h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Internal combustion engines require oxygen to operate,
which means that diesel submarines must shut off the
engines and run on battery power when they dive. This
limits how long they can go without surfacing. Nuclear
submarines are expensive to build and maintain, and are
only practical for
the largest submarine designs.
Rockets operate in outer space by carrying oxygen with
their fuel. Also, oxy-fuel torches can burn underwater
because they have their oxygen supply independent of the
air.
A submarine could carry oxygen tanks for the engine to be
used in place of plain air. An engine designed to run on
pure oxygen would produce several times the power of one
that runs on air. This means that the engine would be
much smaller, but would have to be able to withstand the
stronger forces. The space occupied by the batteries in a
traditional submarine could hold this engine and the
oxygen tanks.
Exhaust could be vented to the outside, even underwater,
as many surface boats vent their exhaust underwater. The
higher pressures at submarine depths may require the
exhaust to be pumped out, but it would not need to be
stored to vent at the surface.
An engine could not interchange between atmospheric air
and bottled oxygen due to the differences in compression
and displacement. the submarine would would have to use
bottled oxygen on the surface or have a traditional engine
for use on the surface in addition to the engine for
underwater.
This has been thought about before
http://en.wikipedia...ependent_propulsion
...And no one is making them anymore. Coincidence? [Custardguts, May 14 2015]
Japanese Li Ion Subs
http://archive.defe...itch-Sub-Propulsion
[bs0u0155, May 15 2015]
[link]
|
| |
See link. Air Independent Propulsion isn't a new idea. |
|
| |
Most or all of the combinations/permutations for using internal combustion engines, and carting oxidiser inside the sub have been tried. Some to moderate success. |
|
| |
.... The method you propose isn't, I think, new, or novel, and certainly I would think of it as widely known to exist. |
|
| |
Near the end of WWII, the Germans produced several
experimental designs by Walter, which used hyydrogen peroxide.
They had limited success, mainly because hi-test peroxides in a
confined space are a Bad Thing. The British followed up the idea
in the 1950's, again with limited success. The idea was obsoleted
by the advent of seagoing fission powerplants. |
|
| |
It might have some application for subs too small to house a
reactor, but as stated it is both Baked and Widely Know To Exist,
at least among those aquainted with submarine technology. |
|
| |
For the HalfBakery, this Idea should be about using a
nuclear reactor to generate electricity to desalt and then
electrolyze seawater, to obtain the oxygen that can then
be used in a combustion engine to move the submarine. |
|
| |
^, but I was thinking fuel cell : on the surface, run the fuel cell on a hydrocarbon and the atmosphere, to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, then submerge and run off the hydrogen and oxygen. Figuring 65% efficiency of electrolyzation, and 50% efficiency for a fuel cell running on pure h2 and o2, that's not too bad. |
|
| |
Or you could run a syngas method to turn a hydrocarbon into hydrogen, and extract (mostly) oxygen from the atmosphere through pressure-swing absorption, which would probably be more efficient. |
|
| |
<Air independent propulsion isn't a new idea>
Sorry, failed to do adequate research beforehand. |
|
| |
// failed to do adequate research beforehand. // |
|
| |
A Mortal Sin, which is rarely, if ever, forgiven, and NEVER unpunished
... |
|
| |
hmm, diesel electric submarines are still being built. In
fact their low cost relative to nuclear submarines offers
advantages. Mainly, that you can go through several
generations and incorporate all the latest kit, meaning
you have a much more up-to-date sub in most areas, if
not propulsion. |
|
| |
Anyhow, the traditional diesel-electric submarine is a
fairly staid beast. Marine diesels, lead acid batteries,
electric motor, done. The energy density of Lead acid is
awful, 0.17 MJ/kg or 0.56 MJ/l depending upon which is
more important in subs, not sure. Why not go for broke
and do some water electrolysis? The energy density of
compressed Hydrogen is waaaay better at 142 MJ/Kg.
Now you'd have to store the oxygen as well, but it's still
way ahead. So marine diesels, electrolysis, compressed
gas tanks, fuel cell, electric motor, done. |
|
| |
// compressed Hydrogen // |
|
| |
// electrolysis, compressed gas tanks, fuel cell // |
|
| |
Electrolysis, OK. But not outstandingly energy-efficient. Compressed flammable gas on a submarine ? Avoid if possible. Fuel cells ? Not a particularly mature technology. |
|
| |
Lead-acid cells may have an awful energy density, but they are very simple and well understood (and reliable) devices. And they pretty much package up the electrolysis/gas production/fuel cell in one unit. |
|
| |
Anything you are intending to take with you when you seal yourself in a hermetic chamber and submerge under fifty metres of water needs to be five-nines reliable, simple to repair, and duplicated or preferably triplicated. It's no coincidence that diesel-electric boats still have twin propulsion trains. |
|
| |
hmm, H2 at industry standard compression is 4.5 MJ/l, you'll
need half the volume again for O2 so, that's 3 MJ/l ish. 60%
efficient electrolysis and 70% efficient fuel cell. Ignoring the
fuel cell and electrolysis gear, 'cause I don't know how big
they are, gives you about 2.6 MJ/l. Which is 15 fold better
than batteries. Hell of an advantage. |
|
| |
Aluminum would be a great fuel for a sub of this sort: once the reaction got up to heat it could strip oxygen away from water. |
|
| |
So will carbon, vide the water-gas/produce-gas cycle. Sure you can
split water, but you need to desalinate it first. |
|
| |
Consider: you are in a hermetically sealed container, outside of which
is sea water, available for cooling, so you can reject heat easily. There
is a requirement to maintain a habitable environment in a useful
proportion of the volume (Oxygen, CO2, CO, no toxic gases, bearable
temperatures). |
|
| |
Your resources are limited to what's inside the hull when the hatch is
closed, plus unlimited free brine. |
|
| |
Devise a mechanical, chemical or electrochemical system to provide
reliable life-support and propulsion. |
|
| |
Answers on the back of an envelope, please. Write in ink, via a pen if
at all possible (green crayon is acceptable if your current institution
will not permit you access to sharp objects). Show all rough working. |
|
| |
Turn over your papers now. |
|
| |
No, you'll have to wait until lunchtime now. No snacking between
meals. |
|
| |
Yeah, not a lot of downsides to lead acid, since
you need ballast to make the sub sink anyway. An
improvement in energy density in terms of kWh/kg
probably isn't important for a sub. An
improvement
if term of volumetric density (kWh/L) would be
worth pursuing. |
|
| |
Lithium-Ion provides a huge improvement in
kWh/kg, but also provides reasonable
improvement in kWh/L, so might be worth
considering now that larger batteries are
becoming available They still have a significantly
higher risk or exothermic self-destruction,
especially when damaged. |
|
| |
Question: is it true that some submarines use
their lead-acid battery banks strategically placed
to increase survivability in case of a torpedo
strike? |
|
| |
//Lithium-Ion provides a huge improvement in kWh/kg, but
also provides reasonable improvement in kWh/L, so might
be worth considering// |
|
| |
The problem with fully baked thinking like that is that other
people do it <link> |
|
| |