[PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: AIP [air independant propulsion]

["Michael B. Holt" <mholt@richmond.edu>]

Lew Clayman wrote:
> 
> One more search term to eat up my nights and weekends.
> 
> Thanks (I think).  <g>

Yeah,. I know.  I spent weeks poking about in the Internet when I
realized the Walther system would be there.  It is, extensively,
but I've lost all the links.
 
> > > How does it stack up in terms of energy released per unit mass, or per unit
> > > volume?  Both are important on a sub, yeah?
> > I'd think that would depend on what one chose as a fuel.  How
> > dense is hydrogen peroxide?
> 
> Not as dense as I am, apparently. <seg>

I don't know the "fuel density" of the stuff.  My sources all
sort-of dance around it, recalling apparently the problems
the Royal Navy had with their three Walther boats.

I must admit that I tend to shy away from the closed-cycle
and chemical reaction plants.  There's just too much that
hasn't been engineered to the level that one can buy the 
parts from American Science & Surplus or from the local
hardware or auto parts shops.

On the other hand, the Russian Navy built a closed-cycle
gasoline-powered sub ... launched in 1907.  It worked
well enough to stay in service until 1913, when they
scrapped it because they couldn't figure out how to 
dissipate the exhaust gases.

Prior to that, the Russians and a few others have build
boats that were closed-cycle and chemical boilers.  They
all worked afte a fashion.

The Germans went to the Walther system; the Russians built
closed-cycle boats several times after WW2; the Americans
tried the Neff system in SS108, which was never built (and
was dated 1940). 

I'm fairly sure we can do at home the work that the 
Russians did  in 1907.  Given that they had an unlimited
supply of funds, however, they have something none of us
yet have.  

It may be a good idea, but I think I'll stick to
batteries.



Mike