SSS- Simple Submarine Systems

As I said above.

 

Tom- how did i miss the point of this thread???? perhaps you missed the point i was trying to make??
correct me if im not on the same page but the point was "simple sub systems"?...
here is what I PERSONALLY call simple- you can disagree with me but it wont change my mind...these are my ways - but not everyones.

1. no air compressed ballast system.
2. using off the shelf piping-fixtures, seals, intakes, pumps, induction valves,(i.e. a simple one way valve- like a check valve works great!)-mechanical rudder controls, fuel tanks-o-rings, electric components, gearing, hand pumps etc.
3.standard D.E. drive system i.e. golf cart motors. on low batt power.
4. running charging systems form main engine not a genset.
5. using dive planes rudders etc mechanically-i.e. worm gearing,belts pulleys etc- not actuators,
6. using concrete for hull and ballast. (or a smaller steel pressure vessel and an exo-hull)
7. using a simple design i.e. blimp shaped(or making the hull a replica from a ww2 type VII b class sub model)
8. I atm designed for shallow diving.120 ft max- S.O.D.- NOT deep dives.
9. using standard UNSTAMPED-UNAPPROVED plexiglass laminated using epoxy-viewports 2 inches thick.
10...there is more... etc etc ad infinitum.
but easily solved problems.

hope that puts us back on track.

adapt adapt adapt!!

 

For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one increases, the other decreases).

 

In other words, as pressure outside the plastic bag increases, the volume inside the plastic bag decreases, along with bouyancy.

 

I find it a little difficult to dialogue with 1 1/2 months delayed response.

As you wish Tug. Carry on. All the power to 'ya.

-Tom

 

Hi. I've read this about a submersible hydrofoil boat.
http://www.hyper-sub.com/
Their job may be helpful.

 

And some Japanese researchers had finished some work on a hydrofoil submarine. Er.... I think I've read some about a AD report about a hydrofoil submarine by a US. researcher.

 

A couple of design related notes:

Shape
One of the first US submarines built for the military in the early 1900's was described as "riding in a drunk washing machine". The shape of the sub greatly affects the control and natural movement in the water.

Sub builders have found the ideal shape for a submarine is what you see in modern, nuclear subs - a circular cylinder which if cut at any cross section would appear to be a circle. (Think whale).

Thru-hull connections
- I would research magnetic couplings for any mechanical connections which have to go "thru-hull" such as the drive shaft. Built correctly you could eliminate making a hole in the structure all together minus viewports (which I would eliminate completely in favor of cameras and LCD screens) leaving only the hatch.

There is a type of concrete which traps air inside making it much lighter but still strong - a composite of this covered with fiberglass or a composite covering such as kevlar, etc might enable a larger overall structure to be built while keeping the weight down to something more manageable.

 

capt jack,

Why would you want to keep the weight down?

-Tom

 

Granted you want it to be solid / heavy but you would also want to be able to transport it without needing a full blown crane. I suppose you could always fit a gantry with tires on it attached to the rebar and "poured" on w the concrete / ferrocrete. If you designed the fenders as fairings it might even work from a hydro dynamic perspective.

The other option would be to build it in a slipway / flood dock and never move it from the Ocean except for dock use. I guess if you can afford to build one you can afford the crane it's going to need though.

 

cj,

It needs to have a relative density of 1, so it needs to be "heavy".

There are no advantages to building with expensive, light weight materials when building a submarine.

-Tom

 

Hi Capt Jack--if i might respectfully state that it all would depend on what you were using the sub for- as an example-in a civil sub- you would probably stay surfaced more that you were diving..if so-then a ww2 design is optimal, however if you were going to be submerged then I think the blimp shape is optimal as you have noted. for a civil sub my way of thinking is that the ww2 designs are optimal for a cruising civil sub.

 

hey does anyone know if the saddle tanks on the ww2 type VII B subs were used for fuel or for ballast? i have found conflicting info on this....

 

My theory, based upon location of saddle tanks is that they held fuel, fuel being lighter than seawater. The ballast tanks would be placed lower down in the interests of stability.

 

Simple? Cheap?

COTS Submarines?

Be sure you take Pictures!

Lots of Pictures!







Hey! My Stanki Hood Smells Funny?

Maybe I should store it with my Poopy Suit.