Submarine propulsion using evaporationHow could a simple submarine be built using 100 BC technology?Would future combat submarines come with jet propulsion thruster?Gravity PropulsionHow do I track someone who wants to disappear using a submarine?Two-stage fusion propulsionViability of a Space SubmarineAirship Propulsion SystemPropulsion SystemsLow-efficiency fusion propulsion?Biological Blimps: Propulsion
What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?
How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?
tikz: show 0 at the axis origin
Mage Armor with Defense fighting style (for Adventurers League bladeslinger)
Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus
Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
What's the output of a record cartridge playing an out-of-speed record
How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?
What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?
Today is the Center
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Which models of the Boeing 737 are still in production?
Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )
LaTeX closing $ signs makes cursor jump
Problem of parity - Can we draw a closed path made up of 20 line segments...
Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing
Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
Maximum likelihood parameters deviate from posterior distributions
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Submarine propulsion using evaporation
How could a simple submarine be built using 100 BC technology?Would future combat submarines come with jet propulsion thruster?Gravity PropulsionHow do I track someone who wants to disappear using a submarine?Two-stage fusion propulsionViability of a Space SubmarineAirship Propulsion SystemPropulsion SystemsLow-efficiency fusion propulsion?Biological Blimps: Propulsion
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
$endgroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
science-based engineering underwater
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
edited yesterday
Eth
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
asked yesterday
EthEth
2,7491721
2,7491721
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
$endgroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
answered yesterday
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.4k29209437
90.4k29209437
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
$endgroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
answered yesterday
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,6181833
6,6181833
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
$endgroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.6k15120261
52.6k15120261
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
yesterday
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday