Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:19 am

    The whole point in developing hydrogen peroxide is to make the storage of oxygen stable.

    Introduce a catalyst and you get heat, free oxygen and water. The heat means you get that water in steam form.

    No one will deliver liquid hydrogen because it would be far to expensive to create a cylinder that could handle material at near absolute zero and keep it at that temperature.

    Compressed hydrogen is a very reactive gas but the gas itself only explodes under pressure and simply burns invisibly when exposed to oxygen and heat.

    Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic rocket fuel but requires liquid oxygen to be so.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:The whole point in developing hydrogen peroxide is to make the storage of oxygen stable.

    Introduce a catalyst and you get heat, free oxygen and water. The heat means you get that water in steam form.

    No one will deliver liquid hydrogen because it would be far to expensive to create a cylinder that could handle material at near absolute zero and keep it at that temperature.

    Compressed hydrogen is a very reactive gas but the gas itself only explodes under pressure and simply burns invisibly when exposed to oxygen and heat.

    Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic rocket fuel but requires liquid oxygen to be so.

    Let tnik a bit.

    The H2O2 can be used as oxigen source as well, but the problem is the CO2.

    The hyrdogen burn to water, means it is quite easy to condensate and eject it on a submarine, but anything else burn as Co2+H2O, means you need energy and complicated compressor to eject the exhaust.

    The H2O2 as monopropelan in best case has two times higher energy density than the Lion battery, but I think in real life application it is on par with the batery pack.

    Means that the peroxide and lion battery submarine has the same submerged time for the same fueal/battery mass, but the h2o2 submarine will be noisy, due to the piston engine.

    So, the peroxyde is not an ideal fuel for quiet submarines.


    The hydrogen+oxigen fuel cell doesn't has moving parts, it generating electricity quietly, but it need either extreme pressure to store the hydrogen, or cryogen canisters.

    So, at the end of the day the lion battery + diesel is the most practical solution, everything else will has higher cost.
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Rmf on Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:57 pm

    ofcourse russia is using another fuels for new torpedoes and whitdrawing htp ones like all others, kursk mulitibilion and 180 lives tragedy is enough.  not to mention htp is disaster in taking combat damage , while liquid oxygen in water just turns to gas and dissapates because its surrounded by -water.

    tanks would be outside of pressure hull , in amur 1650 project  tank was to be in the middle of submarine so it was abandoned project , liquid oxygen technology is fully commercial and mature , pound for pound you get much more energy then htp and less volume. fuell cell converts more efficient then any combustion motor , so when you need gaseous oxygen you jsut run it trough intercooler using ocean water to heat it up to -50C and then run cool oxygen trough fuel cell which they use , fuell cells of that type dont like heating and hot oxygen you get from htp , that also eliminates cooling pumps and equipment..

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:28 pm

    Rmf wrote:ofcourse russia is using another fuels for new torpedoes and whitdrawing htp ones like all others, kursk mulitibilion and 180 lives tragedy is enough.  not to mention htp is disaster in taking combat damage , while liquid oxygen in water just turns to gas and dissapates because its surrounded by -water.

    tanks would be outside of pressure hull , in amur 1650 project  tank was to be in the middle of submarine so it was abandoned project , liquid oxygen technology is fully commercial and mature , pound for pound you get much more energy then htp and less volume. fuell cell converts more efficient then any combustion motor , so when you need gaseous oxygen you jsut run it trough intercooler using ocean water to heat it up to -50C and then run cool oxygen trough fuel cell which they use , fuell cells of that type dont like heating and hot oxygen you get from htp , that also eliminates cooling pumps and equipment..

    Fuel cell works only with hydrogen, if you concerned with efficiency.
    With any carbohydrogen the efficiency will drop to 10%ish.
    So, the problem is not the oxygen, that is easy, but the hydrogen, that is the tricky part.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2016 1:46 pm

    The H2O2 can be used as oxigen source as well, but the problem is the CO2.

    What CO2?

    CO2 is generated when fossil fuels are burned, but if you burn something with no carbon in it then you don't get CO2 or CO.

    Fuels are burned to generate pressure or heat to drive a turbine... H2O2 creates the pressure and heat on its own with the gas produced being O2.

    Fora torpedo design you could have a fuel tank with H2O2 and a fuel tank with H in it... the H2O2 can be pumped over a catalyst to generate heat and O2 and then pure hydrogen added and burned in the super hot steam... burning H in O2 and you get H2O... more water... so super hot steam will come out the back of the torpedo... the turbine driven by the super hot steam can be directly connected to the propeller to drive the torpedo.

    Unlike a battery there is no chance of it going flat if left over time.

    So, at the end of the day the lion battery + diesel is the most practical solution, everything else will has higher cost.

    The Russians reportedly have developed a fuel cell that extracts hydrogen directly from diesel fuel.

    This has the enormous advantage that diesel is already carried on the submarine and every port on the planet already had the capacity and infrastructure to transport and deliver diesel to pier side. Not so with hydrogen.

    kursk mulitibilion and 180 lives tragedy is enough.

    Wow... another 62 die? That stuff must really be lethal... or perhaps it is you that are not totally sure of what you are talking about?

    My understanding was that 118 men died on the Kursk?

    not to mention htp is disaster in taking combat damage , while liquid oxygen in water just turns to gas and dissapates because its surrounded by -water.

    Really... REALLY!!!

    So HTP releasing some O2 in a sub is a disaster but much more concentrated O2 is just perfectly safe and just dissolves into thin air...

    Combat damage will likely be an explosion or a fire... both of which will be immensely magnified by the presence of LOX.

    tanks would be outside of pressure hull , in amur 1650 project tank was to be in the middle of submarine so it was abandoned project , liquid oxygen technology is fully commercial and mature , pound for pound you get much more energy then htp and less volume. fuell cell converts more efficient then any combustion motor , so when you need gaseous oxygen you jsut run it trough intercooler using ocean water to heat it up to -50C and then run cool oxygen trough fuel cell which they use , fuell cells of that type dont like heating and hot oxygen you get from htp , that also eliminates cooling pumps and equipment..

    Fuel cells run on hydrogen, not oxygen and why not use the ocean water as an intercooler for HTP?

    Or perhaps do what the Russians are actually doing and create a fuel cell that uses diesel fuel... :rolleyes:


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:58 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    So lets repeat it again.

    If the H2O2 used on its own, as monopropelants,then the energy density of it will be the same as the lion batteries. but the peroxide need noisy turbine or reciprocating engine, the lion ned silent electrical motor.

    So, using H2O2 as monopropelant not a great idea, since the second world war.

    As oxigen source either you use diesel, then there is the problem of CO2, or hydrogen, but if you have hydrogen then it is trivial and cheap to store liquid oxigen as well.


    The chemistry is not the submariners friend in this case.

    If you use diesel,with air then the energydensity 35Mj/kg, diesel efficiency is 40% ,s you have 14Mj effecive energy on the shaft of the engine.

    If you bring your oxigen and hydrogen liquid, then the energy density is 20 Mj/kg, efficiency of the fuel cell is 80%, means 16 Mj/kg efficiency on the shaft, roughly the same as the diesel+air.


    So, if your bring the oxigen as H2O2 then that will cut into half the energy density , means 8 Mj/kg.You still need criogen hydrogen.

    Now, if you move to the next level, and bring diesel + H2O2 with you, but you don't want to oxidate the carbon then the final energy content will be something like 5,5 Mj/kg, with fuel cell the shaf energy will be 4 Mj/kg.

    The lion battery has energy density of 0,5 Mj/kg.


    See?

    If you consider the mass of all H2O2 container, chemical reactor, partial diesel oxidator, heat exchanger and fuel cell then the effective submerged range will be between 2-6 compared to the lion battery pack, but the final cost will be several times higher.And of course you still has between 500-1000 tonns of H2O2 on board.

    And the H2O2 submarine will be way more noisy than the lion battery one, of course.


    So, it makes more sense to use very quiet ,high efficiency internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries, than to use comlicated chemical processes on board .
    And the H2O2 will be more noisy than the lion submarine of course.




    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:51 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:

    So, it makes more sense to use very quiet ,high efficiency internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries,  than to use comlicated chemical processes on board .
    And the H2O2 will be more noisy than the lion submarine  of course.



    so why hose damn sub designers did not follow this simple idea? maybe because there´s no internal combustion engine as quiet as current AIP?

    BTW what would you do with exhaust engine? not to mention fule and heat.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:32 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:

    So, it makes more sense to use very quiet ,high efficiency internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries,  than to use comlicated chemical processes on board .
    And the H2O2 will be more noisy than the lion submarine  of course.



    so why hose damn sub designers did not follow this simple idea? maybe because there´s no internal combustion engine as quiet as current AIP?

    BTW what would you do with exhaust engine? not to mention fule and heat.


    : )

    I can't see any announcement of H2O2 + reduction agent propelled subarines, so my logic hold the water : ).

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:02 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:

    So, it makes more sense to use very quiet ,high efficiency internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries,  than to use comlicated chemical processes on board .
    And the H2O2 will be more noisy than the lion submarine  of course.



    so why hose damn sub designers did not follow this simple idea? maybe because there´s no internal combustion engine as quiet as current AIP?

    BTW what would you do with exhaust engine? not to mention fule and heat.


    : )

    I can't see any announcement of H2O2 + reduction agent propelled subarines, so my logic hold the water : ).


    Yup this water is called perhyrol sometimes Smile

    BTW we talk not about diluted solutions for suicide blondes Smile Real perhydrol is explosive and toxic for humans. Like Me-163 used this as monopropellent. No good for pilots in case of problems.


    It would be dangerous to use concentrated on subs. Not to mention costs and noise.


    Talking about subs:

    " In the 1940s and 1950s, the Hellmuth Walter KG-conceived turbine used hydrogen peroxide for use in submarines while submerged; it was found to be too noisy and require too much maintenance compared to diesel-electric power systems. "
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Rmf on Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:25 pm

    could aditional rtg generator in 100kw range, using some advanced technologies thermionic ,stirling ,photovoltaic and thermovoltaic ,be used on conventional submarine. it would wok non-stop thus charging cells while submarine is still in position.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:37 pm

    There was a Soviet system described as being 1m square and four metres long that was able to generate about 20Kw continuously and its cooling system was designed to be able to be hooked up to a water or glycerol based "cooling" system. The system to cool the small reactor could be used to heat fluid to heat a living space.

    The primary intention for the system was for use on a Mars like base where the cooling system for the reactor could be used to heat the living spaces on the base and the electricity generated could therefore be used for things other than heating... reducing the amount of power needed for the base.

    It was supposed to continue generating at rated power for about 13 years before requiring refuelling.

    For a mini sub it would be very useful and with batteries.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:31 pm

    Rmf wrote:could aditional rtg generator in 100kw range, using some advanced technologies thermionic ,stirling ,photovoltaic and thermovoltaic ,be used on conventional submarine. it would wok non-stop thus charging cells while submarine is still in position.

    If you use pu238 then the energy density of it is 470w/kg, it is the thermal.

    Electricity generation will be somethign like 47-150 watt, later need boiling ,so noisy.

    The pu238 more expensive than the weapon grade Pu238.

    100 kW submarine grade (silent) RTG needs 200 kg of Pu238. It would cost more than the cost of a standard nuclear submarine.


    alternative is to use Cs137 or Sr90, but this are gamma emitters ( Pu238 alpha emitter) , means it needs a lot of shielding.

    Addiaionaly the raw metals and compounds/oxides are water souble, so it can do interesting stuff if the canister damaged.


    A commercial reacor makes something like 30 kg of cs137/ GWeyear, means one VVER-1000 can generate enought material for three submarine continously.


    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Rmf on Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:55 pm

    yes i doubt it could be used for propulsion its in 10s of killowats , , an technology offset from space program , perhaps for sensors and human enviroment conditioning , and recharging batteries while stationary at combat station for days, would be good enough.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:10 pm

    I agree... considering its small size and battery like nature, having one or two of these on a small conventional sub as a backup powersource even just to run the pumps or blow ballast and keep the CO2 scrubbers running would be useful.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Rmf on Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:41 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Rmf wrote:could aditional rtg generator in 100kw range, using some advanced technologies thermionic ,stirling ,photovoltaic and thermovoltaic ,be used on conventional submarine. it would wok non-stop thus charging cells while submarine is still in position.

    If you use pu238 then the energy density of it is 470w/kg, it is the thermal.

    Electricity generation will be somethign like 47-150 watt, later need boiling ,so noisy.

    The pu238 more expensive than the weapon grade Pu238.

    100 kW submarine grade (silent) RTG needs 200 kg of Pu238. It would cost more than the cost of a standard nuclear submarine.


    alternative is to use Cs137 or Sr90, but this are gamma emitters ( Pu238 alpha emitter) , means it needs a lot of shielding.

    Addiaionaly the raw metals and compounds/oxides are water souble, so it can do interesting stuff if the canister damaged.


    A commercial reacor makes something like 30 kg of cs137/ GWeyear, means one VVER-1000 can generate enought material for three submarine continously.


    i have found another element , polonium 210   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/polonium.htm
    it has decay rate of 140 days half-life , 3,5 months , just enough for usual submarine combat operations.
    it has 120 w/g  or 120kw/kg ...
    ofcourse thats thermal output , efficiency conversion is important if you can get 35%  thats 40 kw electricity per kilogram.!
    termocouples used had low efficiency in 5-10% thats why they abandoned it , but thermo-photovoltaic that use infrared light have over 20% ,and modified stirling engine too, if you combine them you can get much better conversion efficiency.

    conventional submarine always drains its batteries , human life support uses up to 100w per person , thats 5 kw for 50 people. computers ,bow sonar, tower sonar, side sonars ,that drains many kilowatts too.... i guess this advanced rtg concept would fit in very well.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:40 am

    Rmf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Rmf wrote:could aditional rtg generator in 100kw range, using some advanced technologies thermionic ,stirling ,photovoltaic and thermovoltaic ,be used on conventional submarine. it would wok non-stop thus charging cells while submarine is still in position.

    If you use pu238 then the energy density of it is 470w/kg, it is the thermal.

    Electricity generation will be somethign like 47-150 watt, later need boiling ,so noisy.

    The pu238 more expensive than the weapon grade Pu238.

    100 kW submarine grade (silent) RTG needs 200 kg of Pu238. It would cost more than the cost of a standard nuclear submarine.


    alternative is to use Cs137 or Sr90, but this are gamma emitters ( Pu238 alpha emitter) , means it needs a lot of shielding.

    Addiaionaly the raw metals and compounds/oxides are water souble, so it can do interesting stuff if the canister damaged.


    A commercial reacor makes something like 30 kg of cs137/ GWeyear, means one VVER-1000 can generate enought material for three submarine continously.


    i have found another element , polonium 210   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/polonium.htm
    it has decay rate of 140 days half-life , 3,5 months , just enough for usual submarine combat operations.
    it has 120 w/g  or 120kw/kg ...
    ofcourse thats thermal output , efficiency conversion is important if you can get 35%  thats 40 kw electricity per kilogram.!
    termocouples used had low efficiency in 5-10% thats why they abandoned it , but thermo-photovoltaic that use infrared light have over 20% ,and modified stirling engine too, if you combine them you can get much better conversion efficiency.

    conventional submarine always drains its batteries , human life support uses up to 100w per person , thats 5 kw for 50 people. computers ,bow sonar, tower sonar, side sonars ,that drains many kilowatts too.... i guess this advanced rtg concept would fit in very well.

    Russia manufacturing 100 gramm of Polonium isotopes (every iotope, not only 210 ! ).

    If you use RTGs then it makes more sense to power sonar bouys or underwater sonar/data collection stations with them.
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Rmf on Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:46 pm

    ok wrong choise , i looked at some usual materials and how about cobalt it has civilian use , Co 60 , it has 17 w/gr .  60 grams for 1 kw of thermal energy. granted it has hard radiationg requires shielding but it could be done from couple of kg of cobalt. half life is in years.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 130
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:08 pm

    Rmf wrote:ok wrong choise , i looked at some usual materials and how about cobalt it has civilian use , Co 60 , it has 17 w/gr .  60 grams for 1 kw of thermal energy. granted it has hard radiationg requires shielding but it could be done from couple of kg of cobalt. half life is in years.

    Silent RTG has 5-10% conversion efficiency, so 1kW thermal = 50-100 watt electrical.

    Noisy has higher, but we talk about submarine.


    And this materials are three magnitud more expensive than the gold example.And the handling of them require expensive and complicated mannners.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Marine propulsion technology for SSKs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:28 am