Scuba Forum / General / March 2006
Quick water Density Question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
seapan - 24 Feb 2006 06:18 GMT I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. In order to do this I need to know what will be the density of water at a given depth and am unable to find any equations that model this. I don't really know were to look after exhausting the local library so am at a loss, and any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance, Panky
morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk - 24 Feb 2006 08:50 GMT > *From:* "seapan" <panky.pankmiser@gmail.com> > *Date:* 23 Feb 2006 22:18:59 -0800 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thank you in advance, > Panky Anyone in here from Groton ?
www.seatreker.com Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
Dillon Pyron - 24 Feb 2006 22:51 GMT >> *From:* "seapan" <panky.pankmiser@gmail.com> >> *Date:* 23 Feb 2006 22:18:59 -0800 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >www.seatreker.com >Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!! My neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two year tour (two trips) on a boomer can not believe it.
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
Grumman-581 - 26 Feb 2006 08:15 GMT > Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!! My > neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two > year tour (two trips) on a boomer can not believe it. Damn... I thought it was sacrilege when they closed NTC/RTD San Diego, but to close Groton is blasphemous... Hell, next they'll be closing Norfolk... Not that I actually *liked* Norfolk anyway...
Dillon Pyron - 27 Feb 2006 00:03 GMT >> Dave, the Navy, as incredible as it may seem, is closing Groton!! My >> neighbor, who teaches submarine warfare at UT and just came off a two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to close Groton is blasphemous... Hell, next they'll be closing Norfolk... >Not that I actually *liked* Norfolk anyway... "Then she saya 'Be gentle, izza my first time', Suddenly conductor come through train shouting 'no focka virgina'"
 Signature dillon
Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now
seapan - 02 Mar 2006 04:36 GMT So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite easy. I am currently planning in metric, in freshwater, with an assumed temp between 46 and 65 F. I am well away of the density issuse but the shape of the toy is a cylinder so compressional strength is quite high, so long as everything can be sealled. The ability for ballast water to be pumped back out is most definately an issuse but I think I have designed for that.
I will assume a variance in density of +/- .1, that should work out nicely.
Thanks and sorry for my late reply, Panky
JRE - 02 Mar 2006 19:53 GMT > So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite > easy. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks and sorry for my late reply, > Panky Yeahbut...the compression of the cylinder itself might be a significant factor in buoyancy. Don't forget to think about the change in effective density that will result from that if you're anywhere near the margins.
(This is a real factor in AL80s, in fact. The weight of 80cf of air is near 8LBS, not the 6LBS of typical buoyancy change from full to empty. The difference is in the tank's expansion displacing more water when it's full.)
John Eells
zippthorne - 02 Mar 2006 22:01 GMT >> So the variance is minor. This would in theory make everything quite >> easy. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > John Eells um.. no. The real change is very small and difficult to measure, and not significant.
The weight of 80 cubic feet of air is 5.1 lbs. If you surface with 500 psi as recommended by the training agencies, you'll have breathed only 4.3 lbs. of air. If you surface with 50 bar, it's slightly less.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=80ft%5E3+*+1.029+kg%2Fm%5E3+in +lbs&btnG=Search
Certainly there is *some* change due to reduced strain, but we're talking about a change in radius that doesn't even significantly affect tank strap tightness. You do raise the intersting possibility however, of using advanced materials to create a zero net buoyancy change tank.
JRE - 03 Mar 2006 10:56 GMT <snip>
> The weight of 80 cubic feet of air is 5.1 lbs. If you surface with 500 > psi as recommended by the training agencies, you'll have breathed only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tank strap tightness. You do raise the intersting possibility however, > of using advanced materials to create a zero net buoyancy change tank. Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071 lb/cu ft. So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air at 8lbs when it's actually 6.46 lbs, and we were both wrong. (Must have been thinking of 100s...sure...but since I don't own any so I can't really claim that. ;-)
John Eells
-hh - 03 Mar 2006 12:07 GMT > Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071 > lb/cu ft. So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air > at 8lbs when it's actually 6.46 lbs, and we were both wrong. (Must have > been thinking of 100s...sure...but since I don't own any so I can't > really claim that. ;-) There's a lot of small places to get tripped up behind the decimal point. For example, the generic AL80 isn't rated at 80 cubic feet, but is {usually} 77.4 ft^3.
http://www.luxfercylinders.com/products/scuba/specifications/us_imperial.shtml
At .08071 lb/ft^3, that works out to ~6.25 lbs for a complete tank drain....77.4 vs 80 is a quick ~3% error.
Interestingly, when looking at Luxfer's chart (above URL), for their 7.25" diameter 3000psi "AL80" (part#S080), they project that it will have a net weight change of (4.40 + 1.40) = 5.8 lbs
Taking Luxfer's number and working it backwards, division by 0.08071 suggests that their tank volume change is 71.9 ft^3, which since it is listed as 77.4 works out to be that they assume their "empty" rating is actually at around 200psi remaining.
FWIW, my advice to the OP is that a toy submarine is going to be like a real one when it comes to ballast tanks: you'll want it to have some excess capacity in both directions. How much excess depends on the overall size of the sub: you'll want to be able to become negative in order to dive without using the control fins and forward motion, and when you surface, you probably want enough bouyancy to be able to have the conning tower to freeboard above the water's surface.
And another potential source of good practical information would be to find the hobbiests who do radio-controlled (R/C) model ship-to-ship combat. I have heard that there has been at least one example of someone coming to the fight with a sub and wreaking havok :-)
-hh
-hh - 03 Mar 2006 17:28 GMT > And another potential source of good practical information would be to > find the hobbiests who do radio-controlled (R/C) model ship-to-ship > combat. I have heard that there has been at least one example of > someone coming to the fight with a sub and wreaking havok :-) Actual Scuba content:
http://www.vabiz.com/d&e/images/2_7.jpg
Other found URL's: http://www.vabiz.com/d&e/default.htm http://www.pittelli.com/warship/encf/SubRon37.html http://www.rcwarships.com/rcwarships/ http://www.ausbg.org/learn_more.html
Overall, its a perfect hobby to combine scuba and guns (two frequent rec.scuba topics!)
-hh
zippthorne - 03 Mar 2006 17:36 GMT >>Hmmm...my Pocket Reference shows the density of air at STP to be .08071 >>lb/cu ft. So I misremembered the total weight of 80 cubic feet of air [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > At .08071 lb/ft^3, that works out to ~6.25 lbs for a complete tank > drain....77.4 vs 80 is a quick ~3% error. gahh.. stupid air, with it's similar numbers for density, 1.29 and index of refraction, 1.00029
Well that's what I get for doing back-o-the-envelope calculations from the top of my head.
a - 24 Feb 2006 09:20 GMT >I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I >would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Thank you in advance, >Panky The water is almost incompressible, so the pressure is irrelevant (for what you plan to do). If you want to be really precise, the sea water density depends on the salinity and the temperature. Here is a handy table.
Density of Seawater (from www.britannica.com)
Salinity 5 10 20 30 35 Temperature 0 3.97 8.01 16.07 24.10 28.13 5 4.01 7.97 15.86 23.74 27.70 10 3.67 7.56 15.32 23.08 26.97 15 3.01 6.85 14.50 22.15 25.99 20 2.07 5.86 13.42 20.98 24.78 25 0.87 4.62 12.10 19.60 23.36 30 -0.57 3.15 10.57 18.01 21.75
For example, 35 o/oo and 30 deg C give 1.02175 g/cm3.
Lee Bell - 24 Feb 2006 10:24 GMT >I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. > In order to do this I need to know what will be the density of water at > a given depth and am unable to find any equations that model this. I > don't really know were to look after exhausting the local library so > am at a loss, and any help would be greatly appreciated. For most practical purposes, water does not compress. The density at the bottom will be approximately the same as the density at the surface.
I would think a bigger concern would be the pressure the chamber will have to withstand at depth. There is a simple formula for that. Pressure increases by about 14.7 psi for every 33 feet of depth.
Lee
Christopher Lewis - 24 Feb 2006 14:58 GMT >I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you in advance, > Panky For most purposes (and definately this one) water can be considered to be incompressible. That means that the water at any depth a toy sub would go to (even if its 100 meters) the density can be assumed to be equal.
The biggest problem is depth related rpessure. pressure increases by 1 atmosphere for every 10 meters of water (or 14.7 psi for evey 33 feet) and i suppose this will influence the strength of your tank.
What is you max vertical speed (descent or asscent)? Depending on this and how quickly you can fill/empty the tank will determine the maximum differential pressure the walls will have to withstand.
HTH HAND
Chris
Alan Street - 24 Feb 2006 16:01 GMT > I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you in advance, > Panky For this calculation, water can be considered incompressable and has a constant density.
Matthias Voss - 24 Feb 2006 17:13 GMT > € I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > € would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For this calculation, water can be considered incompressable and has a > constant density. I'd guess, the smaller the toy's weight, the more density variations matter. The trap the OP ran into was to assume a depth only relation to density. Much more important are salinity and temperature.
Matthias
jim frei - 24 Feb 2006 22:25 GMT >I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you in advance, > Panky Do you want the density in metric or american units?
Salt or fresh?
JRE - 24 Feb 2006 23:55 GMT > I am attempting to figure out how large of a ballast compartment I > would need for a toy sub I am attempting to construct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you in advance, > Panky One gram per cc, irrespective of depth, is a reasonable design assumption.
John Eells
|
|
|