Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Al vortex combustion

[TeslaTony@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/22/00 1:40:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
vulcania@interpac.net writes:

>  Look, I'll be the first to admit I'm a "new idea freak."  I can't help it.
>  I see something that might have potential, and my mind starts wrestling 
with
>  it.  That doesn't mean that every idea I explore is a good one; in fact,
>  most of them don't pan out.  One night I'll be looking at something and
>  thinking "YEAH!"; and the next morning I'll look at it from a new
>  perspective and say "Nah".  That's part of the process I go through
>  whittling initial concepts down to working prototypes.  Sometimes it leads
>  to something that works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Isn't that the process that any good innovator goes through?

>  But I've gotta tell ya: this aluminum vortex technology is good
>  brainstorming material!
>  
>  What really caught my eye was the picture (in the article) of that little
>  test-prototype sitting on the bench blasting out a plume of thrust!  That
>  means the concept is already proven to work.  If this really is a feasible
>  new means of air-independant power generation, then it just might be
>  adaptable to AIP for a PSUB.

Psub dragracing! Yeah!

>  So far, I see two possible means of application: direct thrust and applied
>  power.  Direct thrust implies pushing a hull through the water with a
>  combustor unit mounted thereto; and (one means of) applied power might be 
to
>  use the heat-energy produced in the combustor to drive (something like) a
>  steam turbine.
>  
>  Now, steam turbines have been driving ships for ages; and modern subs use
>  the heat from nuclear power to drive 'em too.  I've seen steam turbines in
>  the THOMAS REGISTER ranging from little-bitty to great-biggy; so they're
>  available in a size we could use.

The problems I have with turbines is that A) they aren't as effficient as 
they could be, except the Tesla Rotary Turbine which could get clogged up 
with the "exhaust" and B) they could get pretty hot pretty fast with an 
aluminum flame blasting into it.

>  I just can't help but think if there was a way to mount the "furnace" of
>  this system in a safe place (like its own pod seperate from the pressure
>  hull); and the controlled application of the heat generated thereby could 
be
>  routed to drive a small steam turbine (or other device converting the
>  heat-energy into mechanical power to drive, say, a propellor) that we'd 
have
>  a useful source of AIP that might potentially produce more power over
>  longer periods of time than battery-motor systems do; and that could lead 
to
>  an advanced form of PSUB.

Anyplace that the thing can be gotten rid of fast is fine with me.

>  I still like battery-motor systems the best; and even if I had a
>  vortex-driven boat, I'd still (probably) have E-motors on it for purposes
>  other than main propulsion.  But this idea is interesting, and at this
>  point, looks feasible to me.

Vortex for "driving on the roads" and batteries for "parking" or those times 
when you just might need to "get out and push".

>  In my wildest dreams, I'd like a small nuclear reactor driving a steam
>  turbine, because nuclear power creates heat-energy without need of air, and
>  will operate for a long time on a single fueling.  The NRC won't let me 
have
>  a nuclear reactor; but this Aluminum Vortex Combustion technology looks 
like
>  it might provide copious air-independent heat energy; operate for a
>  reasonable length of time on storable amounts of fuel; be re-fueled more
>  efficiently than batteries can be recharged; and doesn't have a regulatory
>  commission keeping us from experimenting with it.

Oh goody, nuke power, the type of power that you say "I'm just going sit on 
this thing and hope that I don't crash and get irradiated like a side of 
ham," I think that the Vortex power is far far better for PSubs (because you 
don't get irradiated).

>  And, the mechanism seems like something that can be produced using 
available
>  materials and machine tools: a lathe, some micrometers, stainless steel
>  (maybe a little titanium); inert-gas welding; and good machinist skills.
>  Toss in computer assisted design and machining capabilities, and I don't 
see
>  any reason why this thing aint doable.

Simple is good, lower likelyhood of making a serious mistake or having 
trouble while troubleshooting if there is a mistake.

>  I like it!  Thanks for the info, Suds!
>  
>  VBr,
>  
>  Pat
>  
I haven't read mine yet, but it sounds like it's going to be good!

Anthony