h a l f b a k e r yProfessional croissant on closed course. Do not attempt.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A conventional submarine can be thought of as the inverse of
an airship, in that it controls its depth rather than its height
by adjusting its buoyancy. But much like their topside
counterparts, these dirigibles of the deep are relatively big,
slow, and clumsy. By contrast, a submersible vehicle
designed like a helicopter, but that pushes water upward
instead of air downward could potentially provide superior
maneuverability underwater, in a much smaller and
technically simpler form factor.
The aquacopter could be weighted at the surface to be
slightly positively buoyant, then derive its (negative) lift
from a rotor. The rotor could be powered by a small engine,
or even solely by human power. Of course, without some
sort of buoyancy compensation, maximum depth would be
limited, but as long as the craft is designed to remain
positively buoyant at all times, it would fail relatively safely
in the event the engine (or the engine's legs) gave out
underwater.
an "aircopter" with its rotors on bottom
http://www.aviastar...er_helicovector.php
[pocmloc, May 08 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Small submersibles have near-neutral bouyancy, and very
small ballast tanks which are not cumbersome. Whether any
such craft has ever sunk to its doom due to failure of its
ballasting system, I do not know. |
|
| |
Also, the rotors would need constant power, and would be
vulnerable to damage or entanglishment. |
|
| |
When I was little and experimented with model submarines, there were two systems used. The expensive and complex way was to fit the model with ballast tanks etc. to trim its bouyancy. The cheap way was to make the model float low in the water, and then angle the vanes so that its forward movement made it submerge. More like an aero-plane than a helico-pter, though. |
|
| |
If you've only got a bit of positive buoyancy to work out then all you need is a rock with a rope on it. But [+] for thinking. |
|
| |
I think this idea is great. Submarines are unbelievably expensive.
I think this takes part of the reason for the expense away. |
|
| |
Engine failure is not fatal. |
|
| |
I assume the rotor would be on the bottom, pulling the sub down, not on the top, pushing it down. I've never seen an "aircopter" with its rotors on bottom. |
|
| |
//Engine failure is not fatal.// |
|
| |
If you were deep enough and your engines failed,
wouldn't the sudden change in pressure be
dangerous? |
|
| |
If it holds an internal pressure of 1atm, I don't see why a
rapid ascent would cause any problems. But it still doesn't
make sense. |
|
| |
That's what they said about all of the great inventions. |
|
| |
With the exception of the coin stamping machine, of
course. |
|
| |
Doesn't make sense due to the astounding
inefficiency? |
|
| |
We would be so happy, me and you. No one there to tell
us what to do... |
|
| |
// in that it controls its depth rather than its height by adjusting its buoyancy//
It was looking quite good up to that point.
You realise this is baked by small ROVs? |
|
| |