Submarine Project

Hmmm. I think they're wrong about 3,0 on the Richter scale, belive it was i tiny bit above that (3,2?). Hand it to us Norwegians; we're able to wrestle some fun out of 700 000 000 $...

Next time.... we'll manage 4,0, at least....

Ok, to be more accurate, it was not badly built, but still it imploded, it was just not calculated well enough (NASTRAN).

 

Actually it is the fins that cause the rolling. A sphere or a cylinder always has the metacenter at the center of the shape, regardless of draft (do the math, it is really quite interesting). And as the CG is always below M for the boat to be upright, GM is fixed throughout the dive, so there is no draft at instability (a problem with many "boat shaped" submarines).

The real problem with a Albacore hull diesel submarine snorkling is actualy the lack of waterplane response. They tend not to rise with the wave and "submarine" through the crests causing the intake poppet to close pulling vacumm on the boat or flooding water down the bridge trunk. See the flooding on the USS Barbel in '89, HMCS Chicoutimi in 2004, and the loss of a complete chinese sub crew on #361 in 2003.

 

Yacht submarine

Now that raw hull building is almost finished i can share pictures and video.

Get a look at Ian's Yacht Sub at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLv22CPYFSo

Cheers,

Wil

 

I would say there are many brands of realities of submarine travel, the most interesting from my point of view are Ben Franklin and Nautilus (the ammonite).

I see the possibility but i resist to shut down my projects just because a windy lawer could take advantage some day...risky? may be - what is life worth without taking calculated risks.

Not on Ben Franklin, not on my prototype, not for Nautilus, - yes on a military sub.

It was not exacly the concrete leg that imploded at sleipner A it was a Y shaped connector - reason was human error with the computer model that lead to mis-dimension of the part...right?

I aspire to have answered them all - if not - which ones ?

Yes, that happens especially in yachting scene - not a question of visibility - a 10m high yellow mast with a flash, a nationality flag, a diveflag, a radar reflector should be visible enough - for the skipper sleeping under deck ANY visibility is unsufficient - in that case 34 cm of reinforced concrete will protect me quite good...

- 7 knots cruising speed

Cheers Wil

concretesubmarine.com

 

...yes this is what i found as the typical movement with the prototype - in very big waves there is a smooth up and down on even keel as only response - your inner ear is trained to filter that movement out as this is the same movement you perform when walking - so this is not sea sickening. The boat tends to "submarine" through the crests. So you need your snorkel lenght longer than the wave height or at least longer than the crest hight. A mast sticking out some 10m from the sea is a "horrible radar target" - so completly not compatible with a military submarine aproach. This explains why military snorkels tend to be dangerously short and suceptible to flooding. On a civil sub where "give away position" is no issue a nice long snorkel is fine and snorkeling as a locomotion form is much less complicated this way.

Cheers,
Wil

 

concrete submarine yacht

Hello submariners,

Here are the newest pictures of the submarine yacht.



For anybody with questions regarding "is concrete a suitable building material for this kind of projects" we have a collection of key studies available on the website.

Now that it is proven that concrete submarine yachts can be built, that our projected budgets and building times are realistic. The question is - where can we take that - submarine yachts, habitats, hotels...

Let me hear your thoughts...

Cheers,
Wil

concretesubmarine.com

 

200 tonner update?

Hi Wellmer, Its now 2010 feb. i believe your 200 tonner must have been completed by now- however myself and many others are starting to wonder if there were any problems or complications with your 200 tonner since i have not heard that it has been handed over to Ian???...i seriously would like to know if there were issues since my sub is going to be in concrete and if there is anything i should know before investing in that?...i have studied it and found there to be no flaws but would sure appreciate any updates. basically was it successful in its operation? I have contacted you asking..but i know you r busy and maybe have not had time to respond?...i love the idea of a concrete sub. i have a method of my own for doing it...

 

Concrete hull 200tonner sub>
(The last word from him seems to be last April 2009) http://www.psubs.org/webforum/Blah.pl?b-gb/m-1169929804/s-60/

1/ I was a bit disappointed from the outcome, if this was a legit project and not some paper/foam mockup with black finish scheme to begin with. Specifically, I'd hope that you as austrian might attempt to make it as precise as possible, i.e. using CAD prepared jigs etc. As can be seen from the haphazzard windows placement-orientation, and the manufacturing facility, it all screams hand-made.

2/ Insurance: well, I'll give it to you that if one plans to use this sub in some distant place only, say in remote corner of the Pacific, outside shipping/tourist/military routes, yes, what the hack with insurance! But I guess the bulk of potential clients would like to try submarine yachting inside Club Med area, around U.S. coastal waters etc. Perhaps you can slip under the big brothers eye with 20tonner as one of a kind wild experiment, but 200tonner sub without papers will be immediately focused on (and banned) by the authorities in every semi-civilized corner of the globe, that's above certain.

3/ Are(were) there any horizontal/vertical thrusters planned?
4/ No "wings"? It looks as very prone to rollovers, do you count on ballast only?
5/ Surface finish/antifoul, it seems such perforated surface would turn into one giant greenslime colony in a short order?

--

I've been lurking around psub projects for years, and the progress in traditional steel hulls is amazing. The availability of naval design software tools, affordable 2nd hand CNC machines, improvement in electronics/thrusters/batteries, using generic parts from hydraulics, and many net documented sub projects like Euronaut, KSS Eurosub/airresearch.nl (Kittredge upgrade), Redus R300 etc. or the professional ones by Marlin (AP6, S201) from the U.K., all this demonstrates it is possible to build pleasure/science craft by individuals on "diy" budget. On the condition, you skip some extras like giant vistas, extreme depths, .. These projects have shown it is possible to take several dives per day with very little maintanance/additional costs, and still in practical/towable package.

But it certainly CAN'T be qualified as submarine yachting, more like to be locked in a tiny can, perhaps Marlin S201 (and FC01) is bordering on the "not total discomfort" category, and as overall concept could be copied by diyers, I gather the next gen Euronaut-Eurosub projects will follow Marlin's proven approach.

Although I believe something approaching category "submarine yachting" could be theoretically done is steel but on elevated budget (many dozens of $M) and it will take at least half a decade to design and build, for instance the Marlin guys in cooperation with some german yard could do it. It's quite likely that some of the fat cats out there, who can commission multi $bln. (surface) motor yacht projects already explored these ideas in practice, and just don't show publicly, yet..

PS I'm not against the concept of concrete sub per se, if this was a real genuine attempt, you have got my sympathy, but I doubt it is workable concept with broader appeal as presented in this current form..

 

Hooper: Anti-Shark cage. (Read here: home made concrete sub.)

Quint: Anti-shark cage. You go inside the cage?

[Hooper nods]

Quint: Cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water. Our shark.


[sings]
Quint: Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu, you ladies of Spain. For we've received orders for to sail back to Boston. And so nevermore shall we see you again.

 

What appears to be great invention is to utilized coanda effect (special shape of the craft submerged to fluid streams) to propel small psub category craft (or bigger), basically you can power the sub with only crew of pedalling two, which is miniscule amount of power (2x 150-300W) to get 2-3knots underwater.

There is a russian company demonstrating this princip, Marine Innovative Technologies Ltd, however they appear as still looking for financing.. video w. more details (eng ver. starts 10:30min) http://www.bluespace.ru/investors.html
gallery: http://www.gizmag.com/pedal-powered-submarine/11479/gallery/

http://www.eco-trees.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pedal-sub2_helf4_69.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?um=...ub&aq=f&oq=Marine Innovative pedal su&start=0

 

Oh dear - I have been over to the Wellmer web site to check progress - cant find any progress under the Tag "Progress"

What a mess the site is now, looks like a dogs breakfast.

I think young Wellmer is running amok. I reckon the sub would make a really great hurricane shelter. I will keep checking Ebay.

 

mr RWATSON- i have read your posts and its time someone exposed your ignorance on the matter of c-subs, by showing the type of category you fall into in my opinion when it comes c-sub discussions...

i have noticed too that generally the more radical and idea is--the more people like you, try to discourage it...
so i will point out now, that the reason in MHO that some here do not want to see someone succeed using concrete and intuitively designed and simplified off the shelf parts and systems;

because the consumer capitalist agenda has brainwashed the majority into believing there is only one way -and that way is by shelling out enough money to ballast a submarine for steel, tests, naval architects, and electronics etc etc ad infinitum, and using only the strictest guidelines and scientific approach- ppffff bollocks!!

so why do people dislike a success in this area using non conventional methods?? why do they always fight you tooth and nail -pulling thier hair out- dogmatically screaming out loud that you are wrong!! that you cannot possibly succeed?! - (sound familiar yet mr rwatson??)

...to convince you that thiers is the only way and you will surely die or fail if you continue on this heretical and doomed path of rebellion by building a concrete sub?


and in fact they will be greatly relieved and joyous if you dont-...why???
very simple-cuz then they can say they were right!! why again? because then thier reality is vindicated..a reality which society will try to perpetuate, a reality that mediocre minds have known for their enitire lifetimes because they were afraid to step out of the comfort zones and takes risks for fear of what the "monster" might say!!- cuz its been drilled into them so much that "it cant possibly work" that "you are crazy to try that"....these minds belong to people who would stand in the way of anything new. anything that can hold us shackled to the conventional-- in short if you do succeed thier reality gets challenged!!-and this scares the crap out of them! they are terrified that what they have been told - might actually be wrong.
.i.e the idea that an amateur designer or builder, can for actually less money than a yacht - have a far surperior vessel and more fun too! after all it cant be done right!?

you see if so, then the question then must get asked: "why did i pay 200 000 for my yacht and he can do it for 5 times less?
this scares the bejeezuz out of people- that - you just might be on to something and omg wasnt i told that THAT could never happen? ( ...he hadnt stopped christmas from coming it came - it came all the same!)

nutshell proverb: like the old saying goes- "dont let nuthin' but fear and common sense hold you back"

so these types of people apply strategies to try to "convert" you- by trying to use engineering principles and jargon- going to the textbooks, quoting failures, etc,and in some cases -imho as in say mr *rwatsons case* know as much or even less than the people trying to succeed in the area they are being skeptical about-- and they call themselves rational!!??? but- this is also to satisfy thier ego, and they try to drag your dreams away from you-

but believe me when i say, mr watson, that you cannot know any more than i can or fred flintsone for that matter, whether it will ultimately succeed or fail.- just like those who said heavier than air vehicles would never fly- etc. those types are in for a shock and they are in denial- trying to control the outcome through oppositional skepticism- lest that shock might be too much to bear.

is it a risk??.of course! anything we do in life thats worth something is a risk and what would life be without risks???..why do people climb everest? because they can! and some die trying--but we all gotta go sometime right?

so there you have it..some people will never believe anything. no matter how much evidence there is you cannot convince some people. then there are those who choose to be open minded and need not convince anyone anything since they are the ones who are not threatened by it, and then there are those who encourage it- the ones who wait to see..
which one do you suppose you are mr rwatson? btw why is it you think concrete cant work again??? id love to debate with you on that. just for fun

if your so experienced on the subject that you r so convinced it has or will fail and wont ever work..bring it on! -- lets hear it.
i can assure you if the sub doesnt touch the water(lol or implodes at 0 meters..too funny!!)i can assure you it wont be a design flaw due to concrete as a sub material! but lets hear it/..lets hear what you have to say on this! after all was it not you that accused mr Ellmer of not answering directly your questions? --lets see you answer directly mine!?

yawwwn...feel free to place rebuttle on this mr rwatson..id be interested to debate with you...starting with my first question; why wont it work? how do you know? seems your certain...maybe your real name is the amazing Kreskin!

 

Oh yes, my ignorance on 'c-subs' is admitted - I couldnt engineer a concrete water tank.

But, if you looked into my 'negative' comments, you will notice most of my comments are not about trying to figure out if the sub will perform or not , or based on engineering or submarine design.

My opinions have been largely concerned on far less controllable factors than physical materials.

1) Impossibility of getting insurance
2) Unwillingness of any navy to allow uninsured, unfinancial, untested designs anywhere in their ocean (due to their crew safety and cost of rescue)

If Mr Wellmer had heeded my warning that the Columbian Navy wont even permit Kon Tiki type exhibitions from leaving their shores, and had built in another part of the world, he might not be in the trouble he is in now.

Mr Wellmer said a lot about "push on into the unknown - fortune favours the brave" and totally ignored the "minor,inconsequential administrative issues".

Well, now he should read a bit of 'critical path' analysis, and how you can trip up badly on "small" issues.

 

Tugboat
Your typing is quite different than on the other post.
The style also.
Strange, but who cares? wright?
Daniel

 

progress on concrete submarine yacht 200 tons

Thanks tug for trying to dig a bit in the scycology of resistance to new developments...

Basicly we are not interested to discuss with people that have already manifested by their posts that their only interest is to throw mud on our projects.

We do not care a lot if the motivation for such behavior is monetary, psychology, envy, or whatever... people have their hidden reasons...especially when posting anonymous.

Fact remains that giving a stage for "mud attacks" does not suit our interest as expressed in our "politics section".

http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/marine/submarine_yacht_business_politics/

If you have a discussion that is clearly against your interest what you do is closing the info pipe - so discussion ends.

This is the reason why we do not update any info at the moment for the public.

Friends that want to join our projects or be part of the advisor board (privileged info) are welcome to contact me directly.

Wil
concretesubmarine.com

-----------------------------

Interesting study for the serious guys listening silently...
-----------------------------
Paper Number 3011-MS
Title OCEAN IMPLOSION TEST OF CONCRETE (SEACON) CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURE
Authors Roy S. Highberg and Harvey H. Haynes, Civil Engineering Laboratory
Source

Offshore Technology Conference, 2-5 May , Houston, Texas
Copyright 1977. Offshore Technology Conference
Language English
Preview ABSTRACT

An ocean implosion test was conducted on a pressure-resistant concrete cylindrical structure to obtain the depth at implosion. The structure was a reinforced concrete cylinder with hemispherical end caps, twenty feet (6.1 m) in overall length, ten feet (3.05 m) in outside diameter, and 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness. The structure was near-neutrally buoyant having a positive buoyancy of 12,000 pounds (5.4 Mg) for a hull displacement of 85,000 pounds (38.5 Mg). The implosion depth of the cylinder was 4700 feet (1430 m). A predicted implosion depth, using an empirical design equation based upon past test results, was 16 percent less than the actual implosion depth.

INTRODUCTION

A pressure-resistant, reinforced concrete hull was constructed in 1971 as part of a Seafloor Construction Experiment, SEACON I. The structure was placed on the seafloor at a depth of 600 feet (180 m) for 10 months. Figure 1 shows the SEACON I hull prior to its ocean emplacement. Since its retrieval in 1972, it has been located in the open air about 150 ft. (50 m) from the ocean. In the summer of 1976, the structure was returned to the ocean for an ultimate load test, that is, the structure was lowered into the ocean until implosion.

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

The cylindrical structure was assembled from three precast, reinforced concrete sections. The straight cylinder section, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 10 feet (3050 mm) in length by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, was fabricated by United Concrete Pipe Corporation. The concrete hemisphere end-closures, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, were fabricated in-house. Tolerances on the sections conformed to concrete pipe standards of not to exceed to ±0.75 inch (19 mm) for the inside diameter or minus 0.5 inch (13 mm) for the wall thickness.

Steel reinforcement in the amount of 0.70% by area was used in both the axial and hoop direction. Reinforcing bars of 0.6 inch (15 mm) diameter were employed throughout the structure. A double circular reinforcement cage was fabricated for each precast section; the concrete cover on the outside and inside reinforcing cage was 1 inch (25 mm). For the cylinder section, hoop rebars had a spacing of 27.25 inches (692 nm) and 31.25 inches (794 mm) for the inside and outside cages respectively.

The hemispherical end-closures were bonded to the cylinder section with an epoxy adhesive, no other attachment besides the epoxy bond was employed (Figure 2). The gap between the mating surfaces of the hemisphere and the cylinder was less than 0.13 inch (3 mm) for 75% of the contact area. Prior to epoxy bonding, the concrete surfaces were prepared by sandblasting and washing with acetone.

Source: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servle...011-MS&soc=OTC