Concrete submarines!
alums...@aol.com
design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
Concrete has some interesting hydrodynamic (right word?) and acoustic
properties, according to the article. It takes pressure well and it doesn't
give the kind of sonar return a metal hull would.
Might be an interesting littoral platform -- and useful for special ops if
it's really that much harder to detect.
Regards...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Stanley
alums...@aol.com wrote:
> The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
> this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
> just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
> remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
> forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
>
This would not be the first time that there had been concrete boats. During WW1
they built concrete ships in Wilmington, NC. In fact in the early 60s when the
USS North Carolina was being put in her permanent berth in Wilmington the stern
hit one of these ships that was being used as a floating restraint and cracked
the concrete hull. Last I heard this concrete ship is now somewhere in Florida.
--
Stanley
Web site: http://bigfoot.com/~so
You are never without a friend when you know God.
Dave Champney
>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
[snip]
I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
(30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
--
Dave Champney
(Take out the obvious to respond by email)
Bill Rhodes
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9812STMIP.html
alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
> this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
> just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
> remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
> forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
>
David Manley
Dave Champney wrote in message <3648833e....@news.geccs.gecm.com>...
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe,
a
>>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
Heard something about this from a friend in MOD in 1986. Looked promising in
a quirky sort of way, but too outlandish for the times.
DM
Malcolm
Dave Champney writes
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
>>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
>[snip]
>
>(30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
>repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
No, you're probably right. Ferro-concrete hulls have been used for
motor yachts for some time. There used to be one parked near my office
- called, of course, Pharoah.
>
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.
I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
em...@olypen.com
alums...@aol.com wrote:
> ...would you believe, a
> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
Should submerge like a rock.
Michael
Juergen Nieveler
alums...@aol.com schrieb in Nachricht <729ovl$l0k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
>this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
>just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
>remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
>forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
Why would somebody want VLS shkval-launchers? Or how would you distinguish
them from Trident-5-silos? Remember, the shkval is so fast it has to be
fired straight and true at the enemy, and it is supposed to carry a nuclear
warhead. Would you REALLY want to fire it straight up? If it hits something,
you´re history, if it doesn´t hit, it goes ballistic. Sounds to me like the
most useless idea of the month... barely beating a VLS MKS-launcher :-)
Juergen Nieveler
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/S d+ s:- a->? C++$>++++$ UHL--@ P- L+ E--- W-@ N++@ o? K?
w++++$ O---($) !M V-- PS+ PE++ Y+>++ PGP++>+++ t+ 5++ X++ R*
tv+ b+++ DI++ D++ G>++++ e* h+ !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
PGP-Key available under
www.netcologne.de/~nc-nievelju/
Steve Atkatz
keyboard & wrote:
>Concrete has some interesting hydrodynamic (right word?) and acoustic
>properties, according to the article. It takes pressure well and it doesn't
>give the kind of sonar return a metal hull would.
>
I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
it where I have some very real concerns.
A to Z
***************************************
Age and Treachery will always prevail
Over Youth and Vigor. DBF!!!
dhuf...@awod.com
was clad with stainless steel. I wonder at what depth this concrete hull
sweats seawater?
One of the early ferro-cement hulls is at Seacliff Beach State Park in
California, near Santa Cruz. It was a dance hall for years after being
beached in IIRC the late Thirties. I played on it as a fishing pier in my
childhood. Now the hull is barriered off limits with only the wooden pier
useable.
In article <729ovl$l0k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
alums...@aol.com wrote:
> The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
> this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
> just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
> remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
> forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
>
> Concrete has some interesting hydrodynamic (right word?) and acoustic
> properties, according to the article. It takes pressure well and it doesn't
> give the kind of sonar return a metal hull would.
>
> Might be an interesting littoral platform -- and useful for special ops if
> it's really that much harder to detect.
>
> Regards...
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
Andrew C. Toppan
> I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
> (30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
Although some yachts are indeed ferrocement (the preferred term for
"concrete" in this application), I'd say it's only a very small fraction -
perhaps 1% or less.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Mark Andrew Spence
>
> I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
> (30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
> repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
>
I believe they are called "ferro-cement" ships . . . .
M.S.
John Campbell
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
> >design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
>
> I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
> (30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
> repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
>
Ferro-concrete is a common material for yachts. It is a composite
material
with the steel providing the tensile strength and the concrete providing
the compressive strength.
Assuming (and I don't have the figures handy) the compression modulus of
the concrete is high enough it should work. Apparently the problem with
fiberglass is preventing compression of the structure reducing boyancy
(sp?)
sub goes deeper, more compression etc.
Regards
JC
dsfkjl;iopioprwejklsdfjklsdkjlsdf
Sounds like a good idea. The sweating of the concrete can be
eliminated, and the strength doubled, by the use of the supercrtical
CO2 processing of the hull in a (very large) autoclave.
There is practically no limit to the size of the hull if the autoclave
is fabricated using the "ribbon wound" pressure vessel technology; the
design and fabrication of the heads would be the main sticking point.
Acoustic properties might be adjusted by the incorporation of
aggregate particles with structured void densities (composite rho-V
design techniques)
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:45:18 GMT, dhuf...@awod.com wrote:
>The nuclear submarine with ~6" aluminum hull sweated seawater until the hull
>was clad with stainless steel. I wonder at what depth this concrete hull
>sweats seawater?
>
>One of the early ferro-cement hulls is at Seacliff Beach State Park in
>California, near Santa Cruz. It was a dance hall for years after being
>beached in IIRC the late Thirties. I played on it as a fishing pier in my
>childhood. Now the hull is barriered off limits with only the wooden pier
>useable.
>
>
>In article <729ovl$l0k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> alums...@aol.com wrote:
>> The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
Thomas Schoene
<72aflu$9j7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> The nuclear submarine with ~6" aluminum hull sweated seawater until
the hull
> was clad with stainless steel. I wonder at what depth this
concrete hull
> sweats seawater?
Run this one by me again. A nuclear submarine with an aluminum hull.
Not in the US Navy. I don't think this is something even the
Russians would have considered. AFAIK, nuclear subs have been built
of two materials, steel and titanium.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Peter Skelton
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
>>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
>[snip]
>
>I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
>(30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
>repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
There are a fair number in North America too.
Concrete yachts are reinforced with light wire mesh (some of the
do-it-urself designs specified chicken wire, I don't know if this was
general). If salt water gets at the wire, chemicals in the concrete tend to
produce serious corrosion at the boundary quickly. Because of this, and the
need to bind relacement mesh with the original, repair is not for the
uneducated amateur.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
dhuf...@awod.com
assertion simmer for a few days, then post the name if it isn't already
obvious.
In article <01be0d1f$3fd62a60$a17d4e0c@default>,
--
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
tuo...@stektnospam.oulu.fi
I've seen boats made of concrete, and they don't behave
like subs at all.
-Tuoppi-
--
The fact that windows is one of the most popular ways to operate a computer
means that evolution has made a general fuckup and our race is doomed.
** All spam recycled to /dev/null by procmail **
rca...@uswest.net
Concrete has less than one tenth the strength of steel or aluminum,
which are equivalant on a weight basis, with aluminum having the edge
for a sub, as the thicker sections, density Al 2.7 v Fe 9.0, for equal
weight, give better rigidity and resistance to buckling, when loaded,
as subs are, in compression. In tension, that does not matter.
Titanium is 40% better. Concrete will never make a decent sub, and
while it had a brief vogue, for home made boats, it never really
proved to work very well. Standard strenght for highway concrete is
2500 psi at 28 days. More is obtainable with care, and a small pour I
had done [three truckloads] tested at about 6000. The range for steel
is 40kpsi to more than 200kpsi, but that is usually for wire, and
exotic stuff does not work for hulls. Welding, for one thing.
Figure 50 to 100 for submarine steel, depending on if you are talking
a WWII boat, or today. HY80 and 100 are named for the strength.
While the hull will be loaded in compression, there is no guarantee
every part of it will be all the time, and the tensile strength
portland cement is near zero, and if reenforcing steel takes that
load, the concrete will crack. US subs were bent several feet, in
the direction of assuming 'banana shape' from depth charges, without
appearant damage to the hull. The ones that got big dents put in
them... I am willing to believe proof that it will work, but Popular
Mechanics has been loaded with BS, cool sounding stuff that has
never happened, for more than four decades. The rents subscribed it
when I was a kid, and I glance at the cover to this day. Still the
same old BS. With all due respect, PM is the national inquirer of
the technical fields. I do not say it is total BS without even reading
the article, and it is true that concrete does not have to be made
with portland cement. Some have used the resins used with fiberglass
and the stuff you get is considerable stronger. I fail to see any real
advantage, except in the area of sonan tealth, maybe. With whales
and fish it is air bubbles inside that creat the sonar return as the
speed of sound in air and water, or steel are much different. I
suspect that in the case of a sub, more of the reflection is from
the air inside than the outer surface. I do know that sharks are
very stealthy, as they have no 'flotation tank'/ I know that flooded
wrecks show on sonar as well. If the material, whatever it is,
transmits sound well there will be an echo off the air inside, even
if the speed of sound is the same as water, the best case. This
ng has many who know a bit there, but the principles are well known,
if the details of signal processing are secrets. Waves are waves.
Concrete with gas bubbles in it might be of advantage, at the expense
of interior volumn.
If the idea has merit it might lie in submarine supertankers. They
would make no wake, energy
consuming to a nontrivial degree, that, and be immune to weather.
It sounds really unlikely. Submarine design is sort of a hobby with
me, they are my favorite ship, and I have owned a small construction
company, and own some technical books on both steel and concrete.
I have read a number of articles on concrete at sea. I don't claim to
have every last answer, but I have some pertinant education in the
appropriate areas, and I would bet some beer, if not the ranch, that
the idea is without merit. Somebody, the Arthur Little Corp made a
lead balloon, as well as a silk purse from 100 pounds of sow's ears,
but..
Casady
>The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you believe, a
>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things? Also,
>this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored thrusters,
>just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
>remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
>forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
>
>Concrete has some interesting hydrodynamic (right word?) and acoustic
>properties, according to the article. It takes pressure well and it doesn't
>give the kind of sonar return a metal hull would.
>
>Might be an interesting littoral platform -- and useful for special ops if
>it's really that much harder to detect.
>
>Regards...
>
Jon Roach
> Yes, in the U.S. Navy. It is a one-off (that we know of). I'll let my
> assertion simmer for a few days, then post the name if it isn't already
> obvious.
NR-1, perchance?
--
Paul J. Adam
Dave
pretty well with the pressure changes associated with depth excursions, but
cement or any other type of low bond strength (i.e., non-crystalline)
material would fail miserably as a result of the forces. Problem #2: aint
no submariners I know would go to sea on a stone boat.
--
Dave
"We must watch the bastards closely, and strike quickly when one of them
wanders a little too far from the herd".
em...@olypen.com wrote in message <72a7ph$2ka$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <729ovl$l0k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> alums...@aol.com wrote:
>> ...would you believe, a
>> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
>
>Should submerge like a rock.
>
>Michael
Jeff Crowell
> I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
> it where I have some very real concerns.
From an engineering standpoint, I would not want to be aboard a
concrete sub during any sort of depth charge attack or, for that
matter, any sort of shockwave event. Concrete is very strong
in compression, but it is also notoriously brittle. You need
toughness to go along with the strength.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# WCD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x O #
# jcro...@hpbs3354.boi.hp.com #
#######################################################
Dave
any other type of material. The echo from an active transmission comes
primarily from the density difference between the air inside the boat and
the surrounding sea water. The hull material itself contributes only to
what we call echo-quality which is a subjective quality and contributes to
the "sound" of the return, not it's relative strength. That's the weakness
of hull coatings, they do nothing to reduce the target strength (the
percentage of the sound source level that is returned in the form of an
echo). A big ass boat is still a big ass boat no matter what it is mabe of.
A wooden submarine would still give a great echo.
--
Dave
"We must watch the bastards closely, and strike quickly when one of them
wanders a little too far from the herd".
dsfkjl;iopioprwejklsdfjklsdkjlsdf wrote in message
<3649207f...@news.erols.com>...
>
>Sounds like a good idea. The sweating of the concrete can be
>eliminated, and the strength doubled, by the use of the supercrtical
>CO2 processing of the hull in a (very large) autoclave.
>
>There is practically no limit to the size of the hull if the autoclave
>is fabricated using the "ribbon wound" pressure vessel technology; the
>design and fabrication of the heads would be the main sticking point.
>
>Acoustic properties might be adjusted by the incorporation of
>aggregate particles with structured void densities (composite rho-V
>design techniques)
>
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:45:18 GMT, dhuf...@awod.com wrote:
>
>>The nuclear submarine with ~6" aluminum hull sweated seawater until the
hull
>>was clad with stainless steel. I wonder at what depth this concrete hull
>>sweats seawater?
>>
>>One of the early ferro-cement hulls is at Seacliff Beach State Park in
>>California, near Santa Cruz. It was a dance hall for years after being
>>beached in IIRC the late Thirties. I played on it as a fishing pier in my
>>childhood. Now the hull is barriered off limits with only the wooden pier
>>useable.
>>
>>
>>In article <729ovl$l0k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> alums...@aol.com wrote:
>>> The December issue of Popular Mechanics blew my mind...would you
believe, a
>>> design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
Also,
>>> this boat design had a couple of other cool features: Vectored
thrusters,
>>> just like the layout of a Harrier jet, and VLS tubes for Shkval torps --
>>> remember those babies? -- in addition to the normal complement of
>>> forward-firing tubes for conventional fish.
>>>
>>> Concrete has some interesting hydrodynamic (right word?) and acoustic
>>> properties, according to the article. It takes pressure well and it
doesn't
>>> give the kind of sonar return a metal hull would.
>>>
>>> Might be an interesting littoral platform -- and useful for special ops
if
>>> it's really that much harder to detect.
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>>
Dave
like...catastrophic. Where it retains it's shape right up until it falls
apart, whereas steel tends to bend and stretch? This is the case with other
applications I have heard of ( specifically, bike frames) and wouldn't it
apply here?
--
Dave
"We must watch the bastards closely, and strike quickly when one of them
wanders a little too far from the herd".
rca...@uswest.net wrote in message <36495163...@news.uswest.net>...
Kelvin Mok
<jc...@nospam.corplink.com.au> wrote:
>>
>
>Ferro-concrete is a common material for yachts. It is a composite
>material
>with the steel providing the tensile strength and the concrete providing
>the compressive strength.
>
Grand Canal are made from concrete. The Chinese love them. Pour the
stuff into a mold and out pops a complete low cost low maintenance
boat.
KelvinMok
klmok@.shaw.wave.ca
Charles Gray
<jeff_crow...@hp.com> wrote:
>Steve Atkatz wrote:
>> I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
>> it where I have some very real concerns.
>
>From an engineering standpoint, I would not want to be aboard a
>concrete sub during any sort of depth charge attack or, for that
>matter, any sort of shockwave event. Concrete is very strong
>in compression, but it is also notoriously brittle. You need
>toughness to go along with the strength.
>
Having read the article, I would not want to be onboard the
sub-- the stated design actually sinks to the bottom, even when its
ballest tanks are blown, except with the aid of its propulsion system.
On the other hand, the design seemed to me more of a "mobile
mine" system. The article stated that the primary method of using the
sub would be for it to move to an area, land on the ocean floor, and
then wait for ships to move into it's area,where upon it would launch
the "rocket torpedoes" the Russian's have designed to kill the ship.
My question is this-- what does the sub do then? It seems the
idea is based on the sub killing several enemy ships and then dying
itself, which cannot be good for crew morale.
Mark Borgerson
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Concrete has less than one tenth the strength of steel or aluminum,
> which are equivalant on a weight basis, with aluminum having the edge
> for a sub, as the thicker sections, density Al 2.7 v Fe 9.0, for equal
> weight, give better rigidity and resistance to buckling, when loaded,
> as subs are, in compression. In tension, that does not matter.
> Titanium is 40% better. Concrete will never make a decent sub, and
> while it had a brief vogue, for home made boats, it never really
> proved to work very well. Standard strenght for highway concrete is
> 2500 psi at 28 days. More is obtainable with care, and a small pour I
> had done [three truckloads] tested at about 6000.
Let's remember that 2500 PSI is equivalent to a depth of about
5000 feet in the ocean. If you design for 2000 feet, you design
for 1000PSI (with a BIG safety margin, if you put people inside).
The drawing in the PM article indicate that the concrete
is reinforced with Kevlar and looks to be 1 to 2 feet thick.
Interesting concept--but DON'T sign me up for a test ride--
If I ever got on a real, operating, military sub, I'd
probably have to sign away my right to speculate about them
on this newsgroup!!!
Mark Borgerson
unicorn
dave.c...@gecm.obvious.com says...
>>design for a small D/E submarine made outta concrete, of all things?
>
>I was told once by a keen yachtsman that in France many medium size
>(30-40ft) yachts were made of concrete. Apparently very easy to
>repair. I might have remembered wrong though!
>
One winner of the famous Sydney-Hobart ocean yacht race in the 1970s was the
yacht Helsaul.
What made her different was that she was a concrete hull, in a time when that
was a rare construction material for an ocean going racing yacht.
Her nickname was The Flying Footpath.
Regards
Unicorn
rca...@uswest.net
wrote:
>rca...@uswest.net wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Concrete has less than one tenth the strength of steel or aluminum,
>> which are equivalant on a weight basis, with aluminum having the edge
>> for a sub, as the thicker sections, density Al 2.7 v Fe 9.0, for equal
>> weight, give better rigidity and resistance to buckling, when loaded,
>> as subs are, in compression. In tension, that does not matter.
>> Titanium is 40% better. Concrete will never make a decent sub, and
>> while it had a brief vogue, for home made boats, it never really
>> proved to work very well. Standard strenght for highway concrete is
>> 2500 psi at 28 days. More is obtainable with care, and a small pour I
>> had done [three truckloads] tested at about 6000.
><< good stuff snipped>>
>
>Let's remember that 2500 PSI is equivalent to a depth of about
>5000 feet in the ocean. If you design for 2000 feet, you design
>for 1000PSI (with a BIG safety margin, if you put people inside).
Unfortunately the stress on the concrete is what counts, not he
pressure on the hull. Consider a liquid filled tank for a somewhat
similar example. The pressure is proportional to the depth of liquid
inside, but the resulting stress tending to pull the material apart
increases _ withour limit_ as you increase the diameter of the
tank. In the other case for pressure vessels, a sub for example,
the stress will increase without limit with the size. This is why
tanks must be thicker as the diameter grows. The compressive
stress is at ninty degrees to the sea pressure, just as the tensile
stress in a water tower is along the plates, and is resisted by
the thickness, even though the pressure is on the side[the area].
Basically it is stressed more like an arch that a simple column.
Note that the top of an arch the forces are at 90 degrees,to
the force of gravity, and there is no material above it centerpoint,
in some cases, but you cant remove the keystone on the reasoning
that it is supporting no weight, just because there is nothing above
it.This is the simple case of an arch that supports just its own
weight, such as the very big one in St Louis. You can ask what
this has to do with subs, but the point is that it is not that simple.
I will look up the equations, but in the meantime, if the pressure
equaled the stress, where is thickness in your equation?
You don't have it quite right, but I am not sneering. If it was
simple and easy to understand, I would not be having any
trouble explaining it. Compressive stresses can be a bit
more difficult than tensile ones. Consider a one dimentional
[more or less] case. A cable of a given diameter is capable of
exerting a certain pull, and that is it. On the other hand,
consider a column. Your can stack a lot of weight on a
penny, but how tall a column that diameter can you make
before it buckles. Struts of length a few times their length
squash under load, but thin ones buckle, and so will a
sub pressure hull, which will be thin if it floats. The Trieste,
did not have a bouyant pressure hull and it was not thin,
flotation being in the form of an outside tank of gasoline.
A balloon and gondola, in other words. The hull if it fails
will not shrink like a deflating balloon, it will be flattened
like a stepped on beer can. The German U-boat men
used to refer to 'paper depth' where the shape changes
from cigar to sheet of paper. They do shrink, in diameter
for a sub, and length for the column, if loaded within
reason. Failure is instant when it happens, or tries to,
If the hull fails at a point and rips, the rest of it will instantly
flood, and may stay more or less intact, but again, you
can't use the strength figure as is. You can for a tow
bar : engineering isn't always complicated.
Casady
Mike Plunkett
> motor yachts for some time. There used to be one parked near my office
> - called, of course, Pharoah.
>
Yep there was one rotting away in Hooe Lake in Plymouth for many years, though I
think that one was actually a sailing boat. Don't think its there anymore.
Mike
Mike Plunkett
> My question is this-- what does the sub do then? It seems the
> idea is based on the sub killing several enemy ships and then dying
> itself, which cannot be good for crew morale.
True, but this being the Soviets the crew would all be told that their
chances of survival were excellent and that they'd all be home in time for
tea and medals.
Mike
Steve Atkatz
with the keyboard & wrote:
> My question is this-- what does the sub do then? It seems the
>idea is based on the sub killing several enemy ships and then dying
>itself, which cannot be good for crew morale.
>
Several??? I would think that the 1st shkval to hit something directly
above you . . . or, what is the water hammer effect of being ~100M
below when one of them goes off?? IIRC concrete does tend to crack
when hit with a hammer.
Thomas Schoene
<3649F3...@gecm.com>...
Have checked numerous sources, all of which report that NR-1 has an
HY-80 steel hull. So that's not it.
Bill Rhodes
dhuf...@awod.com
In article <3649F3...@gecm.com>,
noj...@gecm.com wrote:
> dhuf...@awod.com wrote:
> > Yes, in the U.S. Navy. It is a one-off (that we know of). I'll let my
> > assertion simmer for a few days, then post the name if it isn't already
> > obvious.
>
> NR-1, perchance?
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
--
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tim McFeely
Atkatz) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:40:19 GMT, nu...@null.net (Charles Gray) fumbled
>with the keyboard & wrote:
>
>> My question is this-- what does the sub do then? It seems the
>>idea is based on the sub killing several enemy ships and then dying
>>itself, which cannot be good for crew morale.
>>
>Several??? I would think that the 1st shkval to hit something directly
>above you . . . or, what is the water hammer effect of being ~100M
>below when one of them goes off?? IIRC concrete does tend to crack
>when hit with a hammer.
To say nothing about the vessel you just holed landing on top of your
dumbass...
>A to Z
>***************************************
>Age and Treachery will always prevail
>Over Youth and Vigor. DBF!!!
Scope's under...
Tim McFeely
Brad Meyer
>
>
>alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
>This would not be the first time that there had been concrete boats. During WW1
>they built concrete ships in Wilmington, NC. (snip of good and interesting facts)
We built concrete barges and sampams for the Vietnamese during that
war.
Brad Meyer
"It is history that teaches us to hope"
-- R.E. Lee
James McGraw
James McGraw
Woody Brison wrote:
> Steve Atkatz wrote:
> > I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
> > it where I have some very real concerns.
>
> A hull sinks or rises in the water depending on whether it's *average*
> density is greater or less than the water surrounding it. You can make
> a hull of steel and steel is lots heavier than water. I'd explain more
> but it's fun imagining the look on some faces. Chew it over.
>
> Wood
Tim McFeely
<william....@lmco.com> wrote:
>Steve Atkatz wrote:
>> I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
>> it where I have some very real concerns.
>
>A hull sinks or rises in the water depending on whether it's *average*
>density is greater or less than the water surrounding it. You can make
>a hull of steel and steel is lots heavier than water. I'd explain more
>but it's fun imagining the look on some faces. Chew it over.
You seem to miss the point. Chief Atkatz has submerged a STEEL hull
once or twice during his career. I imagine he understands the
principles involved.
The Chief was making a joke. The oft times fatalistic attitude held
by Submariners is lost by those who sail serenely on in ignorant
bliss.
>Wood
Woody Brison
Sorry. All sorts or ramifications and hidden meanings might exist to
everyone's messages. I had sincerely supposed we had folks here who
thought concrete was too heavy to be useful as a shipbuilding material.
This wasn't the only person who gave me this impression.
But thanks for pointing that out about submariners and their attitudes.
It sounds very likely true; has to be analogous to space shuttle crews
when they are strapped in and everybody else retreats to a distance of
three miles away for the launch.
Wood
ran...@ix.netcom.com
McFeely) wrote:
>
>The Chief was making a joke. The oft times fatalistic attitude held
>by Submariners is lost by those who sail serenely on in ignorant
>bliss.
Another reason to appreciate surface ships, in addition to surviving
the engagement, is that we have a comprehensible sense of humor and
don't have to explain our jokes or humor. :) candyass indeed! Ha!
random
Dennis
during WWI. I'd have to sit down and figure out whether concrete
submarines would work - or be worthwhile (I assume if they were
worthwhile, someone would have already done it).
As with the RMS Titanic as a RN auxiliary cruiser, my bullsh*t detector
is giving off high readings. :-)
Tim McFeely
<william....@lmco.com> wrote:
>Tim McFeely wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:28:42 -0700, Woody Brison
>> <william....@lmco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Atkatz wrote:
>> >> I don't see any problem with its diving capabilities, it's surfacing
>> >> it where I have some very real concerns.
>> >
>> >A hull sinks or rises in the water depending on whether it's *average*
>> >density is greater or less than the water surrounding it. You can make
>> >a hull of steel and steel is lots heavier than water. I'd explain more
>> >but it's fun imagining the look on some faces. Chew it over.
>>
>> You seem to miss the point. Chief Atkatz has submerged a STEEL hull
>> once or twice during his career. I imagine he understands the
>> principles involved.
>>
>> The Chief was making a joke. The oft times fatalistic attitude held
>> by Submariners is lost by those who sail serenely on in ignorant
>> bliss.
>
>Sorry. All sorts or ramifications and hidden meanings might exist to
>everyone's messages. I had sincerely supposed we had folks here who
>thought concrete was too heavy to be useful as a shipbuilding material.
>This wasn't the only person who gave me this impression.
No need to be sorry. You stated a valid point. You must understand
though that Submariners are not considered 'normal' people. The basic
premise is 'come up as many times as you go down'.
Any jokes about the last do nothing more than show the poster's inane
attempt at gutter humor.
Skimmers can wish,
Airdales can hope;
Ain't nothing more effective,
Than a Submarine on the 'scope.
>But thanks for pointing that out about submariners and their attitudes.
>It sounds very likely true; has to be analogous to space shuttle crews
>when they are strapped in and everybody else retreats to a distance of
>three miles away for the launch.
EB used to be that way, until yard birds were tasked with riding subs
on Alpha and Beta trials. Amazing how much more attention was paid to
the 'little' things. Still amazes me though that ship/pipe fitters
show up for work with 2 wrenches and a pint of Jack Daniels. It is a
damn wonder that the USN has only lost one sub from construction
inadequecies.
a...@dustdevil.com
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:17:57 GMT, alums...@aol.com wrote:
>
>Concrete has less than one tenth the strength of steel or aluminum,
>which are equivalant on a weight basis, with aluminum having the edge
>for a sub, as the thicker sections, density Al 2.7 v Fe 9.0, for equal
>weight, give better rigidity and resistance to buckling, when loaded,
>as subs are, in compression. In tension, that does not matter.
>Titanium is 40% better. Concrete will never make a decent sub, and
Weight to strength is not so important for submarines because the
boyancy needed is marginal. Just use more of it. I think the
brittle nature of concrete is the real concern. Civilian use would
be preferrable. Outside of warfare, underwater concussions are rare.
Porosity could be addressed with some resiliant waterproof coating.
Paul F Austin
a...@dustdevil.com wrote in message <364cd295....@cnews.newsguy.com>...
Strength weight ratio is critical in submarine materials. Every pound you
put into the pressure hull is a pound out of propulsion, control and
payload. Submarines, unlike surface ships are _very_ weight critical.
"people of means-decent folk-should be given more votes
than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists
and indecent folks-people without means."
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
dhuf...@awod.com
plant. There is an anecdote of a boat not properly reballasted after overhaul
and *unable* to submerge.
In article <73v931$7ul$1...@east44.supernews.com>,
Paul F Austin
dhuf...@awod.com wrote in message <740m8j$7qb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>There is lots of lead (Pb) in a submarine engine room, apart from the
reactor
>plant. There is an anecdote of a boat not properly reballasted after
overhaul
>and *unable* to submerge.
>
Yep, it's true... for a while. As equipment is added, the lead comes out.
Not all of it does because some is there for trim but submarines are very
weight sensitive.
dhuf...@awod.com
permanently installed lead in the Engine Room. It is, e.g., a cheap and
effective silencing material, hence the Pb sheet wrapped around foundations.
In article <74278l$1mu$1...@east44.supernews.com>,
"Paul F Austin" <pau...@digital.net> wrote:
>
Paul F Austin
dhuf...@awod.com wrote
>I am not sure that I understand your comment. A typical submarine has lots
of
>permanently installed lead in the Engine Room. It is, e.g., a cheap and
>effective silencing material, hence the Pb sheet wrapped around
foundations.
New design submarines have significant weight margin designed in so that new
equipment can be added. Lead is used to get the bouyancy and trim right. As
equipment is added over the life of the boat, the "fixed" ballast is
removed. Sometimes as equipment is removed due to changes in mission, lead
ballast is added. Read Friedman's "US Submarines since 1945". He mentions
it briefly in the Introduction. That's not to say there aren't other uses
for lead. As you point out, it's a good damping material although there are
better.
dhuf...@awod.com
S5W then I can say from experience, if not authority, that "weight margin"
and "new equipment" are not related. Re-ballasting is not required, e.g.,
for either an empty or full torpedo room, a change in weight of about a
hundred tons. In twenty-five years I didn't see/recognize variations in
machinery specs of 100 tons. I think that would be on the order of adding
another or removing the existing red gear. YMMV, see my .sig.
Err..."other uses for lead"? Like what? Sheilding? Naaah.
In article <744p7a$obk$1...@east44.supernews.com>,
"Paul F Austin" <pau...@digital.net> wrote:
>
Tim McFeely
>What are "new design submarines" relative to "since 1945"? If that includes
>S5W then I can say from experience, if not authority, that "weight margin"
>and "new equipment" are not related. Re-ballasting is not required, e.g.,
>for either an empty or full torpedo room, a change in weight of about a
>hundred tons. In twenty-five years I didn't see/recognize variations in
>machinery specs of 100 tons. I think that would be on the order of adding
>another or removing the existing red gear. YMMV, see my .sig.
A little high on the weight in the room.
IIRC, the dive comps for a UNIFORM loadout was ~ 96,000 lbs or 48 tons
on 688 class submarines. And while were at it, figure 30,000 lbs for
personnel and their seabags, 100 lbs for pyros, small arms ammo, and
noisemakers, plus a goodly high number of lbs for foodstuffs.
Anyway, with the ability to bring on or discharge several hundred
thousand lbs of variable ballast as needed, an extra hundred tons here
or there is not a major concern.
>Err..."other uses for lead"? Like what? Sheilding? Naaah.
>--
>Grasping another opportunity to be wrong!
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own