) buyer back from that amateur tinkerers coffin, we have done well.

Regards
Richard

 

Just one small advice to the ones with 2 wheels;

I've noticed that the boxy things with one round rotating object in each corner tend to gather/attac in groups, no guts, no glory among them, nay...

beenthereexperiencedthat...


Back to the concrete thing; I'll not be around here too frequent.... But correctly shaped concrete can hold a serious amount of compression. Then, if the shape give you a corner of attac, then there will be no yield, no deformation to warn you off.... it will go from "go" to "no go" in fractions of a second. the break angle will normally be in 45° on the "fault" line. The internal inmolded steel reinforcments in the outer hull will probably be good to next to notthing.

I've been considering pressure vessels for vacuum pressure, and the factor of roundness is even more critical for pressure vessels with vacuum (or a sub, internal pressure is still less than the external pressure...).

I'd buy/ build a yacht, with the money involved in this project, I could add a dark room inside to control a ROW....

Also, i just can't figure a way to place a table, a couple of chairs and a bottle of red wine on the deck, not in relaxed way though..

Also, to catch a woman (for filling up the second chair);
first lesson is that she'll have to see you,
second lesson; she has to be able to see that you own a boat.

I once had a nightmare; In this dream I actually had bought a used Russian sub...
First; all the places I'd been anchoring up in earlier were not available any more.
Second; During dive preparations it was a mess to get chairs , tables, sun umbrellas, and a outdoor grill down into the tower, it got very fast very crampy with the space. In the dream i tried once to tie the furnitures down, it got in the propellers/ rudders, a complete mess.
Third; In that dream i actually got it parked in the small boat's harbour, not easy, but I did it. Then the harbour master (some of them are ex nazis), wanted to know the registry number of the vessel....
Forth; The process of pulling a vessel like that through the paper mill to fix the registry papers...
Fifth; I can't remember any females with yellow bikinis on the front deck in that dream....

I avoke drenched in sweat. So; now you know why I not always go to sleep at night, no rest to get there....

 

I have figured out the concrete sub!

Lets start with known facts:

This guy seems able to converse, but strangely dodgy when the most fundamental questions about sub stuff come up.

No one with enough money to pay 1/2 the cost of shipping 1/2 the sub from Columbia to the USA would be conned into paying for a radical concrete sub without asking obvious questions this guy just doesn't seem even slightly interested in. Always and only with the 'concrete'.

The last 'sub' out of Columbia was another semi-submersible, which was of course trying to smuggle cocaine.




A Cheech and Chong movie featured a van that was constructed out of blocks of compressed marijuana to smuggle it into the USA.

During prohibition some smugglers would toss loads of booze weighted with salt over board near shore and then leave, and then the salt would dissolve over time and the loads would float and be retrieved.


Here is the plan and what is going on:

The sub will be towed to US shores were it will tragically sink. After the paper machie dissolves the embedded weighted packages of cocaine will be released and small buoys will be floating just under the surface for retrieval.

Anybody got a better explanation?

 

Here's why I don't get the a$$hattery:

Vessel sold as new in this country must pass USCG inspections and certification prior to being sold. This is true in most countries (Insert appropriate certifying agency in place of USCG). So, either this guy really knows what he is doing, will have a certified vessel that performs as advertised and sell a bunch, or he hasn't a clue, won't get certified, and won't make a dime.

At this point it's either a scam (the "boat" has been sold but no boat was ever going to be built or delivered), a project doomed for failure (boat built but builder didn't know what he was doing and therefore can't sell boat), or an example of a new and innovative product coming to market. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

To all the above.
I believe it is best to keep the conversation as a professional dialogue- informed, polite and direct, but one could note that the designer here has attracted criticism by the claims he made. These claims are appropriate to question on a forum such as this when reviewing the work presented by professionals.
His work receives these criticisms each time and in each place he posts these claims.
This is not a problem created by the community at Boatdesign.net
The following is how his work was received by the director of the fine submersibles site http://psubs.org/ when he posted there:


"Ellmer,

"If you are only willing to test one of your subs to 30 meters, then you should be stating on your website that it is rated for 30 meters and avoid any talk about 1200 meter destruction depth until you can verify and validate such claims."

"You cannot validate your claim that 30m is not the limit of the boat if you have not tested it to any depth deeper than 30m. You said yourself that calculations are not enough and testing was required. Any claims you make above and beyond what you have tested, are merely words with nothing to back them up."

"We're going to have to disagree about your website leaving no doubt about the 1212m failure depth of the hull not being a claim of yours. When you say "my best guess" and "if I had to bet money on it", you are making a claim. Reasonable people would believe that you would not be willing to bet money if you weren't sure of your claim. So I think you are wrong to make such statements. I think you would be more responsible to say, "This design has been tested to 52 meters", or 125 meters, or whatever depth it is that you have done valid testing for."

"We will also have to disagree that you are just sharing your work with other submariners. If that were the case, I would not have jumped in on this thread of discussion. In fact, I never did jump in on it until I became aware that you were actually building subs for others. Whether you recognize it or not, when you started selling your submersibles to the public instead of limiting your subs for personal use, you became a manufacturer. As such, people are justified in scrutinizing and challenging your words, your claims, and your work."

 

There is no such thing as "acceptable rudeness" in a science based discussion - if you have a point bring it up politely and precise - if not - what is the benefit of taking word? - that is science - the

rest is bad education.

i support your call to a professional scientific informed, polite and direct dialogue.

Part of a scientific correct discussion is to not take words out of context.

My claims are :

over 1200m concept reach depth, 1200m destruction depth for a portless concete hull with the hull geometry suggested, 1500m test depth for smaller models in large scale scientific published studies, 350m

working depth for compareable tubular industrial concrete structures as we speak, 600m as reachable working depth in the future, 52m reached manned dive depth with the prototype i built, 120m reached

unmanned test depth with a earlier prototype, 30m handover tested depth for the boat in question for the reason explained - maintaining security factor 20 - compared to established sub hulls that go with

1,5-3 (depend segment) as security factors.

So painting the picture "the concept is worth 30m - nothing else is proved - this is insane" is strongly misleading, not accepting points made and validated - bad science - bad discussion culture.


In the scientific discussion process the "amount of criticism" is no point at all. On contrary the ones among us who have a "broader education" know that the "amount of criticism" is not a measure for the

"quality of science or R&D" someone has made, but for the grade of "revolutionary" the concept is, and how obstinated the "establishment" is - remember historical cases like darwin, gallilei, etc...

The question who is the guy who speaks, discredit, credit, pro/no pro, status, knowledgefullness, and other "socials" are a complete "out of forum" in ANY cientific correct discussion, the ONLY thing that counts is who has the point and who has not. Who brings it over and who not.


This is basicly how our society progressed from dark age "scholastics" to modern days "science" aproach - it is a bit funny for me, that on what is supposed to be a "engineering forum" - i get a - medival scholastic - flaming... with all kind of guys claiming "high authority", "high morality", etc...


What concerns the validation of my claims i reference to the "recommended studies reading list" at:


http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/du


What else do we have? - ah - the "structural engineer" validating concrete structures per picture without testing samples and evaluating rebar structure ? - self explaining - , the one that confirms sigmund freud (people stressed regress to early childhood) - 2 years red head paddeling shouting liar, liar...no point - , scam, stealing my own work ...??

The filtering issue - some trying to filter out the points of the trash - i am too - watson got a point with the "third party underwriter issue", that is really a management problem. The "is concrete a suitable building material discussion" - should also be answered on the reading list. The salesman discussion? - what is wrong with selling? - only if others do and you not!

So from my point of view i have answered all valid points - if any left - let me know i am always open to scientific correct discussion.

Cheers,
Wil

 

Ja Herr Ellmer,

scientific correct discussion would be nice! Your salesman replies show nothing like that, so you should not be too astonished to get some harsh comments on that!

That was just only ONE of your posts! Do you see any, just a single one, scientific correct reply in your post? No, only statements, referrals, links, and defensive blabla.
Is "no big deal" the answer on "how do you treat the air"?
And "what I say" is the proof you have the necessary papers?
There are many "no big deals" in your statements wellmer, and I hope your business will come out accordingly!

And you are not offensive right? Or how do you call that:

The only one trying to work with subversive tricks here, is YOU. But the audience is not stupid enough to buy your (still unproven) claims.

To your concrete toilet:
Yes I can judge from 18.453 miles distance that the black thing in your pictures is not a professional done concrete structure! The structural failure is already included in the way you did cast it. And it is not worth to tell you how or why. period
See? That was scientifically correct.
Not I have to prove you wrong! You have to prove you´re right! Because YOU claim to be a professional! YOU are trying to sell your crap! YOU are shooting against every professional or skilled amateur here who contradicts you. But you never prove them wrong!

If you were a amateur asking for assistance, you would receive a hell of a lot of good advice here. Of course also some critics probably. And maybe some nay sayers would show up too. But in that case all of us would have the obligation to back our comments in a clear, serious and scientifically correct manner.

A pro, f..ckin this audience with his premature nonsense, cannot argue we did´nt give proof of our statements, HE has to deliver!

When bntii took some statements out of context, bring them in the right context, show us where we are wrong.

Good luck, good night, good winds,
and pull the plug...