Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>As part of fourth year Industrial Design studies at the University of
>Technology in Sydney, Australia, I am investigating hardsuit design...
>...If you have any thoughts on these questions, or any suggestions or
>comments on the concept presented please E-mail me at Konrad@wr*.co*.au*
>
>Thank you for your assistance,
>
>
>Rgrds,
>
>Konrad Hartmann
>
During 1994, I worked for Sonsub Services Intl. as an ROV pilot/tech during
the pipe-lay/ base plate installation phase of Phillips Petroleum's Seastar
project.
Unforseen contingency, demanded remedial work of installing pipline supports
at -400 to -500 FSW. Two Newtsuits were mobilized.
Unfortunately, they were demob after three days because they were plagued
with seal problems ("issues?" ;-)). They made three aborted dives. The
joints "locked up". Sea water intrusion was evident in the hydraulic fluid
in the joint/seal assemblies.
All we caught on tape was a 9 second sequence of a bright light approaching
a span at -463 FSW and its ascent. Too bad.
What this is leading up to is that operation *reliability* and *simplicity*
must be a major consideration; just after operational *safety*. To be
viable, it must be usable with a minimum of set-up and delicate adjustment
and able to withstand the rigors of *day in day out use* with *minimum
maintenance*. As a gauge, an ROV is contracted based on 2 to 4 hours of
maintenance time out of 24 for a minimum of 20 hours of operational time per
24. Saturation diving offers about the same.
Operational reliability is not as easy as adding a stereo or urinal! It
has to be engineered into the design from the start. The units would have to
offer 16 to twenty hours of operational time per twenty four hours to compete.
IMO there is little value to a unit that would only be rated to 150 FSW as
ambient diving is well developed in this range. (Unless it was as easy to
transport as a dry suit, could be launched and retrieved from a conventinal
dive ladder, provided >95% dexterity had near zero maintenance and cost
<$25,000) I think that a working depth to 3000 to 5000 FSW would be a break
through. 1000 to 1500 good and 500 to 1000 FSW the minimum to be commercialy
viable as an underwater tool.
The remediation was completed using the dedicated saturation DSV Balmoral
Sea at much more expense than the Newtsuits *if they had worked*.
My $.02.
Doug Wisner
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]