OceanGate Submersible Design More Conservative Than Reported...

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.

 

[server]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

Clearly the composite structure was strong enough to handle the 400
atm (4000 m depth)pressure on the first successful test dive.

However, how well did it handle daily 0 atm to 400 atm and back to 0
atm cycles ? There is some flexing of the material.

Remember the early Comet jet airliner which had a pressurized cabin
with rectangular windows. After multiple pressuration cycles (fights)
it developed cracks starting from the edge of a window and multiple
planes crashed.

Modern pressurized jets have rounded window edges to avoid this kind
of cracks.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 25-June-23 9:38 pm, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters

True neutral buoyancy cannot be achieved because although water is
nearly incompressible, this is not true of the submersible, meaning that
the submersible becomes denser as it sinks.

Sylvia.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.

It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:31:15 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 25-June-23 9:38 pm, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion.. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters

True neutral buoyancy cannot be achieved because although water is
nearly incompressible, this is not true of the submersible, meaning that
the submersible becomes denser as it sinks.

Right- well engineering design rarely achieves the ideal, and a big part of the challenge is in handling that kind of thing. Compared to the alternatives, composite is an ideal.

Sylvia.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 12:42:53 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.
Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.

Rush did not design the hull, he specified it in very broad terms, and the composite manufacturer designed and built it. The manufacturer is on the leading edge of composite applications and was almost certainly totally aware of all the significant current research on the material and its structural properties. This is called best practices. It was not a fraud.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:16:51 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.
Clearly the composite structure was strong enough to handle the 400
atm (4000 m depth)pressure on the first successful test dive.

However, how well did it handle daily 0 atm to 400 atm and back to 0
atm cycles ? There is some flexing of the material.

Remember the early Comet jet airliner which had a pressurized cabin
with rectangular windows. After multiple pressuration cycles (fights)
it developed cracks starting from the edge of a window and multiple
planes crashed.

Modern pressurized jets have rounded window edges to avoid this kind
of cracks.

Part of the problem with the Comet was they drilled the rivet holes for the window rivets when they should have been using some other means like punching. The problem with drilling as they did it was the formation of micro-fractures which were undetectable by whatever means they used to inspect it. Of course, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and the micro-fractures grew.

The diagram in the compositesworld article states \"< 1% porosity.\" That may not have been enough. The ocean is full of contaminants, ships are always getting caught dumping stuff they shouldn\'t be. There\'s no telling what the hull may have been exposed to. The industry itself is aware that oil and carbon fiber reinforced epoxy is not a good mix at all, it erodes the bonding of the fiber. They lose the \'R\' in \'CFRM\'.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:31:15 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25-June-23 9:38 pm, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by
the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same
manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a
composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just
finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it
was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into
believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them
sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or
surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that
buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations
between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing
of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results
in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also
revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as
a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to
other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections
in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the
structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral
buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without
propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right
some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters


True neutral buoyancy cannot be achieved because although water is
nearly incompressible, this is not true of the submersible, meaning that
the submersible becomes denser as it sinks.

Right- well engineering design rarely achieves the ideal, and a big part
of the challenge is in handling that kind of thing. Compared to the
alternatives, composite is an ideal.


Sylvia.

The Trieste used flotation tanks filled with gasoline, which is even less
compressible than water.

Great in the vertical, cumbersome in the horizontal.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

fredag den 30. juni 2023 kl. 12.53.24 UTC+2 skrev Fred Bloggs:

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:16:51 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.
Clearly the composite structure was strong enough to handle the 400
atm (4000 m depth)pressure on the first successful test dive.

However, how well did it handle daily 0 atm to 400 atm and back to 0
atm cycles ? There is some flexing of the material.

Remember the early Comet jet airliner which had a pressurized cabin
with rectangular windows. After multiple pressuration cycles (fights)
it developed cracks starting from the edge of a window and multiple
planes crashed.

Modern pressurized jets have rounded window edges to avoid this kind
of cracks.
Part of the problem with the Comet was they drilled the rivet holes for the window rivets when they should have been using some other means like punching. The problem with drilling as they did it was the formation of micro-fractures which were undetectable by whatever means they used to inspect it.. Of course, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and the micro-fractures grew.

other way around, holes were punched and should have been drilled

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

fredag den 30. juni 2023 kl. 12.53.24 UTC+2 skrev Fred Bloggs:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:16:51 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.
Clearly the composite structure was strong enough to handle the 400
atm (4000 m depth)pressure on the first successful test dive.

However, how well did it handle daily 0 atm to 400 atm and back to 0
atm cycles ? There is some flexing of the material.

Remember the early Comet jet airliner which had a pressurized cabin
with rectangular windows. After multiple pressuration cycles (fights)
it developed cracks starting from the edge of a window and multiple
planes crashed.

Modern pressurized jets have rounded window edges to avoid this kind
of cracks.
Part of the problem with the Comet was they drilled the rivet holes for the window rivets when they should have been using some other means like punching. The problem with drilling as they did it was the formation of micro-fractures which were undetectable by whatever means they used to inspect it. Of course, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and the micro-fractures grew.

other way around, holes were punched and should have been drilled

Not according to the documentary I watched.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

fredag den 30. juni 2023 kl. 12.53.24 UTC+2 skrev Fred Bloggs:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:16:51 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.
Clearly the composite structure was strong enough to handle the 400
atm (4000 m depth)pressure on the first successful test dive.

However, how well did it handle daily 0 atm to 400 atm and back to 0
atm cycles ? There is some flexing of the material.

Remember the early Comet jet airliner which had a pressurized cabin
with rectangular windows. After multiple pressuration cycles (fights)
it developed cracks starting from the edge of a window and multiple
planes crashed.

Modern pressurized jets have rounded window edges to avoid this kind
of cracks.
Part of the problem with the Comet was they drilled the rivet holes for the window rivets when they should have been using some other means like punching. The problem with drilling as they did it was the formation of micro-fractures which were undetectable by whatever means they used to inspect it. Of course, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and the micro-fractures grew.

other way around, holes were punched and should have been drilled

You don\'t know the difference between a punch and a drill, do you? The punch rivet requires a drilled clearance hole. The punch is used to swage the rivet.

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.

Which part was \"ill-assorted \"?

The pressure vessel wasn\'t \"untested\". It had taken tourists down to the Titanic before. I\'m sure that it would have been taken deeper, uncrewed, before they risked that.

You are welcome to argue that it should have been tested by repeated exposures to that kind of pressure cycling, as the Comet 1 airframe eventually was, but saying that the pressure vessel was \"untested\" is false and libelous abuse, of the kind you are famous for.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.

When was the last time you saw an off-the-shelf part advertized to handle 4,000 meter depth? Right. Everything had to be custom or improvised.

The ROV market market is pretty much saturated which drove him to the HOV niche.

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up..

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Which part was \"ill-assorted \"?

The pressure vessel wasn\'t \"untested\". It had taken tourists down to the Titanic before. I\'m sure that it would have been taken deeper, uncrewed, before they risked that.

You are welcome to argue that it should have been tested by repeated exposures to that kind of pressure cycling, as the Comet 1 airframe eventually was, but saying that the pressure vessel was \"untested\" is false and libelous abuse, of the kind you are famous for.

--
Boz Bill Slowman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, HOW would YOU test a submersible that carried actual people?

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 8:12:20 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE
The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up..

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.
When was the last time you saw an off-the-shelf part advertized to handle 4,000 meter depth? Right. Everything had to be custom or improvised.

The ROV market market is pretty much saturated which drove him to the HOV niche.

Would you trust YOUR life to something that was \"improvised\"?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:18:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Which part was \"ill-assorted \"?

The pressure vessel wasn\'t \"untested\". It had taken tourists down to the Titanic before. I\'m sure that it would have been taken deeper, uncrewed, before they risked that.

You are welcome to argue that it should have been tested by repeated exposures to that kind of pressure cycling, as the Comet 1 airframe eventually was, but saying that the pressure vessel was \"untested\" is false and libelous abuse, of the kind you are famous for.

Hey Bill, HOW would YOU test a submersible that carried actual people?

The same way everybody does. Send it down - uncrewed - to a greater depth than any ath which you expect to use it.

This usually involves measuring the interior dimensions very accurately before and after the test dive.

You ought to know that, but your senile dementia does seem to be advancing rapidly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:20:28 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 8:12:20 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.

When was the last time you saw an off-the-shelf part advertised to handle 4,000 meter depth? Right. Everything had to be custom or improvised.

The ROV market market is pretty much saturated which drove him to the HOV niche.

Would you trust YOUR life to something that was \"improvised\"?

When I was younger, I serviced my own car. That probably qualifies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:00:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:18:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Which part was \"ill-assorted \"?

The pressure vessel wasn\'t \"untested\". It had taken tourists down to the Titanic before. I\'m sure that it would have been taken deeper, uncrewed, before they risked that.

You are welcome to argue that it should have been tested by repeated exposures to that kind of pressure cycling, as the Comet 1 airframe eventually was, but saying that the pressure vessel was \"untested\" is false and libelous abuse, of the kind you are famous for.

Hey Bill, HOW would YOU test a submersible that carried actual people?

The same way everybody does. Send it down - uncrewed - to a greater depth than any ath which you expect to use it.

This usually involves measuring the interior dimensions very accurately before and after the test dive.

You ought to know that, but your senile dementia does seem to be advancing rapidly.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, well, this is EXACTLY what they DIDN\'T DO! In fact, they continued to dive with a human crew after experiencing clear signs that the hull was failing (https://www.engineering.com/story/ocean-gates-titan-a-deep-dive-into-carbon-fiber-used-for-the-first-time-in-a-submersible):

\"No hull monitoring system was needed during a April 2019 dive when Karl Stanley, submersible expert, took the Titan to 12,000 ft off the coast of the Bahamas. Stanley heard a cracking noise and urged Rush to cancel that summer’s dives to see the Titanic, reported the New York Times.\"

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:58:04 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:00:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:18:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:39:23 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Background article linked below, looks like OceanGate was mislead by the overconfidence of the composites industry. They used the same manufacturer commissioned by Stephen Fossett to design and build a composite hull rated for a depth of 10,000 meters. The build was just finished up when Fossett was killed, so that was the end of it and it was never put to any kind of tests. OceanGate was also mislead into believing an acoustic sensing system on the hull would give them sufficient warning to move the submersible to shallower depth or surface to avoid a buckling failure. The truth of the matter is that buckling failure is poorly understood, there are large deviations between modelling and observed results of hydrostatic chamber testing of scaled cylindrical hulls, up to nearly 25%, and the buckling results in very rapid total structural failure. The same kind of testing also revealed a 2:1 deviation of ultimate strength of a cylindrical hull as a function of the helical pitch of winding the fiber, in additions to other kinds of very strong sensitivities to any kind of imperfections in the material, the winding process, and the final geometry of the structure e.g. less than perfectly formed cylinder.

The push for composites or similar material is to achieve neutral buoyancy, which means the submersible can loiter at any depth without propulsion. It\'s a power conservation measure. They\'ll get it right some day, but that day is not now.

article from 2017:

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters
I am not sure who mislead whom; OceanGate fraudulently stated that the submersible was designed with the collaboration of NASA, U of Wa, and Boeing - NONE of this turned out to be true, it was just marketing hype. This video details the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

The hull was designed and manufactured by Spencer Composites. The company has been in business for nearly twenty years and has probably produced thousands of different carbon fiber composite products for all kinds of applications. They have more experience than NASA, Boeing, and UWa combined, and they\'re exactly the kind of operation you want to be making something critical.

The carbon fiber composite is the strongest material known to mankind, with unsurpassed strength to mass density ration, specific strength, much stronger than even the best steels. The Boeing Dreamliner is 100% \"composite\" so they may have a PR problem to deal with now that all the know-nothings in the press are publicizing so much misinformation from a bunch of know-nothing movie directors, scuba divers, and whomever they can dredge up.

And as far as how carbon fire affects you, the U.S. , and others I\'m sure, is extending the lifespan of crumbling concrete structures, mostly bridges, using carbon fiber wraps on the critical members like beams and columns, and it\'s working out quite well.

Carbon fiber is THE answer for submersibles. The Koreans and Japanese are pursuing it in a big way. Didn\'t the Dreamliner wings come from Japan? I think they did.

Don\'t you get it? The issue was misrepresentation of exactly WHO designed this kluge. They used these names to assure skeptical customers that what they were putting their lives at risk were recognizable names in manufacturing expertise. This is also known as fraud.
It wasn\'t a kluge, and they don\'t seem to have misrepresented anything. It was a risky design, but nobody has worked out how it actually failed yet.

There are always plenty of nervous nellies who will tell you that any novel design is bound to fail, who get positively jubilant when one does, but detailed investigation often finds that they were anxious about features that didn\'t fail.

noun: kluge
an ill-assorted collection of parts assembled to fulfill a particular purpose.

This fits the definition of this submersible to a TEE! Obviously, this kluge FAILED - that is undeniable. The use of an UNTESTED pressure vessel that held HUMANS is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Which part was \"ill-assorted \"?

The pressure vessel wasn\'t \"untested\". It had taken tourists down to the Titanic before. I\'m sure that it would have been taken deeper, uncrewed, before they risked that.

You are welcome to argue that it should have been tested by repeated exposures to that kind of pressure cycling, as the Comet 1 airframe eventually was, but saying that the pressure vessel was \"untested\" is false and libelous abuse, of the kind you are famous for.

Hey Bill, HOW would YOU test a submersible that carried actual people?

The same way everybody does. Send it down - uncrewed - to a greater depth than any ath which you expect to use it.

This usually involves measuring the interior dimensions very accurately before and after the test dive.

You ought to know that, but your senile dementia does seem to be advancing rapidly.

Hey Bill, well, this is EXACTLY what they DIDN\'T DO! In fact, they continued to dive with a human crew after experiencing clear signs that the hull was failing (https://www.engineering.com/story/ocean-gates-titan-a-deep-dive-into-carbon-fiber-used-for-the-first-time-in-a-submersible):

\"No hull monitoring system was needed during a April 2019 dive when Karl Stanley, submersible expert, took the Titan to 12,000 ft off the coast of the Bahamas. Stanley heard a cracking noise and urged Rush to cancel that summer’s dives to see the Titanic, reported the New York Times.\"

The hull failed in 2023 after several seasons of use. Whatever Stanley heard in 2019 clearly wasn\'t a direct precursor to the total failure in 2023.

You do seem to be incapable of rational thought. I would have thought that they would have monitored the internal dimensions of the submersible after every dive, and retired the vessel if it had changed shape - as in starting to buckle. If they hadn\'t done that it would be worth commenting on. \"A cracking noise\" four years earlier isn\'t any kind of smoking gun, and there are sources of cracking sounds in the deep ocean that can come from outside the submersible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney