92 EXTERIOR LIGHTING 



EVALUATION OF DIVING LIGHTS, TEAM I 



1. There were six diving lights on the Sealab II habitat - one on each end and two on each 

 side. The lights were 1000-watt incandescent bulb type. The plugs were Electro-Oceanics 

 types which were plugged in underwater. These plugs gave no trouble. 



2. The amount of light from each bulb was sufficient; also the number of bulbs. The lights 

 were necessary during the day due to the darkness of the water at Sealab n depth. The maximum 

 range observed was 80 to 90 ft. 



3. The first diving light failure was noted on day 5. The time required to fix this light, 

 splicing in a new bulb, was about one hour. By day 15, all of the lights except one had failed. 



4. Conclusions: The bulbs provided sufficient light but were of short duration. Too much 

 time is consumed in changing the bulbs. A better way of changing the bulbs is definitely needed, 

 with screw-in or bayonet type preferred. A longer life bulb is desirable. 



EVALUATION OF DIVING LIGHTS, TEAM E 



1. Three types of lights were used during Team 2's stay on the bottom: 



a. The standard Navy diving lights that were mounted at various locations outside. 



b. The Burns-Sawyer type light. This was a portable light utilized mainly around the 

 shark cage area. 



c. The mercury-vapor light that was manufactured by "Oceanics." 



2. During Sealab I the standard Navy diving light and the Burns-Sawyer light were both 

 used and, of the two, the Navy diving light proved to be more trustworthy, although it required 

 bulb replacement quite frequently, a task always long and seemingly not worth the effort. The 

 Burns-Sawyer types gave very limited service and were eventually abandoned because of their 

 constant failure. 



3. During Team 2's stay in Sealab 11, both these lights were used, and with about the same 

 results as that of Sealab I. The Burns-Sawyer lights were more or less abandoned for the same 

 reason as in Sealab I. The standard Navy diving light required very frequent bulb changing; 

 this was generally a half-day job which usually involved two or more lights. Very seldom were 

 all these lights in operation. Two divers could have kept themselves busy for the complete 15- 

 day stay just going through the sequence of bulb replacement. 



4. The mercury-vapor light was introduced to Team 2 during our stay. Although a power 

 pack was required to operate this light, it proved to be very superior to anything that most of 

 us had ever witnessed. The brilliancy of this light was outstanding. Compared to the other two 

 types, it was many times brighter and gave us practically "sunshine brightness" when mounted 

 above the shark cage and used to illuminate the inside of same. To my recollection, very little 

 maintenance was required, and even then only a short time was involved. 



5. A very limited amount of experience was actually obtained by Team 2 on the mercury- 

 vapor light, since only one was available. What little experience that was had with this light 

 proved its high potential. Its brilliancy is what is necessary for this type of work in the waters 

 where it will be used. 



EVALUATION OF DIVING LIGHTS, TEAM IH 



1. First day: Upon arrival of team, two lights were burning. One was mercury-vapor type 

 which requires a separate power pack inside the lab in addition to the 110-v ac source. This 

 bulb may be replaced in the water. The second light burning was the standard USN 1000-watt 

 diving light, which burned out on the second day. With no replacement bulbs, no further work 



