Pressure tolerance of Puck Maxi and GigaBlox

BotBlox Hardware
1

– Copied from customer email –

We are currently evaluating the following two products for a subsea application:

The intended application is underwater at a depth of approximately 1000 meters. Both units will be installed inside an oil‑filled, pressure‑compensated enclosure.

We would appreciate your guidance on the following points:

  1. Pressure tolerance
    Are these products considered pressure‑tolerant when deployed in an oil‑filled, pressure‑compensated environment?
  2. Cable oil resistance
    For the supplied cables (Molex‑to‑RJ45 and power cables):
  • Are the standard cables oil‑resistant?
  • If not, can oil‑resistant cable options be supplied or specified, considering they will be fully submerged in oil?
  1. Puck Maxi configuration interface
    For the Puck Maxi managed switch, is configuration possible via Ethernet rather than the serial (UART) interface?
    Specifically, we would like to confirm whether Ethernet access alone is sufficient for traffic configuration, without requiring a UART connection.
2

Thanks for reaching out. My answers are below:

Pressure tolerance

Puck Maxi has been tested at pressures up to 9300PSI, in mineral oil conditions. 1000 meters corresponds to a pressure of around 1400PSI, far below what Puck Maxi is capable of withstanding.

GigaBlox has not been pressure tested so I can’t comment definitively. I would not assume it would work at 1000 meters.

Cable oil resistance
Are the standard cables oil‑resistant?

No, they are not long term oil resistant

If not, can oil‑resistant cable options be supplied or specified, considering they will be fully submerged in oil?

Yes we can provide a quote on PTFE (Teflon) cables, which will be oil resistant. Please let us which product you want to order (Puck Maxi or GigaBlox), and how long you want the cables to be, and we will provide a full quote for the cables.

Puck Maxi configuration interface

For the Puck Maxi managed switch, is configuration possible via Ethernet rather than the serial (UART) interface?

Puck Maxi can only be managed over the UART port. This is a result of the internal software architecture; we use a lightweight microcontroller instead of a fully fledged processor, which allows us to keep the design small and low power. The downside is that configuration is limited to UART. Is this an issue in your architecture? I’m guessing you’d prefer to not have to breakout the UART port from your pressure vessel, is that correct?