Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Metallurgist admits faking steel-test results for Navy subs
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TANSTAAFL" data-source="post: 3669552" data-attributes="member: 27098"><p>The Navy wanted that test done for specific reasons and rational. Perhaps this will help, just because a wristwatch is waterproof to 200 Meters does not make it a dive watch. It may be watertight to 200 meters in a pressure test but that is static, not dynamic. When a diver is moving the pressure changes, and the watch may no longer be watertight while in use. In reality, a true dive watch with a 100 meter depth rating may be better than one with a 200 meter rating. Look at the sub, it is a 500 foot long tube that may need to bust through several feet of ice. It may go from a depth of several hundred meters under great pressure at high speed through ice water and bust throug the ice, all of this in a very corrosive environment. The entire structure is subject to cold, shock and pressure and lack of pressure. Now what? How many subs have been built and not tested? How reliable are they, do we scrap them and build new ones? At a time when china is kicking our a$$ with a larger navy, hypersonic missiles, has accomplished a 100 second contained fusion reaction and we have a dementia riddled president this adds further to our national embarassment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TANSTAAFL, post: 3669552, member: 27098"] The Navy wanted that test done for specific reasons and rational. Perhaps this will help, just because a wristwatch is waterproof to 200 Meters does not make it a dive watch. It may be watertight to 200 meters in a pressure test but that is static, not dynamic. When a diver is moving the pressure changes, and the watch may no longer be watertight while in use. In reality, a true dive watch with a 100 meter depth rating may be better than one with a 200 meter rating. Look at the sub, it is a 500 foot long tube that may need to bust through several feet of ice. It may go from a depth of several hundred meters under great pressure at high speed through ice water and bust throug the ice, all of this in a very corrosive environment. The entire structure is subject to cold, shock and pressure and lack of pressure. Now what? How many subs have been built and not tested? How reliable are they, do we scrap them and build new ones? At a time when china is kicking our a$$ with a larger navy, hypersonic missiles, has accomplished a 100 second contained fusion reaction and we have a dementia riddled president this adds further to our national embarassment. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Metallurgist admits faking steel-test results for Navy subs
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom