Skip to comments.
Steam fires underwater jet engine
New Scientist.com ^
| 29 January 03
| Ben Crystall
Posted on 01/29/2003 3:55:22 PM PST by aculeus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
1
posted on
01/29/2003 3:55:22 PM PST
by
aculeus
To: aculeus
Very cool!!! I wonder how much these engines will cost. However, I won't be completely impressed until they develop (or perfect) a magnetohydrodynamic (catepillar) drive. (Hunt for Red October fans will know what I am talking about)
2
posted on
01/29/2003 3:59:03 PM PST
by
Pyro7480
(+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
To: aculeus
kewl...!
3
posted on
01/29/2003 3:59:40 PM PST
by
Mr. K
(all your TAG LINE are belong to us)
To: Mr. K
perhaps shrillary can use it to clean old crusty....
To: aculeus
Any engine that runs on steam has a problem with response; it takes a while to "rev" up or down. I don't see any jackrabbit throttle response with this design, but it could work for larger vessels.
I still don't quite get the "shock wave" idea. Steam condensing in an air/water mix causes shock waves? How? Why? Is it the latent heat of condensation that is being given up into the stream? Unless it's pretty high-pressure steam, I can't imagine it has enough energy to cause a shock wave sufficient to provide much propulsion.
But it's been a long time since college physics and phase dynamics.
5
posted on
01/29/2003 4:04:58 PM PST
by
IronJack
To: aculeus
Bump
6
posted on
01/29/2003 4:05:28 PM PST
by
Fiddlstix
(Tag Line Service Center: Get your Tag Lines Here! Wholesale! (Cheaper by the Dozen!) Inquire Within)
To: IronJack
Sounds like another cold fusion fiasco
To: Admin Moderator
I goofed and didn't fill in the "source" box.
This is from New Scientist.com and I would be grateful if you executed a "fix".
Many thanks.
8
posted on
01/29/2003 4:09:03 PM PST
by
aculeus
To: aculeus
Pursuit Dynamics itself does not plan to manufacture the engine. Instead, the company hopes...
...to take the company public, sell out, and flee to Tahiti before any one figures out that the design is limited to a theoretical hydromechanical efficiency of 0.005%. ;~)
To: IronJack
If the steam is superheated it might vaporize additional water. But I don't see how wet steam could create shock waves except some sort of reverse cavitation low pressure waves.
The boiler discription does'nt include a superheater so I'm assuming wet steam and scratching my head.
10
posted on
01/29/2003 4:15:09 PM PST
by
Dinsdale
To: *tech_index; sourcery; Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: IronJack
"Any engine that runs on steam has a problem with response; it takes a while to "rev" up or down. I don't see any jackrabbit
throttle response with this design, but it could work for larger vessels.
I still don't quite get the "shock wave" idea. Steam condensing in an air/water mix causes shock waves? How? Why? Is it the
latent heat of condensation that is being given up into the stream? Unless it's pretty high-pressure steam, I can't imagine it has
enough energy to cause a shock wave sufficient to provide much propulsion.
But it's been a long time since college physics and phase dynamics."
good point. pulled out my steam tables, been some years, and reviewed them. i had trouble following the concept. but then i am retired and senile could have missed something.
regards
the dozer
12
posted on
01/29/2003 4:17:45 PM PST
by
dozer7
To: spokeshave
Why would she do that, without parasites, she has no social life.
13
posted on
01/29/2003 4:19:19 PM PST
by
Dead Dog
(Socialism: Theft justified by lies, enforced by murder)
To: aculeus
Expect very low efficiency or our subs would already be using it.
We built these out of a candle and a copper tube 50 years ago.
To: aculeus
Finally, someone invented a cardboard & lard pump!
15
posted on
01/29/2003 4:39:40 PM PST
by
norraad
To: IronJack
Shock waves? It would have to be extremely high-pressure steam. Not the kind you'd find on a speedboat--unless its boiler's thermal efficiency is likewise extremely high, its fuel mighty potent, and its hardware HD. Besides, every steam-into-water system I've seen is extremely noisy.
16
posted on
01/29/2003 4:46:59 PM PST
by
zebra 2
To: spokeshave
Maybe there IS an element of cold fusion going on in this. Bubbles bursting in the right way can generate tempertures in the millions of degrees (though for a very limited mass of water), and some think that small, hard to measure amounts of fusion could be going on in certain types of turbulent bubble streams. Maybe they got the "mix" just right, and the energy output seems very efficient because they are actually getting a boost from small amounts of cold fusion.
( I know, I know, close my tags: </tin_foil_hat> )
17
posted on
01/29/2003 4:51:27 PM PST
by
Weirdad
(Cold Fusion: the ultimate "hydrogen power" (and gee, it's nu-que-lar too) !)
To: John Jamieson
Expect very low efficiency or our subs would already be using it. Well, subs tend to use conservative technology. But in any case, quiet technology. This thing will be noisy as hell. It won't be used by subs.
To: aculeus
Depending on what speeds it's best at, it would make a heck of torpedo drive, assuming it works as advertized. Maybe it's a varient of the Russian "rocket" torpedo motor?
19
posted on
01/29/2003 5:01:36 PM PST
by
El Gato
To: Ronaldus Magnus
>>...to take the company public, sell out, and flee to Tahiti before any one figures out that the design is limited to a theoretical hydromechanical efficiency of 0.005%. ;~) <<
Sounds about right.
What makes water go out back rather than both ways? Smart "shock waves"? Smells fishy, without fish sucked in :-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson