Submarine Project

Hmmm - I think that the forces of International Maritime law and Insurance will have an interest in something that might cause a lot of grief to their precious clients.
Imagine the damage to any boat over 30 ft in length bearing down on 20 tons of mostly submerged concrete at 15 knots or so.
I know that most coastal authorities (even in out of the way third world countries) are very upset at any craft that might require them to launch a rescue team at great expense and risk to life (try leaving Chile on balsawood rafts these days). By international law you cannot put to sea in an unregistered seagoing vessel, and you dont get registered if you are un-insured (even under flags of convenience).

Will we be seeing the rise of the skull and crossbones over a concrete lozenge ? Will an all points bulletin be posted for a concrete ice-berg be posted in the Indian Ocean?
Lets tune in for the next exciting episode.

 

Wil,
I think you have to accept it is quite difficult to believe all of what you say and the statements you post in these forums and your web site, as they are not backed by experience or calculus at all. Let's see:

- You talk storm conditions but, what does that mean? For the rest of us 'storm' means wind force 11+ conditions and correspondent sea state depending on fetch. You have not recorded such conditions, so we don't know what you mean.
- You state you can lay at anchor when in an storm in an open bay instead of seeking shelter, but you have not performed any type of calculation, nor practical tests to support that. I have given you some theoretical numbers on probable water accelerations in such conditions, and you have avoided an answer.
- It seems, by your own words, you have never been in rough weather open sea conditions, but you dare to state it will be safe. How can you be so sure your submarine will stand a three days storm and then the remaining waves in the open sea? (let's talk 7 mts significative waves in force 11+ conditions, i.e.).
- You state 'no hull maintenance, no painting' and now you say you'll keep off the barnacles by diving when in hot waters.
- You state 'marina and harbour free operation', but you have not proved that. Only wishful thinking.
- You state ' an act of piracy is imposssible' and that again is wishful thinking.
- I would like to know how you have recorded '1 kp' for anchoring forces and in what conditions.
- You ask other posters to do the maths for you. I think you are the one suppossed to present your maths in public, for other people to judge.
- You refer to snorkeling devices you seem to have have never tested in bad weather ( and I mean big waves, as wind is irrelevant here) conditions.
- You do not answer to the question of the better fuel efficiency and flexibiliyty of wind propulsed vessels.
- You do not answer to the 2 HP/ton issue. You have stated that figure as being outstanding, apparently without having checked it is already widely used for sailboats.
- You have not answered to the question of the complexity and price of all the special systems needed to be mounted in a submarine, over those required in whatever boat.
- Also you state now all through hull fittings, etc should be engineered to resist the same as the hull. If this means you have not used such enough engineered devices and systems, how can you state the submarine is cheaper to build than a normal yacht?
- You now recognize you have not thought about nor developed the anchoring system, but anyhow you state you will ride storms under it.
- You have not properly answered the engine cooling question.
- You do not give numbers for range under batteries, nor inmersion hours for a full crew, no nothing.
- Etc, etc.

Posting just wishful thinking is not the way to convince people, I'm afraid.

I quit.

Cheers.

 

Actually International Colregs used to address this in a special rule that said Subs must show the correct lights plus a special occulting at 80 flashes a second yellow light. But when I went to look that rule seems to be gone.

However there is nothing saying you cant have a sub, only that it MUST obey the rules of the road, have the proper equipment and lights

http://www.boats.com/reeds/jsp/rn_ch_1_l_a.jsp

As far as registering. I have 2 boats federally rigister with the US and not once did they ask me for insurance.

Here in Oregon he would simply need to pay $3.00 per foot and fill out these 2 forms to get his sub registered.

http://www.oregon.gov/OSMB/BoatReg/docs/ApplicationforBoatTitle.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/OSMB/BoatReg/docs/HomebuiltBoatCertificate.pdf

 

Hi Kay9

Re insurance, yes you are correct, even on national registries , like recreational registers like the oregon sites you mention.
It is a bit more convoluted than I have said - to have a valid legally enforceable mortgage or financial interest, an ocean going boat has to be registered on the countrys national register (or recreational boats on local registers). All commercial mortgagees or caveat holders would insist on comprehensive insurance.
You could register a boat and not have to have insurance to go to sea if there were no commercial interests in it ie. the boat was free of encumbrances - you were the sole owner. I imagine your boats were fully insured, even though the registrars did not ask you for proof.

I guess I have come across so few fully owned boats, the logic escaped me.
I cant fit my mind around any craft over 100k that isnt covered by insurance, even though it might not have any financial encumbrances.
I am not sure who this concrete submarine is to be delivered to - maybe Wil will be the new owner.
I guess the only protection we can hope for is the certificate of seaworthiness certificate that most national registers seem to require.

 

Kay, thanks for this intervention, people that try to find a way to inhibit new things and find ridicoulous theorical arguments to do so are a real pain...

I am sure that the wright brothers had to deal with people that asked for a inmediate stop of "flight nonsense" because this thing could fall out of the sky and kill the president...

People that try to extend a inpenetrable network of prohibitive rules over the seven seas to sofocate new developments - well - scare me - i hope that our generation will not see implementation...yet...

Most nations take the simple fact that a private boat comes in from open sea to visit their country - as a obvious certificate of seaworthiness - so they will not ask for a formal papers on seaworthyness - this is why yachts do generally round the world tours without getting asked for such a paper - ever.

As i said before discussing abstact concept questions like "seaworthyness" with people that have not seen nor handled such a boat - ever - is a quite useless task...people pushed out of their comfort zone tend to see Problems everywhere like childern see monsters lurk in the dark - the good thing is, our hulls inspire a lot of trust as soon as you take a ride - so i am confident that i can get such a paper if needed.

Guillermo, i see no issue i have not answered yet - i only see the issue that no answer i give - or possibly can give in future - will make you change your mind. As said before there is a "intrinsic uselessness" in stretching out that kind of discussions...i state, you state, - we do not agree - so the only solution i see here is inviting you to take a ride with me to get a different angle of view...

Kindest Regards,
Wil

 

rwatson, why is it so personally important for you to see the... rise of the skull and crossbones over a concrete lozenge ?...

why can´t you just relax and watch the outcome of this projekt.

Kindest Regards,
Wil

 

Guillermo, i am not in the business to convince people - i expose a concept i have tested - in my opinion sufficently to move on - there will be enthusiasic followers to embrace the concept, open minded hearers, willing learners, sceptic mainstream, old and granty barkers, forbid it right away callers, all the spectrum of human behavior when it comes to new developments. The key is segmentation - if you want to move something forward you have to talk to the right people at the right moment.

Cheers Wil

 

I have been reading this tread since it has started , and have really enjoyed it. But now it seems that a few of you have made this thread a bit personal! Some of you seem to be scared he will fail and others seem scared he will succeed. I understand both sides of this matter , and I agree with some of both arguements....personally I wouldnt want to go to sleep in the sub resting under a 100 feet of water , without a full crew at station , but he hasnt built a huge yacht . Its a small sub! And you guys seem to be concerned that its a death trap ! Do you all go into the other threads and tell the guys that want to build a 35' sail boat and are planning on sailing it around the world that that is a crazy *** idea? or the ones that want to row a boat across the atlantic! Those ideas seem far crazier than Wil's sub! Most of the critiques are valid , but I dont think Wil plans on taking this sub down to 1000' and check out the darkness!...Why not just point out some design flaws that you may think he has and suggest he check into it and help the man with his project. Some of you seem to be threatened by the idea that he might do it! He isnt building a nuclear sub! He doesnt plan on attacking another vessel with the thing. He just seems to want to build a boat that is different! This is a design forum , and seems to be intended to push forward ideas on design!...Wil didnt even start this thread but made a post that he has agreed with the idea was cool and he has built one in his back yard! Lets try and help the man push his design farther , yes point out that there are a load of inherent dangers in going underwater , but help him through those ! I admire a guy that has built a sub in his backyard and it isnt built out of an old piece of pipe or a wingtip fuel tank or looks like kids bathtub toy!...it doesnt have pipe all around the thing and it looks darn good!...Will I think , no I hope you keep going with your design...

 

I think part of it Ramius41 is his website where it appears he is wanting to build these and sell them. Most of the professionals here take a very fierce pride in building the best there is, in thier class, and I can see where thier concern comes from.

Im not convinced this is a project that will ever have more then 1 or 2 buyers. However as long as the buyers are aware, that much like expermential aircraft, expermential subs have a lot of danger attached to them, as well as some unknowns, then I would say Wellmer is ok.

Wellmer, I would like to see some drawings on your systems. IE Fuel, electrical, air ducting. I would be more then willing to share any experiance I have in this area, to help you build a safer sub. Just dont you guys use it to smuggle any drugs....Im kidding...But you are from columbia, so it needs to be said.



K9

 

well somebody did it again, bring up the old colombian cocain submarine story...

First of all - i understand that this story comes up over and over again - somehow somebody has to justifie to keep a multi billion dollar submarine hunting operation working, while russian subs rott to death in wladivostok.

Second for our possible forum listeneners with that kind of intention:
If you search the most stupid method to send your stuff THIS is it.

A private submarine is the most notorious vehicle as soon as you start building it - EVERYBODY will talk about it.

My project is colombias most watched most suspected, most discussed, most supervised building project EVER - why - because it is sooo OBVIOUS.

If you could manage camuflage building - (make it in the jungle) next problem is operating it. You can not hire a poor fisherman to do the dirty job - you need a submariner to operate it -

As soon as you come to a port - (and even nuke subs have to do so from time to time) - again all attention is complety YOURS - if you get seen in open sea reloading batteries - somebody will report a "strange submarine" to the coast guard...

And it comes worse - a sonar operator will have a picture of thousands of surface contacts, but he will have only ONE submerged contact - YOU gess who will be redflaged and checked first.

ww2 was about detecting submarines, cold war was about detecting submarines so you can bet coast guard and navy are quite good in that!

Bad for you also that submarine building community is a very small circle, and authorities check them for obvious reasons all the time - (see psubs.org - submariner convention).

Even worse, people like me have to get papers for construction start, from authorities - so if we would not be clean like a whistle, transparent like glass, and cooperative in attitude, it would not happen - so you bet i am.

Colombian Navy allone has about a dozend artefacts of intented submergible and semi submergible smuggling in a shipyard here in cartagena - tons of your precious powder got lost - millions of dollars set in sand -

When i build submarine yachts i have a market in the mirror it is not the market of smuggling.

There are so many other methods that work so much better if you are a smuggler - going in a submarine is kind of invading a bunker trough the barril of the cannon while having all attention right on you...

So if you search the "worst method of all" - this is it.

cheers Wil

 

Kay,
The message i want to get out is a "ultralight" message.

In the same way as "flight" is not necesaryly a matter of hundreds of complicated sistems regulated by thousands of complicated laws and rules. (It is in some segments it is NOT in others) - It has a segment where "flight" is just based on a couple of aluminium tubes and a bit of fabric the laws of physics and a lot of fun.

Submarine yachting can have such a segment. I think the mere fact that a hull can submerge does not bring up the "automatic need of hundreds of sistems and regulations as assumed by some people" - in the same way as lifting up in the air does not bring up the automatic need of hundreds of sistems and regulations either.

There is a way to do things simple and safe and economic at the same time and do it just for pure fun IS an option.

So at the moment i am a bit unwilling to enter the kind of system discussions that automaticly paints and reforces this "complicated expensive military tech stuff picture" i am going against.

To bring it to the point there is only 2 things needed to submerge.

1 a ballast tank that enable you to regulate buoyancy
2 a hull that can take (some) water pressure.

So there is not a lot of tec talk about the hull ( a simple concrete cylinder will do) nor about a water tank.

In fact the sea does not know how many millions of dollars in computers sistems, papers, insurances, ABS approvals, simulations, and calculations, you have invested in your sub, the sea does not know how many graybearded engineer teams agree or disagree, embrace or hate your concept. It only knows 2 SIMPLE things your buoyancy (so makes you float or sink) and it will find out your crash depth so you better avoid to come to it.

In all fields of engineering in cases where life depends you seek security factors. 1:2 or 1:3 is generally acceptable. We run security factors of 1:20 or more in the initial project.

So what we do is we build a "different boat" we build a "simple boat", we build a "safe boat". And we state you can have a pressure hull and buoyancy control at a very economic price.

Somtimes keeping things most simple is revolutionary.

Wil (www.concretesubmarine.com)

 

Wellmer.
I know for a fact you can build an affordable diving sub, people do it in the US all the time.

http://psubs.org/pic/ebay1.html

http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclope...sport_submersibles/u-boat_worx_c-quester.html

http://outhouserag.typepad.com/gizmos/2006/05/bionic_dolphin_.html

http://www.ivccorp.com/

So you see you have some people you can lean on for help. And again Im willing to leand you my experiance if you wish it.

K9

 

Ramius41, thanks for your intervention - there are inherent dangers in going underwater - i am not so sure if it is "a load of" most important is always to see things in context - there is also inherent danger in "not being able in going underwater" there is inherent danger in exposing big surfaces to wind, there is inherent danger in "can capsize" (both things that our concept manage to avoid...) there is inherent danger in yacht toilets - many got lost - etc.etc...I have a problem to see pressure hulls and buoyancy control as "extremly dangerous matters" in fact those are easier to calculate to test and control than many of the above mentioned danger factors...so i do not see the engineering reasons to put this red blinking danger danger sign out when it comes to submerge. The only explanation i have is the military tradition of subs which means combine several danger factors from batteries to explosives, to dangerous instability, manouvering and speeds, all in a small space which makes military subs really dangerous to operate. Similar to a battle jet. But 99 percent of the DANGER is related to military functions of the sub - not to the mere fact of being submerged.

 

Wellmer, making statements like this does not help you in your attempt to appear knowledgable or competent in submersible design. The risk associated with being submerged (as opposed to just being enclosed which has it's own risks) has to do with the number of fittings exposed to full submergence pressure. There is a direct correlation to the number of sea connected fittings to failures, indeed in the commerical world, it is expected to lose 5% of all electrical fittings on each and every dive. I recommend that you conduct a literature search on submerged systems failures, especially electrical/battery ones and induction air piping systems, before making absurd blanket statements like the one above. SNAME and ONR have both published good handbooks on this topic an you would do well to read them, again if you allready have.

 

Jehardiman - the "who is the expert who is knowledgable" - thing is already discussed - Again: no need to send me to do homework have done it already... i agree completly in your analysis that the number of fittings is a critical safety factor - keep it simple is keep it safe. This is part of my program - thanks for confirming that aproach.

Kay9, o yes your help is very welcome! - i would apreciate if we could discuss project related tecnical details over e-mail...have agreements...with authorities about that...

cheers wil