Concrete submarine

So, at last some realistic answers - I think I raised this one two years ago,

And thats been mentioned a few times

Sort of makes this statement a bit unlikely, doesnt it, unless a very brave captain with no assets wants to make an uninsured dash into US waters - to be rejected at every port where insurance is mandatory.

This is generally sound in principle, but not effective for concrete. If you sink it to 1200 metres, you may damage the hull to such an extent that another dive of 50 metres will be fatal. Its not like steel, where you can rely on previous testing much more.

Likewise, an anmanned test dive isnt an easy thing to achieve without lots of complicated auxiliary equipment.

You are a realistic and practical man HeKi, not afraid to face the facts ( I suppose it helps that you havnt got a years worth of work at risk like Wellmer). I think you will have a long wait before concrete submarine hulls are a commercial venture.

 

Tom, it is not very usual in engineering to build someting then crush it just to see where it crushes, nobody tests the new A380 airplane to destruction, nobody tests a new highrise building, a tunnel, a dam, or anything of that kind to destruction, no billion dollar military sub has ever been tested to destruction...

The only things that are "tested to destruction" are those where loosing the item does not hurt much - toys, carparts, material samples, etc...

What you do in engineering is keep prudent security factors. You test for a test load and keep service load 1/3 of that - this is it.

- if you can`t test - like the earthquake resistance of tunnels, building, bridges, you model it, calculate its, estimate it, and keep security factors as high as possible (budget, limits).

The good thing about subs is - it is an easy case - you can test it. So you should and we will - of course not to destruction - nobody does that.

Subs have a (estimated) destruction depth, a test depth, a operational depth, and those depths are connected by prudent security factors.

What about the fatigue? - pressure vessels of all kind are tested periodically if possible. The frequency depends on the material - concrete is known to be at the list of - non fatige sensitive materials - (other than steel and aluminium) - so test periods can be longer than they would be for steel hulls.

watson,
Yes you have a point - things like "insurance for for prototypes" does not exist - so what? - is the "100% insurance covered - and authority controlled - nanny state - from birth to death" what we really need (want) to have ? Are you really insisting in its further implementation ? especially on the worldwide oceans? - can`t be serious in that. Are you?

Private boats comming in from international waters rejected in a harbor because of "odd looking"? - risk for traffic - come on...

Private submarines are operated blissfully without any "roadblock" while we speak even in "law infested" europe...see peter madesden.

Wild theories about failure, concrete, safety, risk, etc... - nothing of that does really matter, as long as you have a "sound test proceedure for the finished product". If it is tested properly and handled within the mentioned security factors - it is within the "generally acceptable parameters of safety in engineering".

As pointed out we plan to operate it at 6% of the expected failure loads - some tecnical apps where life depends on non-failure operate on 50% of the expectded failure load...if our security factor is not "safe enough" for somebody the guy is probably "borderline phobic" and submarines are definitly not his sport.

The bad engineer contributes CONCERNS - the good one SOLUTIONS ...


Wil,
concretesubmarine.com

 

A realistic and practical man indeed.
It appears one who knows the 200 ton hull in Columbia is crap and will offer no comprehensive testing.

I would hope at the very least that he controls the statements made by wellmer and we can hear nothing further about the 1200 meter hull being shipped to CA.
If tested to 30 meters as stated, this hull is henceforth rated for 8 meters operational depth.

So in summary.
At such time that European Submarine Structures assembles a team to design and test hulls, we may see a proven product enter the market.
Till then we have the untested 200 ton hull turned over to the owner with specific warnings made by the builder to not use the hull at depth.

All the distancing statements made by HK non withstanding, this 200 ton sub is being sold by ESS.
I would keep the hull and use it as a test bed before exposing my companies reputation to a untested product released to the market.

 

Commercial Airplane structures (including complete wings) are destructive tested!!!
Of course Wilfried YOU do´nt know that.

And another time: WHICH SORT OF CONCRETE WAS USED TO POUR THE HULL ?????

WHICH SORT OF CONCRETE WAS USED TO POUR THE HULL ?????


WHICH SORT OF CONCRETE WAS USED TO POUR THE HULL ?????

 

components are tested to destruction or at least to their design limitations

 

Willy,

So, as expected, there will be no crush test.

Talk, talk, talk, thus far that's all you are and continue to be.

Don't compare your crap to an A380.

No crush test = no credibilty, it's as simple as that.

-Tom

 

Wings are tested to complete failure! The whole wing!

and:
WHICH SORT OF CONCRETE WAS USED TO POUR THE HULL ?????

 

A wing is not a finished vessel - it is a acceptable loss - a complete sub is not a acceptable loss - no crush testing for subs - anybody with remote idea about the matter knows that... who posts the need of a crush test - just outs himself as not very knowledgeable...i give you the courtesy not to widen that topic...just take it.

 

Willy,

You haven't changed a bit, you're full of sh*t and obviously don't know what you're talking about.

 

Perhaps the two of you should talk before making statements about your companies procedures to the public.

 

You carry a direct and specific responsibility to carry assets or insurance against any damages to others your business might cause.
I have seen enough industrial accidents and injuries first hand to know how great of a concern they are.

It is only a fool who would believe that these risks do not exist or that a business owners responsibility is limited to the imposition of a "nanny state".

HK- you should really try to limit the statements that wellmer makes on behalf of your company.

 

I agree - i honestly did not want Henrik to loose any time on this forum - because the people here seem not willing to learn, and not able/willing to contribute - so why be there and make statements and serve as a spitbag for some frustrated anonymous people hiding behind a keyboard.

Henrik is right - we will do some destruction testing - and we have already done some destruction testing-

Sure we will do the destructive testing of series of entire 18m hulls as soon as the company has enough R&D budget to take this as a "acceptable loss".

Until that happens a "certain uncertainty" of only estimated destruction conditions is part of the package, like anywhere else in engineering.

I have no plans to destroy this particular hull just to satisfy a e-mob going wild...

Did anybody here expect that seriously?

 

Sure - the "nanny state" - you will understand that as developers we are interested in making something new that works and has a market in first place.

When we have done that, our board of lawers will discuss the implications - give us recommendations and we will take decisions in which market we go for whatever technical, legal, etc. reasons. - Countries that are messed up legally implementing "nanny states" will not be first choice - as Henrik said.

Our products have a reasoable security factor, as high as it possibly can be, and our customers are well aware where this security ends, we can not give "nanny state security" to anybody who goes out where nobody has gone before...and lots of people do not even expect or want "nanny state security" - a good example is Karl Stanley - when he loads a passenger into his sub he always says " this sub is not classed, stamped, authority controlled, insured, third party underwritten, your only security is - i have built this - i have done this before - and i go with you - closes the hatch and dive - this is a pioneer we need more of that - not wineing concerns...


Wil
concretesubmarine.com

 

Hey you guys came here. I didnt see anyone put a gun to your head and make you start makeing all your grand statements.

All these engineers here want is some proof, not BS.

K9

 

Come on K9 - (dam`n what is your real name and coordinates - can anyone here (exept Henrik, Steve and Me) give a face...) - BS is - what I GET here! - i am the only one who has contributed some info to this forum...

Prove is in the reading list -

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

Serious people should take it from there ... cientific correct discussion is welcome - who is not convinced by this info is welcome, i have no intention (and no chance) to convince 100% of the audience i am not at court, i am interested in discussion when it is a give and take - i am not serving as a spitbag for the frustrated with lot of free time to post nonsense...

Wil
concretesubmarine.com