-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
The Deeper Blue "Ultra Submariner" Project.
- Thread starterReefTroll
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
who says you have to buy a CoTS camera? if you separate the optics from the backend, you can place the optics directly on the acrylic lens. then, you can use the non-compressible and non-conductive fluid without distorting the image. You just need to fabricate the lens so that it allows for a good image
http://www.ovt.com/uploads/parts/OV3642_PB_(1.1)_web.pdf
http://www.ovt.com/uploads/parts/OV3642_PB_(1.1)_web.pdf
Costing shouldnt be too bad really.
- scuba tank that has failed hydrostatic testing is worth nothing
- packet of lifesavers about $0.50
- sheet thick perspex and a couple of bolts, O-rings $20
- ballast (big stone) free from a river
- floatation $50?
-gopro camera with SD card $300ish?
build and knowhow lots of time but little money.
reeftroll to you have the ability to work out if a ali tank would have the crush resistance with a heavy perspex screen on it for an 800m descent?
i guess the first step is to work out weahter the housing can handle the pressure we need it to before we worry about anything else.
DD
- scuba tank that has failed hydrostatic testing is worth nothing
- packet of lifesavers about $0.50
- sheet thick perspex and a couple of bolts, O-rings $20
- ballast (big stone) free from a river
- floatation $50?
-gopro camera with SD card $300ish?
build and knowhow lots of time but little money.
reeftroll to you have the ability to work out if a ali tank would have the crush resistance with a heavy perspex screen on it for an 800m descent?
i guess the first step is to work out weahter the housing can handle the pressure we need it to before we worry about anything else.
DD
I don't no. BUT, surely if we have somebody with an old tank, the knowledge of what the pressure at 800m is, and a force guage they could somehow work it out?
I imagine the tank and persepx individually would be ok, but the seal between them is the bigest issue. That said, if the tank and perspex can take it, ad it is sealed well, it should somewhat tighten the seal as it goes deeper. (SO long as the tanks integrity keeps it straight) ???
I imagine the tank and persepx individually would be ok, but the seal between them is the bigest issue. That said, if the tank and perspex can take it, ad it is sealed well, it should somewhat tighten the seal as it goes deeper. (SO long as the tanks integrity keeps it straight) ???
For lighting I suggest LED as has been mentioned in here before, as it removes any worries of battery life.
i'll try and get a hold of a tank over the coming days through work.
yeah a cheap LED torch would be more than suitable for lighting just need to make sure it has a wide beam angle for better coverage and have it mounted flush with the perspex port to prevent any might reflection back to the camera.
DD
yeah a cheap LED torch would be more than suitable for lighting just need to make sure it has a wide beam angle for better coverage and have it mounted flush with the perspex port to prevent any might reflection back to the camera.
DD
Just had an idea. What if the weight was connected to the camera and flotation rig by something that crushes at depth? So the weight has a ring on it around a foam rod or similar, it gets to a certain depth, foam compresses and ring slips off, up comes camera???
ah this reminds me of a "submarine"-bottle that we built for school once. We had to use fizzy tablets to make it surface again. My unconventional approach was to glue the weight (stone) to the tablets and them in return to the bottle. So after some time the tablets would dissolve, the stone dropped and the bottle would surface. It worked nicely but my teacher wasn't very happy about the solution 
And adding to ReefTrolls idea, you could also use air (or any compressible medium) to measure the depth of the sub.
And adding to ReefTrolls idea, you could also use air (or any compressible medium) to measure the depth of the sub.
Nah, for that location you don't need a deep camera, you need one on a balloon!
Many of the previous posts are concerned with the effect of pressure on the 'capsule' which theoretically would contain the camera, batteries etc... If the capsule was filled with a highly purified clear oil, an incompressible liquide, that should solve the problem. It would not (i don't think) intefere with any electronics, would not blur the image and it would protect the capsule from crushing under pressure.
However, since this would cause the capsule to be negatively buoyant, there would need to be a system to enable it to surface. One way would be to have a solid reactant which, when made to contact the water, would release a gas. This gas would be trapped in a chamber resulting in the capsule becoming positively buoyant.
The funny thing is that as i'm writing this, more and more problems seem to arise! I havn't accounted for small air-gaps in the camera for example which would compress under pressure. I have also realized that at high pressure, the gas from the reaction would be too dense and in too little volume to cause enough buoyancy.
So pretty much, my idea turned out to be useless! Anyway, i'll keep thinking.
However, since this would cause the capsule to be negatively buoyant, there would need to be a system to enable it to surface. One way would be to have a solid reactant which, when made to contact the water, would release a gas. This gas would be trapped in a chamber resulting in the capsule becoming positively buoyant.
The funny thing is that as i'm writing this, more and more problems seem to arise! I havn't accounted for small air-gaps in the camera for example which would compress under pressure. I have also realized that at high pressure, the gas from the reaction would be too dense and in too little volume to cause enough buoyancy.
So pretty much, my idea turned out to be useless! Anyway, i'll keep thinking.
O
omega3
Guest
Great fun idea.
Done on the cheap though....thats relative!
Where to start...
I see a lot of ideas, many good many not applicable relative to depth/cost
Well whats the target depth? Everything is based around this.
The housing... depends on depth. At some point relatively soon though for depths touted standard machining of materials etc. is no longer suitable for some of the proposed vessels with an altered structure and would be hit and miss as to rating. I already see mention of thickness for the view port and this is already way into the realms of material properties. As to liquid filled...just find a suitable camera. Yes oil is what we use in oil filled electrical boxes however...
Recovery, I see mention of foam and ROV`s foam ....this stuff is seriously not cheap and the bouyancy costs can outweigh the vehicle costs. Lifting gel is the next big thing and has been recently trialed ... not "cheap by any stretch of the imagination though it is amazing what some companies will do for a bit of publicity. Is this outside of the remit though? As to tethers, its back to materials properties, the costs... stunning
That said with freebies, over engineering, decent knowledge etc. I am sure it can be done and hopefully the transport to the site will be the greatest cost!
Whats the target depth and I can ask around/see whats available while juggling work. Never know whats lying round the yards though it will no doubt have a big corporate sticker attached. Just make sure the DB one is bigger!
Done on the cheap though....thats relative!
Where to start...
I see a lot of ideas, many good many not applicable relative to depth/cost
Well whats the target depth? Everything is based around this.
The housing... depends on depth. At some point relatively soon though for depths touted standard machining of materials etc. is no longer suitable for some of the proposed vessels with an altered structure and would be hit and miss as to rating. I already see mention of thickness for the view port and this is already way into the realms of material properties. As to liquid filled...just find a suitable camera. Yes oil is what we use in oil filled electrical boxes however...
Recovery, I see mention of foam and ROV`s foam ....this stuff is seriously not cheap and the bouyancy costs can outweigh the vehicle costs. Lifting gel is the next big thing and has been recently trialed ... not "cheap by any stretch of the imagination though it is amazing what some companies will do for a bit of publicity. Is this outside of the remit though? As to tethers, its back to materials properties, the costs... stunning
That said with freebies, over engineering, decent knowledge etc. I am sure it can be done and hopefully the transport to the site will be the greatest cost!
Whats the target depth and I can ask around/see whats available while juggling work. Never know whats lying round the yards though it will no doubt have a big corporate sticker attached. Just make sure the DB one is bigger!
Last edited by a moderator: