Non-nuclear options: What is best for submarines?

Riain said:
no way on gods green earth that a practical sub can be built in the early 1800s, let alone a good one. A submarine requires the internal combustion engine
So you reject the very idea of Stirling power? Or battery or fuel cell boats in, say, 1850? Despite the several experiments? (Yes, spar torpedoes were a drawback.:rolleyes:)
 
I reject that a decent sub could be built in the 1830s when the first paddlewheel steamship SS Great Western entered service in 1838, the screw propeller didn't power a warship until 1845 and the first ironclad warship entered service in 1859. The background technology to mount a Stirling engine into was not mature enough until WW1 at least.
 
The submarine only achieved reliability in the 1900s...

...After a very long development period.

I've come across a Spanish wooden submarine and submarines in the 1870s attempted by Peru and (possibly) Bolivia. Also a good Russian one. But it was the US, UK and Germany, that really sorted out the problems before the Great War/WW1.

Ironically, it was a Scots engineer who patented the first workable snorkel concept in 1908.

But few believed me when I used it in HMS Heligoland...:rolleyes:

AIP systems in the nineteenth century are really too early. It's a bit like a Roman legionary with a boom box - not enough technological knowledge around.

Sorry...
 

amphibulous

Banned
At best, I'd say any peroxide would need to be a "lower test" variety (closer to hair dye?), or in a less volatile form (solid?).

Oh, sure: you're going to people shovelling solid peroxide. In a submarine. That'll be a joy!

As for trying to get energy out of hair dye... good luck.
 

amphibulous

Banned
So you reject the very idea of Stirling power? Or battery or fuel cell boats in, say, 1850? Despite the several experiments? (Yes, spar torpedoes were a drawback.:rolleyes:)

There is no such thing as "Stirling power". A Stirling engine is a way of extracting work from a power source, just like a turbine is. Turbines can run off nuclear reactors or coal or oil; ditto Stirlings - so you have to say what the fuel source is, and consider the air supply. A few C21st Stirling engines can function practically underwater but they are themselves extremely advanced technology and rely on the submarine having the ability to manufacture liquid oxygen...

Trying to get this technology in the C19 by saying "They'll spend more money on it" is asb.
 

amphibulous

Banned
I though the 1800s bit was a typo, sorry. I'll have to backflip, there is no way on gods green earth that a practical sub can be built in the early 1800s, let alone a good one.​

Next week: hypersonic stealth bombers in the Boer War!
 
Riain said:
I reject that a decent sub could be built in the 1830s when the first paddlewheel steamship SS Great Western entered service in 1838, the screw propeller didn't power a warship until 1845 and the first ironclad warship entered service in 1859.
Let's see... Great Western was iron-hulled, so an iron-hulled sub need not wait for iron armor (or anything like it). Screw propller ideas/designs date to the 1790s (John Fitch comes to mind). Why, pray explain, must a hypothetical design await OTL development?
amphibulous said:
There is no such thing as "Stirling power".
:rolleyes: So "Diesel power" doesn't exist, either?:confused:

Since the proposition was a sub needed "gasoline or diesel" engines, why, I repeat, can Stirlings not serve just as well?

And, ultimately, why not in conjunction with high-operating-temperature fuel cells? (As a variety of hybrid drive.) Or, as already asked, a radiological heat source? (If not in the 1850s...tho I wonder if the idea of radium, or something, producing heat occurred to anyone.)
amphibulous said:
Oh, sure: you're going to people shovelling solid peroxide. In a submarine. That'll be a joy!
Compared to rowing by hand?:rolleyes: Or as a fuel brick, akin to a candle, for a fuel cell...?
amphibulous said:
get energy out of hair dye
Now you're being ridiculous. Notice I said "closer to".:rolleyes: As opposed to the extremely corrosive & dangerous stuff (described as "high test").:rolleyes:
 
The RN early on did have steam powered subs, not very good BUT...if you could get adequate batteries made in the 1800s you could have steam powered submersibles. Diesel electrics will have to wait until later - remember early boat were gasoline engine powered (shudder)
 

amphibulous

Banned
There is no such thing as "Stirling power". A Stirling engine is a way of extracting work from a power source, just like a turbine is. Turbines can run off nuclear reactors or coal or oil; ditto Stirlings - so you have to say what the fuel source is, and consider the air supply.
:rolleyes: So "Diesel power" doesn't exist, either?:confused:

This is silly. A diesel is always going to uses some sort of fuel that requires oxidation. But when you say "A Stirling engine" you have said nothing. Once again: turbines can powered by coal, oil, solar, or nuclear power - ditto for Stirlings. So saying just "the submarine runs on the magical unicorn energy provided by a stirling engine" is meaningless. And in your case you have said less than that, because the context made it clear that you think a Stirling engine will work as a submerged engine for a submarine. While every practical alternative for fueling a stirling engine in the 1800s requires air....

And, ultimately, why not in conjunction with high-operating-temperature fuel cells? (As a variety of hybrid drive.) Or, as already asked, a radiological heat source? (If not in the 1850s...tho I wonder if the idea of radium, or something, producing heat occurred to anyone.)
If you have the tech to refine radiological ores to practical densities in quantity then you have excellent machines shops and chemistry and can make the full range of 1940s hardware. So if you want subs you'll make diesel electric ones - much more bang for the buck. But pushing this degree of technology into the 1800s is just silly.

The problem is that you have no understanding of technology at all: you don't understand that things have to made, and that basic knowledge of chemistry and metallurgy, and the availability of precision machining set limits.

shoveling solid peroxide in a submarine is silly
Compared to rowing by hand?:rolleyes:
Yes, well: I think you have now astonished absolutely everyone reading this with your complete inability to understand the obvious. Past even the limits set by your original post, which is damn hard... The reasons why a sensible person would collapse laughing at the idea of shoveling solid perxoides in a submarine have nothing to do with the labour involved in shoveling...
 
Last edited:
amphibulous said:
because the context made it clear that you think a Stirling engine will work as a submerged engine for a submarine. While every practical alternative for fueling a stirling engine in the 1800s requires air....
What part of "heat from fuel cell" did you not understand?:rolleyes:

I at no time said or implied using a Stirling-cycle except in specific conditions. Unless you think I'm an idiot.:rolleyes:
amphibulous said:
pushing this degree of technology into the 1800s is just silly.
I'm not. I have no doubt that's pretty impractical. I just don't know when, exactly, it became practical. (You'll notice I said as much.)
amphibulous said:
you have no understanding of technology at all
Really? So merely asking what is & isn't practical, & admitting ignorance, makes me too stupid to even understand the answers, does it, now?:rolleyes:
amphibulous said:
The reasons why a sensible person would collapse laughing at the idea of shoveling solid perxoides in a submarine have nothing to do with the labour involved in shoveling...
And your proposition of using hair dye was a sensible response? Even in the context of the hazard to be avoided?

Who didn't understand?

Neither am I saying it was a good idea, nor, even, a practical one (necessarily). I don't know if peroxide bricks are even possible, let alone practical. Which, if you had the wit to realize, is why I asked.

You appear to have a low tolerance for questions. Or for anything that fails to fall within your preconceived notions.
 
Or, as already asked, a radiological heat source? (If not in the 1850s...tho I wonder if the idea of radium, or something, producing heat occurred to anyone.)

The only way to obtain radioisotopes in sufficient quantity for military RTGs is to manufacture them synthetically, most likely in a nuclear reactor.

Let's say you want an RTG generating 1 kWth of power. Naturally-occurring radium produces about 1/9th of a watt per gram (source), so we'll need 9 kg of radium to produce 1 kWth. Radium is present as a decay product in uranium ore at the rate of 1 gram per 7 tons of pitchblende (source), so to produce a 1 kWth radium RTG we will need to mine 63,000 tons of pitchblende (assuming perfect recovery, which won't happen). The total world uranium mining today is 58,344 tons of U metal (source); pitchblende is typically 70% - 90% UO3 and UO2 (source - pdf), so that corresponds to, at most, 58,344 * ((238 + (3 * 16)) / 238) / 0.7 = 100,158 tons of pitchblende.

So, from a uranium industry set up to service a vast global fleet of nuclear reactors, we will be able to produce less than 2 RTGs per year producing 1 kWth of heat. From a glance at wiki, a German Type U9 sub had a pair of electric motors producing over 1,000 hp each, or 745 kW each. And that's mechanical energy, not heat; I don't know the conversion efficiency off the top of my head for these sorts of machines, but it will certainly be less than 50%. So it would take about (745 * 2 / 0.5) / (100,000 / 63,000) = 1877 years to produce enough radium to fuel one U-boat.
 
Let's see... Great Western was iron-hulled, so an iron-hulled sub need not wait for iron armor (or anything like it). Screw propller ideas/designs date to the 1790s (John Fitch comes to mind). Why, pray explain, must a hypothetical design await OTL development?

Because a submarine is an advancement of these technologies rather than the prototype for them. For example the iron hull, was the iron shipbuilding for the Great Western good enough for a boat needing enough watertight integrity to dive underwater and resurface? And even if it was what would propel such a boat, a coal fired reciprocating steam engine?
 

amphibulous

Banned
What part of "heat from fuel cell" did you not understand?:rolleyes:

You didn't write that. To quote from your OP:

So, fuel cell subs in the early 1840s? Stirling-powered boats in the 1830s..?

..These are presented as DIFFERENT options. BECAUSE THE STIRLING SUBS PRECEDE THE FUEL CELL SUBS.

And I have to ask, if there is a fuel cell that good, why isn't it being used today? What type of fuel cell do you mean?

I think the truth here is that you have no idea what a fuel cell is or what sort of fuel cell could have been made in 1840 - you might as have written
"magical unicorns".

I at no time said or implied using a Stirling-cycle except in specific conditions. Unless you think I'm an idiot.:rolleyes:

Given that you are now trying to claim that Stirling cell subs in the 1830s will be powered by fuel cells developed in the 1840s, what do you think that I think..?
 

amphibulous

Banned
Because a submarine is an advancement of these technologies rather than the prototype for them. For example the iron hull, was the iron shipbuilding for the Great Western good enough for a boat needing enough watertight integrity to dive underwater and resurface? And even if it was what would propel such a boat, a coal fired reciprocating steam engine?

A submarine needs a pressure hull and pumps. The pressure hull has to resist pressure... which is where the name comes from. This pressure increases as you go under the sea... which what submarines do. 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.

Then there is the issue of pumps for ballast tanks, storing air - you need a general tech-up of about 100 years.
 
amphibulous said:
You didn't write that.
Only because Stirling predates fuel cell & I didn't expect anyone to think I was a nitwit who believed Stirlings ran underwater.:rolleyes:
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.:eek:
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?:confused: And from the very first boat built why?:confused:
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.:rolleyes: If so, why don't you just go away & stop wasting your time? (Not to mention mine.)
 
Top