Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Personal Submarine Cruises SF Bay 290

Posted by michael from the down-here-all-the-fish-is-happy dept.
LandSonar writes "Graham Hawkes, the guru of the submarine design business, tried out his new submersible sea plane yesterday in SF Bay. Called the 'Deep Flight Aviator'. Article and cool pictures. This craft doesn't use ballast like traditional subs. Flys more like a plane. 'It looks like something NASA might build or the Blue Angels might fly.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Personal Submarine Cruises SF Bay More

Personal Submarine Cruises SF Bay

Comments Filter:

  • Darn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:24PM (#5154431) Homepage
    I was hoping for something more like Sky-Diver from the old UFO series!

    • Re:Darn! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Must resist, to much pressure.....subs, seamen, cruising, san francisco.........

  • I was a little disappointed to see that the term "fly" seems to describe how it moves through the water, rather indicate the capabilities of a submersible flying boat... Now that would be cool!

    • "Flying" is how penguins are described as moving though water. So why not a sub?

      Though a better name is needed - sub is short for submersible, which sounds to be tied to dirigibles. And they both look the same and work primarily by the same methods. Creating a space that can contains a volume with a lower press enough so that if floats to up. Then adding or removing a medium in that space to change the overall density to cause the over thing to go "up" or "down".

      Here is a cool logic question...

      Is a fish and a bird actually the same creature - just one is a denser medium?

      If so, is man nothing more that crab?

  • Plans? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SealBeater ( 143912 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:32PM (#5154467) Homepage
    So, if it's homemade, any chance of getting the plans or trying to figure it
    out? I've got a friend who can mold carbon fiber, I wouldn't mind taking a
    crack at building one or even a lesser version. How cool would it be to have
    one of these?

    SealBeater

    • Re:Plans? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `101retsaMytilaeR'> on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:57PM (#5154587) Homepage Journal

      Yeah! I even got a name for you: how about "The Suicide Express"? "The Widowmaker" is already so overused.

    • I've got a friend who can mold carbon fiber, I wouldn't mind taking a crack at building one or even a lesser version. How cool would it be to have
      one of these?

      Whoa. You're gonna hack together a submarine?

      No offense but Graham Hawkes has been involved in building a large percentage of the world submarine fleet, and even he described building this as a challenge. Submarines are actually quite simple devices that, even if they are only going down two atmospheres (66 feet) have to be built to insanely tight tolerances with NASA-level attention to detail or there could be.... problems. In addition, they don't describe the very expensive support necessary for use of any submersible in the ocean.

      Some of the possible pitfalls of throwing together a submersible can be seen here [seaburial.com] if you really insist on trying to cobble together yer very own Red October.

      But I have to agree with you...that looks a whole lot more fun than a Segway to me. B)

  • I saw it on Tech TV last night (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I didn't read the article but I saw this Submarine on TechTV last night. Pretty cool. Will cost approx $15,000. Now some people will have to make a choice between buying an over the surface boat or the sub...

    The guy said they only used 2 engineers and lot of computer aided design to keep the costs low instead of hiring 50 engineers... It didn't seem to move very fast drifting nice and slow... It is supposed to go for as long as 8 hours on single battery charge and can go 1500 feet deep or something like that....
    excuse spelling/gramattical mistakes, if any

  • No Ballast? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zer0vector ( 94679 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:32PM (#5154469)
    If the submarine doesn't use ballast to maintain its depth, it must always be in motion to stay at a depth away from equilibrium. Assuming it is positively bouyant (it floats) the motion of the water over its dive planes would be the only force holding it underwater. This seems a bit limited to me, since you'd never be able to stop and enjoy the view underwater. It's probably because I'd be more interested in the stuff sitting on the bottom of the ocean, rather than the things moving through it, which appears to be the point of the sub.

    • Re:No Ballast? (Score:5, Informative)

      by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:35PM (#5154482)
      The article states that, when the submersible drops beneath "stall" speed (approx 1.2 knots), a conventional ballast system kicks in to maintain dive depth - making it perhaps more versatile than conventional submersibles, as opposed to the limitations that you suggest.
      • Wouldn't all that water moving through the ballast system make a lot of noise? Thinking about research/military applications - you don't want to be making noise which will disturb the area your observing or give away your position.

    • Re:No Ballast? (Score:2, Informative)

      by baudtender ( 80377 )
      This sub uses a conventional ballast system below
      what it calls its "stall speed," but what you
      say isn't necessarily so for other subs that use
      a "no ballast" design. Think of the inverse of
      moveable props like those used on VTOL aircraft.
      You can use propellers pointing up to counter the
      bouyancy.

      One really good reason for not having ballast -
      if you lose all electrical power, you float to
      the surface. Think about it.

      Baudtender

      • Re:No Ballast? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Gerry Gleason ( 609985 )
        One really good reason for not having ballast - if you lose all electrical power, you float to the surface. Think about it.

        Not only that, but they mention that they can drop ballast in an emergency, so obviously there are ballast systems and components, just that in normal operation, it has a slightly positive boyancy, and need to keep moving to go down.

        With the positive boyancy, you could shut down the motors and concerve power with a sort of inverted gliding. I remember seeing a story (maybe /.) about an underwater drone that could operate for long periods gliding both up and down by shifting the boyancy back and forth between negative and positive.

  • exciting! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:33PM (#5154475)
    "When we get up alongside sperm whales or giant squid it will get really exciting," he said.

    When I'm in a submarine, I don't want anything exciting to happen.

  • Deep sea for everyone! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:36PM (#5154487) Homepage Journal
    Deep Flight Aviator will revolutionize exploration by making it easier and cheaper for everyone from scientists to filmmakers to plumb the ocean's depths.


    Oh, you mean like the same people who do it now? What about me, average joe six-pack? When can I go dive down that there Marianas Trench? I want to see the Giant Squid in it's native environment and stop the Discovery Channel from doing anymore of those specials where they don't find the damn thing...again!. Is this deep sea diving for the masses, or just an upgrade for those who already do it?

    • i can only imagine the horror if everyone had personal submarines.. not because of the dangers, but because of the regulations..

      hell, they banned the segway in SF already.

    • Re:Deep sea for everyone! (Score:5, Informative)

      by FatHogByTheAss ( 257292 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:54PM (#5154579)
      When can I go dive down that there Marianas Trench?


      Not Marianas, but you can certainly go explore SF Bay. PADI [padi.com] or NAUI [naui.org] should be able to connect you with the right people.


      SCUBA is the best thing you'll ever do with your clothes on.

      • SCUBA is the best thing you'll ever do with your clothes on.

        nope, sorry, i have to argue with you on that one. i have SSI Deep Diver and PADI Nitrox certs; i'm working on Drysuit and Decompression so I can dive the doria next summer. i would have agreed with you on SCUBA being that much fun, but last summer i took a trip to SDLI [skydivelongisland.com]...screw that, there is *nothing* you can do in the water that is anywhere near the rush you get stepping out onto 13,500 feet of air - i could see Long Island from manhattan to montauk. i still love SCUBA, but now I'm trying to scrape together /another/ $3000 for my USPA license and $5000 for my rig...*sigh* (not that tech dive gear is any cheaper)

  • Is it safe? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gortbusters.org ( 637314 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:38PM (#5154495) Homepage Journal
    The article makes a nice mention how 75% of the earth is covered in water. Looks like the ocean is one of the last [easy] frontiers, though will the moon be more practicle? This thing looks like the ship in Star War Episode 1.

    Back on topic, I would wonder how deep this version can go. It mentions the depth of a squid of around 1500 feet. The article also reports a second version that will be able to comb the bottom of the ocean. I imagine that will look more like a 747.

    What was the name of that bad star-trek like show that was set in the ocean?
  • What is more efficient (speed/energy), a boat or a sub? I suppose that a hydroplaning boat would be, but I am not sure of the fluid physics involved. How much less efficient is a boat than a car in terms of energy expended compared to the speed it travels? How could boats be made more efficient, or could they?

    Kickstart

  • Seaquest!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Monofilament ( 512421 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:41PM (#5154505) Homepage Journal
    WOW Seaquest is coming true.. I wonder if it comes with an ultra smart dolphin who has a translater hooked to it so i can have conversations with it.

    Damn I completely forgot about that show before i saw those pictures...

  • Extreme high pressure... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neksys ( 87486 ) <grphillips AT gmail DOT com> on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:47PM (#5154536)
    According to thei creator's website, they are planning on creating Deep Flight II, which they hope to pilot to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, some 38,000 feet down. But wouldn't the intense pressure and high viscosity of the water at that depth make it nearly impossible to operate on the flight principle? I don't know the first thing about high pressure underwater maneuvering, so perhaps someone else can tell me why this will (or won't) work?

    • Re:Extreme high pressure... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RoundTop-VJAS ( 580788 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:02PM (#5154612)
      well... the flight principle would work at those depths. Assuming the parts can stand the pressure (what they are trying to get done). even though the pressure has changed, the resistance of the water will be essencially unchanged. (since the propellers will be biting more in the water, producing more thrust, this will ofset any drag problems). Since it is designed to cut through the water rather than force its way through (conventional sub) it should work.

      The problems at 39k feet are following:

      #1) materials that can stand up to it. I'm sure that a piece of solid metal can, but can the cockpit? #2) If anything goes wrong...ANYTHING. you are dead. #3) Making sure your seals can stand the pressure (any that rupture - see 1 & 2)

      However if the cockpit can sustain the pressures (since it is smaller than a full regular sub it should be able to take more pressure.) then it should be able to hit those depths no problem. Not only that, but at the proposed dive/accent speeds they might have to worry about the bends. at 400ft/min to go 37,000ft would only take 1.5h. All the "modern" subs/deep subs take much longer than that to hit those depths ('cept some military ones...but they don't go as deep [as far as we know])

      This concept has actually been around for a while, however I give massive kudos to these guys for pulling it off not once, but twice. I watched the documentary on discovery about Deep Flight and that was cool. DF Aviator is definately a step in the right direction as it gets rid of the classic sub image.

      As for increasing the speed for more than 6knots.. that is a simple equation.

      Running time = battery power / draw of props (increases as revs go higher)

      So either increase the battery capacity (for the same weight) and speed for the same running time. Or you will sacrifice run time.

      Eg: To make it go ~12knots it would take roughly twice the battery power, reducing its effective time from 8h to 4h (I know there are more things..but that is the major factor).

      Another technique is to increase the size of the props. But that takes more energy to get them spinning (for more thrust though).

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • *IANAEngineer*

        As I understand it, The Bends occur when the body of a diver is subject to the pressures exterted by water at depths. Breathing air is regulated by SCUBA gear such that the pressure increases to offset water pressure on the lungs. This increases the pressure of nitrogen gas in the blood, which expands when the pressure is released.

        I have a feeling The Bends would not be a problem in a submersible, depending on one condition - internal air pressure is not raised to reduce pressure stress on the hull. At any great depth, water pressure is so great as to make the benefit of any reasonable air pressure increase negligable.

        I think that the hull would simply be made strong enough to withstand the water pressure with internal air pressure remaining at sea level air pressure or thereabouts. In this case, the human body would not be subjected to pressure increases/decreases as the sub dives and ascends.
        IIRC, military submarines do not change internal pressure when changing depth. Therefore the Bends are not the limiting factor of dive rate - what limits the rate for military subs is that the steel pressure hull cannot withstand rapid pressure changes without contorting dangerously.

        If someone made a deep-sea diving sub with a pressure hull made of a material very resistant to rapid change in pressure, there would be no theoretical limit to dive rate, even with a human inside. *As long as the hull is strong enough to allow constant internal pressure*

        I may be very very wrong, but this is my observation.
        • If someone made a deep-sea diving sub with a pressure hull made of a material very resistant to rapid change in pressure, there would be no theoretical limit to dive rate, even with a human inside.

          Almost... if you go accelerate too fast the G's would kill you. Of course I have no idea where you'd get the power to do that, even with a nuclear reactor. But first we have to find a stronger alloy anyway. I think there is hope we'll do that before we create the high efficiency fusion reactors to rocket down to the trenches. ;)

          I may be very very wrong, but this is my observation.

          IAAE and you're not very very wrong.

        • Re:About "The Bends"... (Score:3, Informative)

          by KewlPC ( 245768 )
          I always thought that the bends occurred when ascending (coming back up to the surface), not descending (diving).

          Being in a submersible that increased the air pressure to help ease the stress on the pressure hull therefore wouldn't cause a problem, so long as the air pressure was slowly brought back to 1 atmosphere on your way back up to the surface.

          If memory serves, nearly all submersibles capable of deep submergence increase the air pressure at least a little to help counter the pressure of the water. In fact, if the air pressure was close enough to the water pressure, you could go outside and swim around (until you got hypothermia from the extremely cold water, anyway).

          The only real problems with increasing the air pressure are oxygen concentration (as you increase the air pressure, you increase the amount of oxygen per cubic inch, thereby increasing the amount that you breathe in; too much oxygen will kill you) and making sure that the pressure is released slowly enough to prevent the bends (possibly resulting in the crew having to sit inside the sub after it has been brought back onboard while they wait for the pressure to drop to 1 atmosphere, depending on the sub's ascent rate).

          IIRC, the bends only occur when you ascend too quickly (or the pressure in a pressurized sub drops too fast). The cure is to sit inside a pressure chamber, with the pressure racked up to equal what you would've felt at whatever depth you were at when you began your (too rapid) ascent, and then have the pressure slowly brought back to 1 atmosphere.
          • In fact, if the air pressure was close enough to the water pressure, you could go outside and swim around (until you got hypothermia from the extremely cold water, anyway).

            I should point out that you'd still need an airlock to go outside the sub. However, because the air in your lungs has enough pressure to counteract the pressure of the water, and because the rest of your body has adjusted to it, you don't get crushed.

            So at least Sphere (the movie, didn't read the book) got something right ;)
        • The bends are the result of pressurised gas in the bloodstream at depth becoming de-pressurised when sufacing and hence less soluble - gas bubbles then form in the blood vessels and occlude blood flow, leading to the clinical manifstations.

          This is more a problem with diving as the body is directly pressurised by the surrounding water. In a submersible, the pressure does not necessarily need to increase - the hull takes the pressure. So the bends don't need to occur as you can maintain atmospheric pressure in the actual internal environment of the sub.

      • Re:Extreme high pressure... (Score:5, Informative)

        by BLAG-blast ( 302533 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:54PM (#5154801)
        I'll try and dispell some myths for you rather than just calling you dumb.

        Since it is designed to cut through the water rather than force its way through (conventional sub) it should work.

        There is no difference between how this submarine moves through the water and how a "conventional sub" would move through the water.

        Making sure your seals can stand the pressure

        Any rubber seals are just for the first few feet. After 30 feet the water pressure will be creating a metal to metal bond (or metal to acrylic or what ever) so the seals will not do anything. If you're refering to the metal to metal bond as a seal, then you kind of right, but any problems would have notice at around 30 feet. As you go deeper the bond will just get stronger.

        Not only that, but at the proposed dive/accent speeds they might have to worry about the bends.

        The bends only apply if you are exposed to outside pressure. This is a 1 ATM sub, you are always at the same pressure as you where on the surface.

        Eg: To make it go ~12knots it would take roughly twice the battery power, reducing its effective time from 8h to 4h (I know there are more things..but that is the major factor). Another technique is to increase the size of the props. But that takes more energy to get them spinning (for more thrust though).

        This isn't really true either, it would probably be more like a quarter of the endurance for twice the speed. But they might be other things limiting the speed such as drag, the sub isn't a very hydrodynamic shape and might have a low terminal velocity.

    • Sea water is nearly incompressible, so the viscosity wouldn't be appreciably higher. If it was, deep-marine fish like ratfish would have a tough time (especially considering how few calories there are down there for the poor things to eat). Sea water viscosity actually depends chiefly on the temperature (colder is more viscous), and to a lesser degree on salinity (more saline is more viscous - this obviously implies that sea water is slightly more viscous than fresh water).

      There are still all kinds of other effects that make diving to that depth very, very difficult. One is the corrosive effect of oxygen in the water at that pressure.

      Anyway, wouldn't a more viscous fluid be better for this thing's method of submergence? It doesn't need to go fast, it just needs to generate downward pressure with the reverse equivalent of an airfoil (or something). Planes get more lift in more viscous air, at least to the point where they can still move forward quickly enough.

    • Re:Extreme high pressure... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:06PM (#5154632)
      According to thei creator's website, they are planning on creating Deep Flight II, which they hope to pilot to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, some 38,000 feet down. But wouldn't the intense pressure and high viscosity of the water at that depth make it nearly impossible to operate on the flight principle?

      The pressure would pose a problem, but, contrary to what you might expect, the viscosity of water actually decreases with pressure, until around 150 MPa of pressure. After that, viscosity starts increasing with pressure.

      That pressure corresponds to about 50,000 feet of seawater. Since (as far as I know) there is no trench this deep on Earth, we probably won't be having problems with viscosity anytime soon.

      Water is definitely one of the most unique substances we have on this planet.

    • >But wouldn't the intense pressure and high viscosity of the water at that depth make it nearly impossible to operate on the flight principle?

      Other than the "crush you like a grape" factor of all that water above your head. I don't think there should be much of a problem with this craft manuvering.. From what I recall from my physics classes way back when, water is incompressable. That is, as more pressure is applied to it, its density does not increse significantly. So, I wouldn't expect the viscosity to change much.
      Along the same lines, the control surfaces should continue to function. The big thing I would worry about is accidentally hitting something. "Land" on the bottom of the trench too hard, and you might dent the craft, and weaken the structure. And at that depth, you probably wouldn't get much of a chance to realize what happened.

  • More cool Small Submarines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheLurker ( 32233 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:47PM (#5154537) Homepage
    For more cool homebuilt submarines, check out the Personal Submersables [psubs.org] web page.
  • Seeing it gives me a new fevered mantra:

    Gotta make money....
    Gotta make money....

  • Strange picture... (Score:4, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:50PM (#5154549) Homepage Journal
    I bet somebody could cook up a hilarious caption for this picture [sfgate.com].

    "The bionic dorsal fins aren't what scares me, it's the frickin laser beam attched to it's head!"

  • Damn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `101retsaMytilaeR'> on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:50PM (#5154554) Homepage Journal

    tried out his new submersible sea plane yesterday in SF Bay.

    When I read this, I thought it was an airplane that could turn itself into a submarine! Now that would be cool... you could fly to an interesting spot, and then dive into the water.

    Given that this thing is intended to glide like airplane, except in water, I wonder what it would take to make it able to fly in air? Probably a lot of engine power that it doesn't have, and a lot less weight. :(

    • ---snip
      Given that this thing is intended to glide like airplane, except in water, I wonder what it would take to make it able to fly in air? Probably a lot of engine power that it doesn't have, and a lot less weight. :(
      ---snip

      ...and for the hydrofoils that are designed to create downward force when moving through the water to start making upward force when being used as airfoils, amongst other problems...but a flying submersible would rock. The police vtol jet plane/wheeled land vehicle (I think)/submersible shown briefly in the movie "AI" was pretty neat...

      more interesting than other parts of the movie, come to think of it.

  • Feh. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cporter ( 61382 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:52PM (#5154566)
    I still want one of these. [ussubmarines.com]

    "The ultimate personal transportation device, 65 meters (213 ft.) in length with 470 square meters (5000 sq. ft.) of interior space on 4 levels. As proposed, the submarine would constitute the single largest private undersea vehicle ever built."

    • That's what I'm asking Santa for next christmas!!!

      5000 sq ft... that's like 4 times the size of my apartment, and the views here suck. Now if only it had a broadband connection of some sort so I could still look at porn, then I would buy it... but until then... tis only a dream.

  • that they sell those things to the right people, or at least screen the buyers.
    I don't want any terrorist group getting a hold of one of those.

  • A Cheaper Alternative (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:54PM (#5154576) Homepage


    If anyone from San Francisco (or California, for that matter) is looking to see the bottom of the SF Bay, I can help you. I have plenty of rope and quick-dry concrete, and I'll be happy to help you experience the natural wonders only the sea can offer.

    Cheers,

  • Possible problem (Score:4, Funny)

    by ELCarlsson ( 570500 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:56PM (#5154585)
    "They wear khaki coveralls with lots of zippered pockets"

    Okay, so you're 150 ft under the water when you're homemade sub springs a leak. And what are you wearing to save you? Khaki coveralls. Sure hope they have something helpful in one of those zippered pockets.

  • build your own sub (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paughsw ( 620959 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:57PM (#5154591)
    This team at Virginia Tech, (I used to be on it) are the three time world champs for a human powered submarine. Check them out, lots of cool videos, and documentation. www.hps.vt.edu [vt.edu]

  • has been done before (Score:3, Funny)

    by floRizla ( 101164 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:59PM (#5154599)
    This thing is not as original as it seems.
    If you know the comic books of Tintin, there is one album where Tintin and his friend (ship cpt. Haddock I believe) explore the sea in a shark-shaped submarine. It has very much the same shape as this thing, including the windows that have the shape of a half sphere.

    So, one of the co-inventors is Belgian comic designer Hergé. And Possibly Leonardo da Vinci too, for that matter.
  • A couple of issues that don't seem to be addressed in the article:

    They must have buoyancy control nearly equal to that of submarines because the amount of energy required using "flight surfaces" to maintain depth would increase hugely as a function of depth. Unlike in true flight, where it doesn't require more energy to maintain an altitude of 2000 feet than 1000, it takes incomparably more energy to maintain a depth of 2000 feet compared to 1000 if you're not using buoyancy control. I'd venture to suggest it's impossible.

    Also, in flight a wing uses reduced air pressure above the curved top of the wing surface (Bernoulli's Principle) for most of its lift. Does anyone know if this effect applies in water? Intuitively it seems like it would not.
    • Bernoulli's principle still applies, in fact, water behaves alot like air, except that it's more dense. you have to have the right airfoil shape thought

    • Bull: Re:Buoyancy and "flight" (Score:5, Informative)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @10:12PM (#5155046) Homepage
      Unlike in true flight, where it doesn't require more energy to maintain an altitude of 2000 feet than 1000,

      Yes it does, the air is thinner up there.

      it takes incomparably more energy to maintain a depth of 2000 feet compared to 1000 if you're not using buoyancy control.

      A submarine displaces its own volume of water, and has a lift proportional to the difference between its weight and the weight of that volume of water at that depth. The density of the sea water hardly varies between the surface and the bottom (the pressure goes wayyyyy up, but water is largely incompressible), so the buoyancy is nearly the same.

      Therefore the amount of energy needed is largely the same also; independent of altitude, for a fixed volume submarine, since you're only really fighting buoyancy to go down.

      Also, in flight a wing uses reduced air pressure above the curved top of the wing surface (Bernoulli's Principle) for most of its lift. Does anyone know if this effect applies in water? Intuitively it seems like it would not.

      Gee, I don't know, mister; ever heard of a propeller? That's a set of wings that rotate under water. Get a clue.

      • Gee, I don't know, mister; ever heard of a propeller? That's a set of wings that rotate under water. Get a clue.

        Thank you for the polite answer. I had supposed that a propeller might well work as much by deflection of water as the bernoulli principle, much as a household fan does.
      • Gee, I don't know, mister; ever heard of a propeller? That's a set of wings that rotate under water. Get a clue.

        Props are not generally wings in the Bernoulli sense as they are deflectors (they produce thrust through being set at an angle, rather than through their curvature).
        However, the bernoulli effect does still operate fine under water; try waving a spoon around when doing the washing up, it generates a surprising amount of lift due to its curvature.

        - Chris
    • > Also, in flight a wing uses reduced air pressure above the curved top of the wing surface (Bernoulli's Principle) for most of its lift. Does anyone know if this effect applies in water? Intuitively it seems like it would not.

      Yes, water flowing over a foil (technical name for a wing) produces lift. Keels on modern sail boats are foils, and use lift to help the sail boat sail *up* wind. That lift is one of the reasons why a modern sloop can point so high to the wind. Rudders on sailboat produce lift also, which is what turns the boat. (Flat surfaces can produce lift just like a foil can.)

  • Idea stolen from Tintin! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DennisZeMenace ( 131127 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:03PM (#5154617) Homepage
    I hope this guy is paying royalties to Tintin's friend : Professor Tournesol. He was definitely first [casterman.com]

    DZM
    • I hope this guy is paying royalties to Tintin's friend : Professor Tournesol. He was definitely first [casterman.com]

      I think Leonardo Da Vinci predates Professor Tournesol. (Granted, Leonardo's submarine was only a "semi-submersible")

      http://www.loadstar.prometeus.net/leonardo/ships.h tml [prometeus.net]
      "The 'submarine' was simply a shell with room enough for one person to sit inside. It was topped with a conning tower which had a lid and pre-dated the true submarine by over one hundred years. Leonardo was to describe it as a "ship to sink another ship."

      Leonardo considered that the best way to defend against underwater attack by ships similar in design to his 'submarine' was to have double-hulled boats. This would not only solve the problem of ramming, but also that of divers interfering with the vessel. By this time he had already devised a method by which divers could separate the planks of ships.

      He considered how lost ships could be recovered, and designed air-filled tanks which divers could attach to the hulls of a sunken ships in an attempt to re-float them. And once your ship is once more on the surface you need to remove the excess water. Leonardo then designed a machine which would extract the water and then dry the holds of ships.

      His designs included a one-man battleship, and in considering ships for wartime use Leonardo realised the importance of making guns easier to load and fire. This same drawing displays two remote-control guns with rapid-firing mechanisms. "

  • Nah... (Score:3, Funny)

    by hondo77 ( 324058 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:21PM (#5154694) Homepage

    Now this [vttbots.com] is a "submersible sea plane"!

  • How long til these are outlawed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:37PM (#5154750)
    A cheap, small, personal submarine, capable of carring two people--or one person and 200lbs of drugs from Mexico or Canada into the U.S.A. (or 200lbs of explosive, or ...)

    Watch the U.S. Coast Guard build lots of sonar installations. Watch the ecologists sue the Coast Guard for what all that sonar does to the sea life.

    Watch Congress outlaw personal submarines.
  • is this [sfgate.com] something they're taking down, or returning to its spot under a bridge.

  • Saw the sub met the guy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Usquebaugh ( 230216 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:39PM (#5154760)
    About a month ago I was in a SF Bay area marina, checking my 5o5 was still on the trailer after a storm. When I saw two guys wheeling out two J shaped funnels. Turned out these were the crew compartment and they were off to be pressure tested in Texas, Houston I think. I knew what deep flight was but these were meant to be more civilised.

    Personally I still prefer the original Deep Flight.

    On a side note the bernoulli effect isn't much in use. It's more the angle of attack of the wings. Think diving planes not wings.
  • This is one of the most obvious-yet-so-long-in-the-conception inventions I've seen. It really is brilliant. Air is a fluid (from an engineering standpoint) just like water. Why not fly through the water just like you do through the air. I especially liked the dirigible/plane analogy in the article. Brilliant work!

  • It is a common misconception that penguins. . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:53PM (#5154797)
    can't fly. You even see them refered to as "flightless" birds in the text books.

    The fact is that they don't fly * in air.*

    Watch a penguin "in flight" and this idea is just as obvious as flying machines in air are from watching a hawk soar. I'm only surprised that it's taken this long for someone to actually go ahead and build one.

    Nor is the concept unique to the water. There was an experimental plane some decades ago that was a zeppelin shaped like a flying wing. It was heavier than air, but only by a matter of pounds and flew by the lift produced by its wing shape, but was nonetheless dirigable.

    I can find no reference to this plane on the web (surprise, not everything is recorded on the web, go figure) but New Yorker magazine once did a piece on it.

    The basic principles of buoyancy and lift apply to any fluid medium. All the rest is just commentary and you can find "planes," "zeppelins," "blimps," and even "helicopters" in the natural underwater world as inspiration. Just as you can in air.

    KFG
  • Huh? That thing looks a little like the Gungan Bongo [starwars.com] from Episode I. Hopefully, the flying sub doesn't come standard with an annoying muppet.
  • That has to be the single most claustrophobic underwater exploration experience ever. Period.

    How many people do they actually expect will be able to ride in that thing without going spastic? The very thought of putting myself 100 feet underwater in that thing sends me into overload.

  • You know, it wasn't that long ago that we were all getting spammed about personal submarine vaporware!

    Looking to buy a Yacht?


    Why?

    They only work on the water.

    You could have a Personal Luxury Submarine for just a little more.

    And enjoy all the Ocean. Up to 1000' and up to 30 days under.

    Check it out at:

    http://members.aol.com/luxurysubs

    and now somebody's actually made one!

    (fortunately, the original web page is not up anymore.)

  • Where I come from, a Blue Angel ain't an airplane.
  • Spirou et Fantasio [spiroufr.free.fr], "Le repaire de la murène" - A Franquin [ifi.uio.no] classic! :)

    The album cover [zilverendolfijn.nl] - and a model [a-bd.com] of the submarine which also used steerable jets and fins to climb and descend.

Slashdot Top Deals

I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham

Close