[Anonymous Coward]

I can neither confirm nor deny that 500 feet is anywhere near the test depth of a US submarine, or that US submarines have large range of test depths, depending on the class. However, having been associated with nuclear submarines for over 15 years (not including training or other things), I would not be immediately dismissive of the anecdote. Besides the test depth, it depends on the size and configuration of whatever the duct tape was covering, as well as the location (whether exposed to full pressure and for how long). Submarines are double hulled, so if it were on the outer hull, there could be no differential pressure at depth, which would mean that it is a good story, but would not be surprising. Or, if it were covering a 1/4" sensing line, would it be so unbelievable?

Anyway, if I had any more details, I would be in a better position to say, "Yes, it did happen", or "No way it could ever work", but I can say it was a widely spread anecdote.

Edit after last reply: One other thing: not just duct tape, but maybe duct tape with one or more layers of paint. But I will keep looking for documentation, but due to the classified environment (nuclear, sub-safe certification, and general Navy need to know stuff) I doubt if I will find anything.

[kscherer]

Yeah, that's what I meant when I stipulated that it might be used for something that was not entering the pressurized hull of the sub. I cannot believe even for one second that a piece of duct tape would be holding back even 1/4 that water pressure over an entrance into the interior.

No.

Way.

In.

Hell!

But covering a tidbit on the outer plating because reasons? Sure. And if no-one-knew-better saw that, they might giggle and wonder.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters for the submarine discussion, or maybe this is common knowledge, but here is an abbreviated history of the duct tape allegedly used:

Duct tape, originally not named as such, was developed for sealing ammunition cans as a substitute for paper and wax, which was sometimes difficult to remove. The mother of two servicemen penned a letter to President Roosevelt after her superiors in the company rejected her suggestion, and her proposal was approved. The tape was made of rubberized duck cloth or duck canvas and for many years was only available in Army olive green. Supposedly, another reason it was called duck tape was because servicemen described its waterproof properties as similar to water shedding off a duck's back.

After World War II, someone got the idea that it would be good for sealing air conditioning ducts, and so now it became known as duct tape. However, a study by a Berkeley Lab (either Lawrence or Livermore) found that it is, in fact, unsuitable for sealing ducts, probably because the adhesive and cloth deteriorate with heat. This was the current state of "duct tape" about 40 years ago.

A common type of duct tape currently sold is silver, with a waterproof coating covering a thin, loose cloth mesh, which seems to be 1/3 or 1/4 the thickness of the original tape. But there are a variety of cloth tapes available that are similar to the original tape.

Military grade duct tape is rated at 50 psi.

[kscherer]

Two things in response:

1) Most HVAC tape is now of the metal variety that seals and holds for ages.

2) 50 PSI is about 115 feet. So, perhaps it was used for something on a sub, but I still don't believe it was used to seal anything at all ever through which water might penetrate into the interior. EVER! If there was a leak of that nature, in an emergency it would have been sealed from the inside using specialized tools for that purpose. In a non-emergency? No! Off to the repair depot for a quick weld.

[turtle]

I'm not sure about subs, but surface ships use wood and rubber to plug leaks internally.


There are metal jacks that can be used too, but they are limited in flexibility and have more specific uses.

Look up USS Buttercup to see more about trainees learning flooding damage control.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree on aluminum tape being available and used by professionals. However, plenty of the old duct tape is sold and promoted by home improvement centers. Non-metallic tape manufacturers still promote their products as being intended for sealing ducts.

Tape would never have been intentionally installed to be a seal, particularly on the interior. I don't mean to keep beating the dead horse, but just provide more information. It would not have been considered for an emergency repairs. Sea trials involve controlled excursions to depth, probably remaining at a particular depth for 30 minutes (standard for hydrostatic testing). So, under normal operations, the tape would have never lasted.

I don't believe that surface ship damage control would be effective due to space configuration, cylindrical hulls, and hull thickness. In any case, there are no damage control lockers with sealing and bracing materials. Most submarine sailors do not go through submarine school. Attendance is usually by the lower ranks without specialized electronics or nuclear training. I would say that submarines rely mostly on hull closures in combination with testing and certification for any materials and parts to keep water out of the boat. These days, there is not much that can be done without surfacing the ship. In the past, submarines were compartmentalized, but some modern submarines have or had only one watertight door separating forward and aft.

Again, grain of salt time: I was retired for several years before joining AppleNova, so that dates my information.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kscherer I don't think it's possible for duct tape to hold up at "test depth" (likely below 500 feet), so I think the anecdotal bit must be taken with a large sprinkling of salt. I could see it being used for some other purpose where there is no place for water to enter the pressurized portion of the hull. But at depth? 500 feet is 216psi, and water under that pressure is going through duct tape. Although I could see that being tried in Russia …

Yes luckily I said the duct tap bit totally in jest. No way would I expect it to hold out.

[turtle]

Ken, are you plotting to take over Oregon now? Is that why you've been missing so much lately?

[PB PM]

I’m sure Oregon is just leaping to do this.

[kscherer]

We don't want those people!

I have two things to say about the matter:

1) The folks pushing for that nonsense are all the far-right nut-jobs that most Idahoans want nothing to do with (other than our own brood of far-right nut-jobs).

2) It requires the approval of both the Oregon and Idaho state legislatures, and the final approval of the Congress of the United States.

So, it ain't gonna happen. Fortunately.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by turtle Ken, are you plotting to take over Oregon now? Is that why you've been missing so much lately?

Wow. That was weird enough that I had to read further into it! Though "faith, family, and self-reliance" are listed first as their reasons on their website, the actual motivation is usually a few levels deeper, and I think I found it:

5. PUSHES OREGON LAW FARTHER AWAY from Idaho’s population centers: In 2020 Oregon decriminalized hard drugs, making hard drugs easily available to residents of Treasure Valley. Moving the Oregon/Idaho state line further away from Idaho population centers will reduce the ease of access and convenience of these dangerous products to those who might be tempted by them.

There we go. Gotta feed Idaho's for-profit prison system which, by idaho.gov's own documentation, imprisons a whole third of its inmate population due to drug-related charges.

[kscherer]

Yeah, that group's reasonings are all bupkis. I'm not sure I blame them (they are governed by the I-5 corridor, with whom they have almost zero in common), but that is the nature of America and it's government. If you don't like it, move!

The reality is that they're looking for the right-wing extremist utopia, and they think that adding themselves to Idaho will bring that. Truth is, the population of the Treasure valley is such that the Boise area would continue to lord over them and they'd still be unhappy.

I think KTVB did a poll here and found the majority of Idahoans are not OK with the idea, so it's never gonna happen.

[turtle]

From a practical sense, I can't image ANY state giving up land. I mean, that land would have to be completely worthless in every regard and then some before it has no value to the state. That isn't going to happen because there is always a reason to keep the land.

[kscherer]

Very true. Even the hard-to-manage nut-jobs are sitting on valuable land. It involves grazing rights, water rights, forestry products, agriculture and recreation areas, etc. With all of that are the income and property taxes, recreation taxes, and all of the associated etc. that goes with it. Territorial control, representation in government (Oregon would lose a House seat, Idaho would gain one — guess which party would benefit?). There is also the downright "It's ours" line of thought that goes with ruling people.

It isn't going to happen because Oregon doesn't want to lose the territory, and Idaho doesn't want to gain it.

[Frank777]

Hahahahahahahahaha......

The secret is out. Everybody knows. Our current leaders are idiots.

[PB PM]

I wonder how big a bribe the people who signed those deals took? There is no other explanation for this kind of stupidity.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PB PM I wonder how big a bribe the people who signed those deals took? There is no other explanation for this kind of stupidity.

If they're anything like US senators/reps, IIRC most (but certainly not all) "campaign donation" bribes that affect horrible change are usually only a few thousand dollars. Pretty pathetic how cheap they are to sell out.

[Bryson]

I can see people maybe falling for a fake city (I mean, that's bad too...) but falling for an entire fake country takes the cake. Do they not even have Google Maps?

[709]

For those who missed it, it was an historic news day yesterday:

[Brad]

[psmith2.0]

I smell a new Goop candle scent coming soon!

Only $54.95!

She got lucky here. By all accounts, her inexperienced self did indeed slam into the plaintiff on the slopes. He could've really put a dent in her pussy candle empire had the jury gone the other way. Much like the O.J. jury, I think her fame/name helped her out a bit. Didn't juror #4 have on a "Tony ❤️s Pepper!" T-shirt a few weeks ago?

We obsess on race/skin color as the end-all/be-all in this country of why things go wrong or are sometimes warped/unfair. I think it's far more about class/background/fame/wealth/social status.

Had I been the defendant here, slamming into some old retired doctor on the skip slopes and breaking his ribs, my non-famous, ass, of modest means, would've been on the hook for all the damages/medical costs and whatever "pain and suffering" amounts his lawyers were seeking. Nobody on the jury would be a "fan of my work", or think I'm "hot". People get absolutely loopy in the presence of fame/celebrity, and lose their minds! "Of course they can get away with it. He/she was on that TV show I used to watch/love back in the day!" Don't ever put me on a jury against Lee Majors, David Soul or Pam Dawber. That's all I'm sayin'...

[turtle]

Y'all missing the real point.... lower right corner.

While no one is above the law, this is really just a blue push to try to remove him as a threat. It is true pomp and circumstance to show how bad Trump is by those who don't like him.

I will say, he is not who I'm going to vote for in primaries... but I'll vote for him over any democrat in a heartbeat. Well, that isn't true, there are some in the democrat party that aren't complete loons, but they are few and far between.

[PB PM]

All politicians are self-centred loons. You have to be a little messed up to want to put yourself through that crap. End of discussion.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 . Nobody on the jury would be a "fan of my work", or think I'm "hot". People get absolutely loopy in the presence of fame/celebrity, and lose their minds!

Wait, people think she’s hot? Not just now that she older, but ever?

[709]

Originally Posted by turtle While no one is above the law, this is really just a blue push to try to remove him as a threat. It is true pomp and circumstance to show how bad Trump is by those who don't like him.

I think we'll see a lot of performative huffing and puffing from the usual suspects on the far-right propaganda networks, but behind the scenes I'll bet there's lots of sighs of relief. There's no way on earth that the GOP wants Trump to be their 2024 candidate, and while 'ol Lindsey might push out a few crocodile tears the whole lot of them are filed with muted (for now) glee. Dems, on the other hand, would like nothing more than to run a rematch of Biden (or whoever) against 45. If Bootsie DeFloridaMan could take a break from getting curb stomped by Disney and actually take a minute to figure out his campaign the Rs might have something, but for now they're twisting and outwardly beholden to the former guy.

Originally Posted by turtle ...there are some in the democrat party that aren't complete loons, but they are few and far between.

Progress, at last.

Me, I'll be voting for the party that isn't banning books. Just my personal red line.

[Matsu]

It's a strange world. So Trump finally gets called to the carpet on election finance violations, but his whole history, before and during his tenure as president, is riddled with so much worse. I don't buy the "witch-hunt" rhetoric, mostly because it's born of the wrong line of questions. It's supposed to be a nation of laws, and those laws are supposed to mean something.

More often than not, this guy has been allowed to skate on rules already generally stacked in his favor. The interesting questions are not about which democrats or republicans are out to get him. That's the ultimate red herring. The interesting questions should be about how such an obvious bad actor can, time and again, get away with so much, and why his victims have so little recourse?

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Matsu It's a strange world. So Trump finally gets called to the carpet on election finance violations...

Is paying a settlement really an election finance violation? I seriously doubt this is going to get further than the Russian collusion nonsense did.

I actually do applaud the indictment though. Because for the first time, it has broken the glass on actually holding U.S. Presidents personally accountable for misdeeds. And I have a feeling that is going to boomerang on certain people in the future.

[turtle]

I'm sorry but I can't buy it. Yes he is accused of a crime, otherwise there wouldn't be an indictment from a grand jury*. We don't even know what for at this point because it is sealed.

The timing and pursuit is pretty clear what the motive is. It has nothing to do with the "victims" he is accused of wronging. It is either to attempt to remove him from being President again or otherwise end his political career.

The DA has plenty of other crimes that are WAY more pressing to NYC than Trump. Yet his focus is on a Trump.... right before an election season. Dare I suggest that if Trump didn't announce he was going to run again that the DA wouldn't have probed or pushed for an indictment?

* Assuming an actual impartial grand jury, which I do assume to be the case.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by turtle The timing and pursuit is pretty clear what the motive is. It has nothing to do with the "victims" he is accused of wronging. It is either to attempt to remove him from being President again or otherwise end his political career.

Given that the US always seems to be in election season (either the midterms are coming up, or the presidential election), what would have been the right "timing"?

[Bryson]

I'm also strongly against the Trump indictment, but for the opposite reason. What trump thrives on is publicity. And now, there's wall-to-wall coverage of him. He's the living embodiment of "all publicity is good publicity." I'd say it betters his chances of re-election, not worsens them.

Also, what they're prosecuting him for is moderately inconsequential. If they were indicating him for orchestrating a coup on January 6th I might be in favour (although they should have done that a year ago) - but on a technicality of campaign finance / business expense reporting law? Weak sauce.