Submarine propulsion using evaporation












5












$begingroup$


In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.



Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?



edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    19 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    19 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$


In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.



Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?



edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    19 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    19 hours ago
















5












5








5





$begingroup$


In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.



Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?



edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.



Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?



edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!







science-based engineering underwater






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 18 hours ago







Eth

















asked 19 hours ago









EthEth

2,7491721




2,7491721








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    19 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    19 hours ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    19 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
    $endgroup$
    – Elmy
    19 hours ago






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    19 hours ago










1




1




$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
19 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
19 hours ago












$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch
19 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
19 hours ago




8




8




$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
19 hours ago






$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
19 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$


the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.




If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.



If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.



A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Nathaniel
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.



Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    17 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    15 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.



Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    7












    $begingroup$


    the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.




    If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.



    If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.



    A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
      $endgroup$
      – Nathaniel
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander
      6 hours ago
















    7












    $begingroup$


    the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.




    If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.



    If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.



    A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
      $endgroup$
      – Nathaniel
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander
      6 hours ago














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$


    the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.




    If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.



    If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.



    A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




    the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.




    If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.



    If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.



    A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 18 hours ago

























    answered 19 hours ago









    L.DutchL.Dutch

    90.3k29209437




    90.3k29209437












    • $begingroup$
      Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
      $endgroup$
      – Nathaniel
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander
      6 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
      $endgroup$
      – Nathaniel
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander
      6 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Nathaniel
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Nathaniel
    12 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago











    3












    $begingroup$

    This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.



    Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      15 hours ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.



    Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      15 hours ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.



    Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.



    Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 19 hours ago









    ChronocidalChronocidal

    6,6181833




    6,6181833












    • $begingroup$
      The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      15 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      17 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
      $endgroup$
      – Eth
      15 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    17 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    17 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    15 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    15 hours ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.



    Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.



      Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.



        Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.



        Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 18 hours ago









        RenanRenan

        52.6k15120261




        52.6k15120261






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

            Berlina muro

            Berlina aerponto