amphibulous said:
Only because Stirling predates fuel cell & I didn't expect anyone to think I was a nitwit who believed Stirlings ran underwater.
amphibulous said:
..These are presented as DIFFERENT options.
And they would be, at first appearance. Why do you presume convergence is impossible,
when I expressly mentioned the prospect of connecting them?
amphibulous said:
And I have to ask, if there is a fuel cell that good, why isn't it being used today?
Oh, IDK, because nuclear is better? Or because subs haven't been around as long?
amphibulous said:
What type of fuel cell do you mean?
Something akin to
this, invented in 1839, for a start. Not superb, but no worse than early batteries to early subs.
Later, something like
this (hydrogen peroxide bricks, anyone?) or
this, coupled to Stirling rotaries (or Brayton turbines), or possibly
this with Stirling. (Or an RTG & Stirling, in the 20hC.)
Exactly when these would appear, I'd only be speculating; if fuel cell research is accelerated due to demand in subs, I suspect the above types would appear much sooner than OTL.
Alternate History Geek said:
Not hydrogen peroxide bricks, but maybe sodium or barium peroxide bricks?
You've gone way beyond my grasp of chemistry, there.
Riain said:
was the iron shipbuilding for the Great Western good enough for a boat needing enough watertight integrity to dive underwater and resurface?
Judging by the examples built (Bauer's & Hunley's), I'd say it's possible. Perhaps a stretch, but possible. (How big a stretch, I'll admit ignorance to.)
Riain said:
what would propel such a boat
And that is the issue. For a start, Stirling engines, fuelled by whale oil (or coal gas?) &/or crude batteries. Then by early, crude fuel cells (instead of batteries) & Stirlings. Later, better fuel cells alone, perhaps coupled to Stirlings as a variety of hybrid.
amphibulous said:
That you can make an iron hull strong enough for a surface ship does not mean that you make one strong enough (and light enough) for a practical submarine.
Practical? Compared to what? To a '40s fleet boat? Or to the 1900 A-class?
amphibulous said:
Then there is the issue of pumps for ballast tanks, storing air
And you presume operations must be carried on in exactly the same fashion as OTL why?

And from the very first boat built why?
amphibulous said:
Given that you are now trying to claim that Stirling cell subs in the 1830s
I'm not. You are, because you clearly think I'm a complete moron.

If so, why don't you just go away & stop wasting your time? (Not to mention mine.)