But at the same time, a diver is trained to look for leaks as part of their pre-divw checklist, and oring replacements are fairly common. On my last liveaboard, the crew replaced probably good 1-2 dozen tank orings over the course of a week. One of my LP hose orings had frayed as well and needed to be replaced.
It might be the standard, but it's not exactly the best experience either.
I wonder how many folks have access to a submarine fire control tech manual compared to a manual for a tank?
I'm guessing simply based on the numbers the likelihood of a tank manual leaking in some fashion (even accidentally), for any reason, is much higher than a fire control technician manual.
I would expect individual folks to do their job and not say 'well this will leak anyway'. But more generally I think expecting that 'this manual that we gave to thousands of people won't leak' would be absurd.
I'm sure all submarines have certain processes that can cause leaks if there's an operator error - diving with the hatch open, for example - but are there any that happen as often as toilet flushing?
Leaks can be intermittent, and hard to resolve. I had a job driving effectively a water taxi one summer. One customer was working with one of the local boat yards to fix a recurring leak. They eventually ended up rigging up an audible alarm, probably using a float switch or something. I was given a phone number to call if I heard it ringing, or just call the yard on the radio. They eventually figured it out.
I've not found this to be the case at all, if you have a recent tank its unlikely it will just randomly start leaking. Much more likely the flame sensor, ignitor etc will go bad first
That comment of yours is great. It's amazing how much damage can be caused by these leaks. A bit frustrating given that the tank's only job is to not leak.
If they are catastrophic, you may have to fix them to make progress. But most are not, and you can make other progress. Leaks are not. Cargo should not be dictating your work schedule.
yup bad idea alright but i stick by it...
maybe someone has a better or more germane solution than relying on an astronaut to find a leak and patch it up by hand, but the idea of preemptively mitigating leaks sounds better than waiting for a problem then correcting if it can be found...
> Military vehicles often have dedicated drip pans that they put under the vehicle every time they are parked because it's easier to do that than fix the leaks.
In the units I was in, any vehicle that had any fluids in the drip pan would get a thorough check next Monday to find the leak and would be in the shop as soon as the part came in.
A slow leak that filled the sub would not necessarily have lead to the vessel's destruction.
That said, you can get leaks. I participated on a research cruise with a French submersible, and there was talk of small leaks with the main hatch seal occurring during descent. The "fix" was to go deeper so the pressure would essentially seal the hatch shut.
Underground tanks are best thought of as indoor tanks these days. They build an underground room, put the tanks in and then inspect them visually, and the room collects any leaks.
Not always of course, but that is a common way to do them.
In a sense, yes. The leaks shouldn’t be there, which means the craft is out of spec. Being out of spec in one area makes you consider how good/thorough the design and testing was. The next step is to consider what else isn’t working or might break sooner than anticipated. And that is not a pleasant thought.
Leaks are common with quick-install couplings and shoddy soldering. They seem to be more prevalent in the US, because qualification requirements for the installation of A/C and heatpumps are low to nonexistent, and anyone can just visit the DIY store and get refrigerant refills. So a leak isn't much of a problem beyond getting a cheap refill for most people, so craftsmen don't prioritize leakproofness.
It might be the standard, but it's not exactly the best experience either.
reply