F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 10:18:00â¯AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Recent news is the Titan was struck by lightning in the Bahamas in 2018, knocking every bit of the electricals out of commission. This was detailed by Rush himself in some interview. Then in other news, witnesses reported the craft was always handled roughly whenever it was transported. It\'s like Rush had a death wish.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 11:58:04â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:00:38â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:18:16â¯AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:39:23â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 2:51:02â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 11:55:16â¯PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:42:53â¯PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 7:45:27â¯AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 12:39:29â¯AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:38:18â¯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 summerâs 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.
Recent news is the Titan was struck by lightning in the Bahamas in 2018, knocking every bit of the electricals out of commission. This was detailed by Rush himself in some interview. Then in other news, witnesses reported the craft was always handled roughly whenever it was transported. It\'s like Rush had a death wish.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney