Submarine Yacht project

Maybe, I do´nt know. But the boat shown in the pictures is tested at the "Attersee" in Austria and shows a much better surface of the concrete structure than the black toilet in Mr Ellmers backyard in Colombia. So I have my doubts.

Richard

 

destructive Test

Steven,

You are much smarter than I gave you credit. You thought of this before I

did! So, what's your estimate of it's failure depth?

-Tom

 

Did you notice Tom, that our friend "steve" makes the same mistakes in English than our close friend Wilfried?

And did you notice he follows Wilfrieds footsteps?

Mr Ellmer really thinks we are as stupid as he is................

 

Steve, Saffffffffff, Welmer all these names are a comedy! Just to make believe that some one has interrest on the Wellmer sinking crap.
Safffffff and the other name you will use, you are a fake.

 

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!

 

Hi all. Been Gone for many months.. Concrete Submarine still hasn't move to US?
And yeah they need a better mold... How do you even get a texture like that?
May be the submarine is already working??? Do you see any water intakes or exhausts for diesels engine? How about any pictures of engine room? That would be nice. Show me a picture of real inside and I will invest... Later

 

Submarine is already working. It is holding down the driveway.

 

Wellmer and safffy,

What are your failure depth estimates and when is the test?

It's time to put your money where your mouth is and show us something

concrete!! OR, are you just full of hot air?

Catastrophic 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

hoytedow: 45 m

Willy: ???

Safffy: ???

 

Read my other thread and you will know why it hasn't moved. The new power package should fix that.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/power-package-concrete-subs-30300.html

 

still no news?...im gonna call him- i want the facts--not speculation.

to throw in my two cents worth--ive had concrete engineers i know look at Wils 200 tonner - (no im not Mr Ellmer posing as tugboat here)-
the hull is bona fide.
and if the sub is as thick as you can see in the youtube vids...then itll go deep. probably very deep like 300 meters- so add my wager of 300 m implode depth.
btw look at the vid --it aint no mockup! I wonder if its red tape holding him back?..after all he is based in columbia. I have read everything by mr Ellmer and i back him. Simply because he pisses certain people off. and if he is bona-fide...then its gonna seriously mess with peoples ideas of reality and what can be accomplished. plus im building my own...-(this should be interesting to hear who is gonna try to tell me im as crazy as Wil...i wont mention any names....yawn... ) but if mr Ellmer succeeds. and i believe in the end he will...this is good for all of us...i do wish he would tell us whats happening though.

 

You are right Tuggy, its not a fake like some silly comments suggested, but it aint a roaring success. I bet the "investor" wouldnt hand over the progress payment after all the "press" on this website.

His website *still* reads

"We had a project funding in october 2008, the paperwork for hull building permits and the negociations with the shipyard took 2 months, we finished the raw hull building, as promised, within a 12 month period, in the sheduled time and budget frame. "

Sorry I was wrong about its functional depth estimate - I said 0, its looking more like +3 (3 metres above sea level) every day now.

Like I said back in 09-27-2008, 10:49 AM
"I bet the 200 ton model never makes it into regular use, if it is ever even launched."

 

concrete submarine implosion test

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/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-3011-MS&soc=OTC



PS: Posters on this thread (and similar) revealed the "level of their knowledge" sufficiently by their posts.... i am out until "talkworthy stuff" comes up...time is precious i am busy...will keep throwing some pieces of info in now and then - just for the contrast....

 

Wil- and rwatson- i personally have never doubted the viability of concrete.

the only diff is- between steel and concrete- might be more difficult to get the thu hulls and hatches etc installed but easily doen with a bit of ingenuity and probably some good epoxy.
most likely easily solved...

RWATSON--i did send an invitation to hear your opinions about why you think the c-sub wont work on another post...is it because you believe that concrete as a material wont work?...because if so ..thats erroneous. is it because of financing or red tape?...to me that might be more reasonable...I applaud Mr Ellmer for his hard work. and vision in this area. I am happy to see he has posted and that he is still around--put yourselves in this mans shoes..he is coming up against great opposition simply because its not conventional. great men are always controversial. The fact he responds says to me..he isnt out of the game just yet. tell me one project that does not have issues and problems to solve??? its usually a rollercoaster ride...kudos for sticking to his guns...

Wellmer- what size engine are you using for the sub? i am very interested in what you would suggest for seals for a larger shaft say 2'' dia. for a larger motor? i was thinking of using o-rings. or there is a company that makes inexpensive high performance seals...good to 200-250 psi rotational. whats your take on something like that...

 

Wellmer your boyfriend Heki is not Swedish, and a scholar in Swedish to whom I show his post told me he is of a German country, or Austrian, not a Swedish.
Please leave the forum.
Your attitude has been despicable.
Daniel

 

engine, seal, submarine yacht

Tug,

power requirement of a submarine yacht of 18m is similar to a whale i recommend to go for just 50 horsepower for economic cruising at 5-7 knots (very different to power requirement of a surface yacht) link: http://imulead.com/tolimared/concretesubmarine/anuncios/av/

Shaft seal:
O ring seal is OK but there are better solutions. I prefer flat to flat sealing surfaces. (radial rotary seal) check "simmering seals" - i prefer to fabricate seals instead of buying them. If you can build it you can repair it. This is part of the "autonomous concept".