/sci/ - Science & Math

Likely if hydrogen fuel cell tech improves a bit. But keep in mind it takes energy to make the hydrogen - they're basically electric cars that use different kinds of batteries.

Because hydrogen fuel cells are objectively worse than batteries in all areas. In terms of dollar per mile, they cost more than batteries for the range you get. Fuel cells also wear out and die like batteries, but faster (6 years, assuming you drive only 2 hours each day) and are between 38 and 50% energy efficient compared to an overall drivetrain efficiency of 85% for electric vehicles including charging and conversion losses.

The hydrogen for use in automobiles can easily and economically be produced and harnessed but we still have the difficulties of cheaply manufacturing an engine that can withstand the detonation of hydrogen combustion as opposed to the less violent deflagration of gasoline combustion.

Gasoline burns more smoothly depending on octane content. Hydrogen always burns with a bang unless you can find a proper additive to add to the hydrogen + oxygen mixture that will result in a more smooth combustion.

because, in hydrogens there is no magneticular perpendeter. On behalf in anytime is half time quantum nugularics.

>>3929861

Hydrogen is not a good energy carrier. Batteries or hydrocarbons are better suited for the job.

>>3929900
lolwat?

>>3929904
> The hydrogen for use in automobiles can easily and economically be produced

LOLWUT? The hypermajority of hydrogen is produced from FOSSIL FUELS. Fossil fuels are only depleting and therefore common hydrogen generation is DOOMED.

So the only alternative is to move hydrogen generation to electrolysis of water, primarily seawater. And the only way to make THAT work is to bring solar-cells to the seas. OR, due to corrosion threats we keep solar-cell facilities on shore and pipe in the seawater, to minimize corrosion threats to the pipeworks alone.

At any rate, we're not geared up in the slightest to produce hydrogen on that scale. And we are nowhere near making marketable vehicles that can make use of H and store it well enough within the vehicle. H vehicles are niche products.

A ham sandwich has a better energy density than h2. Thats assuming the h2 is under 700psi, and the ham sandwich is under standard atmospheric pressure

>>3929959
Your assumptions about the limits to hydrogen production are flawed. Photoelectric catalysts exist that allow visible wavelengths of light to act on the covalent bonds of oxygen and hydrogen in water.

We can obtain hydrogen from water with only ambient sunlight. Burning the hydrogen in an efficient manner is the next difficulty. Who knows maybe we should apply the hydrogen produced towards methane creation and use that as a fuel....

>>3929973
Why is it that you only show up on /sci/ after the creation of a thread of this exact topic? I see maybe 2-3 posts all day from this trip code but never once have you missed a hydrogen fuel thread. Ever.

This leads me to believe that you are creating these threads and then arguing against them under this trip code for some reason I can't quite put my finger on....

Quite the mystery but I have a few theories that might explain it.....

>>3929980

except that even at 100% efficiency there isnt enough energy coming from the sun to propel a standard automobile (assuming the entire surface area was uses for eneegy gathering)

>>3929995
Ive been around today, mostly posting in space threads

>>3929999
Factor in the bond disassociation/association energy harnessed as well, toss me a few numbers and then we can talk. This has already been experimentally proven so if you want to take my word for it then I can save you some time.

>>3929973

>A ham sandwich has a better energy density than h2. Thats assuming the h2 is under 700psi, and the ham sandwich is under standard atmospheric pressure

So what you're saying is that I should start compressing hundreds of ham sandwiches into a 6"x6"x6" cube before eating it

>>3930021
No what he is saying is that un-viable energy sources can possibly contain more energy than fuel sources that are easier to work with under current infrastructure.

He is basically saying; 'There is more energy produced in a human body than a gallon of gas! We need to get the Matrix up in this bitch to use humans as batteries!'

>>3930013
1.4kwh per square meter
Average vehicle 10m^2
Average vehicle weight 1400kg
So you have 14kwh of energy to move 1400kg
When every engine out there is running 50mwh or more

You need 3000 times the energy output.

>>3929980
> Photoelectric catalysts exist that allow visible wavelengths of light to act on the covalent bonds of oxygen and hydrogen in water.

OH GOD IT'S THE FUCKING WATER-AS-FUEL GUY!

Build the fucking thing and bring it to market and I'll believe you then. But you won't, since you're full of SHIT. Bull-fuckin'-SHIT.

If I had what you claim you have on tap, I'd have already powered my house on water and sunlight by now. And I'd be selling similar systems for individuals. Let's hear your tempest of excuses why you aren't doing that, you fucking CON ARTIST.

>>3930021
>>3930043
Im facisiously saying a ham sandwich is a more viable alternative fuel soirce than hydrogen. Making a point by exagerating.

Also gasifiers can run on ham sandwiches.

>>3930056

What do you think of my idea to use cheap primary cells as range extenders? There are lots of mostly forgotten battery chemistries out there only used for niche applications because they are non-rechargeable. However many are extremely energy dense and cheap to manufacture. The batteries used on the moon buggy, for instance, were non-rechargeable and zinc/sulfur based IIRC.

The idea is, since you only need a range extension occasionally, the battery would last long enough that it'd be worth what you have to pay to periodically replace it.

>>3930062
Disinformation. Bad delivery of disinformation at that. I think you need to spend a few more years in the "Edward Bernay's School of Propaganda" before you attempt to bring the information into practice.

>>3930070
Internal combustion engines can run on burning pine trees too. Doesn't mean it is a good example to use to prove the energy effectiveness of certain substances.

>>3930071

Nothing wrong with cells, but hydrogen needs to be stored at extreme temperatures and or pressures to supply enough energy. Per kg. it is fantastic. At atmospheric pressure though that kg would take up 100m^3 or something rediculous. At 700psi it still takes up 8 times the space gasoline would at atmosphere.

For automobiles it is a no go unless you coukd safely store it at whatever

>>3930150

>Nothing wrong with cells

I was referring to batteries. Electrochemical cells. Not fuel cells. Basically, using cheap large format recyclable batteries to provide extended range those few times it's needed.

IF we were going to use fuel cells as range extenders, we ought to use silicon oxide ones. They are the cheapest fuel cells on the market, pocket sized ones for charging your cell phone can be had for a few dollars. The downside is the fuel packet has to be sent back to the company for refilling, so this would be something you'd use only sparingly.

because hydrogen cant run a flux capacitor. duh

you need like 1.21 gigawatts

Doesn't hydrogen require electricity to produce it?
And more so than it delivers?

>>3930192
Big Bang here: No....no it doesn't.

>>3930170 batteries
Do we have any batteries that store decent energy? and I would be hesitant to say they would he good at range extending, as they will slowly discharge while connected even when not actively used. Maybe stoping to manually attach as needed.

>>3930198

>Do we have any batteries that store decent energy?

Yeah, zinc air and lithium air. Superior energy density to lithium ion, but cannot be recharged. (yet)

>>3930196
Rephrase: Doesn't hydrogen require electricity to produce electricity from it?

>>3930192
H2 isnt readily found in nature, so we run electricity through water to produce it. Wether there are losses not not probably depends on the mechanics of the process used, but I assume some would naturally go into o2 bonds.

But loss is less important. Everything has efficiency problems. For example in the case of nuclear energy not being scalable/safe for automobile use, using it to create hydrogen could be considered acceptable loses.

>>3930221

>using it to create hydrogen could be considered acceptable loses.

Why waste 50% of that power to make fuel for a hydrogen vehicle with a 250 mile range when you can waste less than 7% total to get it from the power plant to someone's house and charge a cheaper, longer lived battery that can take a car 300 miles?

>>3930216
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but here is my 2 cents.

Burning hydrogen in fuel cells produces electricity and you can make hydrogen from water via electrolysis (which obviously needs electricity).

The point of all of this is that you can easily make electricity (solar power for example) but storing it is a problem. If you can use the energy you get from power plants to create hydrogen you can use hydrogen fuel cells to power things that aren't connected to the power grid.

In short, fuel cells are an alternative to batteries.

>>3930208
Hurm, a quick energy density search says it has 11 times the energy storage per kg as standard car lithium batteries. So you take 10% of a current pack, replace them with this, you double the range. Might not be enough of a difference to offset the non rechargable nature. But if manufacturing is cheap enough, you could make a 3000mile car and replace the batteries at regular maintenance.

>>3930243
charge time. Takes 2 minutes to add gasoline 5 to add hydrofen 20 to swap batteries, 8 hours to charge batteries.

I dream of a day when energy will be cheap and abundant. We will just need to figure out ideal storage. Right now im big on algae and other biofuels to fit that need. But who knows where battery technology will go.

>>3930243
That depends on many things. Batteries aren't forever and making them isn't really that cheap some materials might not be that readily available considering who is mining them (China). Recharge times can be quite atrocious as well, I think it is actually more viable to replace the empty battery with a full one instead of recharging it on the spot.

It is a question of which is cheaper energy storage, batteries or hydrogen after all things are considered.

>>3930282

>charge time. Takes 2 minutes to add gasoline 5 to add hydrofen 20 to swap batteries, 8 hours to charge batteries

It takes under 2 minutes to swap a battery pack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lp_6VyIeSY

Also, many EVs available now charge in as little as 4 or 5 hours even off of standad 240v. The Ford Focus Electric is one such car.

>>3930314

On phone. Cant easily youtube. I assume that ia one of those swap stations where its an automated swap convayerbelt?

I wonder if it is scalable to meet automobile demand. If the avwrage gas station has 6 pumps, will 6 battery swaps things fit in the same realestate?

>>3930381

>I wonder if it is scalable to meet automobile demand. If the avwrage gas station has 6 pumps, will 6 battery swaps things fit in the same realestate?

You can have more robots on the same track underneath, coming and going from the central battery storage area yes. Sans batteries, a single lane swap station costs $500,000 which is identical to the average expense of a new gas station. Shai Agassi was determined to price match them on that, although admittedly the number of cars they can serve is not identical. At just 2 minutes a swap, until EVs are everywhere, since you can just charge them when you park I don't anticipate we'll need that many swap stations. They are mainly for long trips and for doing many errands in one day.

I think it comes down to how are we going to produce electricity in the future.

If the electricity is produced in a local grid the battery swap seems easy enough, but if we are going to utilize centralized power generation (solar plants in Africa for example) it might be easier to just produce hydrogen and carry it to the consumers. It would be remove one step in the logistics chain because you wouldn't have to carry empty batteries to the power plants for recharging.

>>3930444

Energy losses in turning solar energy into hydrogen would be greater than simply transmitting the power to where it will be used by high voltage power lines. Average loss between powerplant and house is currently 6.5%.

>>3930456

But he mentioned solar. Peak production and peak demand will not line up. Hydrogen could be used to store excess energy and burned as needed. Would be cheaper than batteries

>>3930456
How long is "average powerline"? I don't think the loss would be just 6.5% if the powerline ran from Egypt to Sweden.

Utilizing high voltage DC helps reducing the loss but not endlessly.

>>3930480

>Hydrogen could be used to store excess energy and burned as needed. Would be cheaper than batteries

Molten salt boilers are cheaper than either and permit solar towers to provide uninterrupted baseload power in sunny equitorial regions.

>>3930485
>Utilizing high voltage DC

Come back Tesla! We need you again!

>>3930490 molten salt boiler

Please explain more. But my battery is dying so I might stop replying

>>3930502

Molten salt retains heat extraordinarily well. You can think of it as a "heat battery". The outer shell of the boiler contains molten salt, the focused sunlight from all those mirrors keeps it molten, and the water boiler inside that layer is kept boiling by the heat of the salt. After the sun goes down the salt stays hot enough, long enough, to keep the water boiling overnight. There is a gradual drop in output, but it doesn't have time to fall far, as the molten salt boiler can keep the water boiling for 14 hours and the sun is up long before that.

>>3930076
> Disinformation. Bad delivery of disinformation at that.

Bullshit. You're the propagandist here. Build the thing and sell it to others, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The only thing that matters is PERFORMANCE. My opinion doesn't matter worth DOGDICK if you have a working system. But you free-energy types never DO have working systems. All you con artists are looking for is investor money to STEAL.

>>3930522

IT'S BEAUTIFUL

GLORIOUS MOLTEN SALT SOLAR

>>3930533

>GLORIOUS MOLTEN SALT SOLAR

You're not kidding. Less land used per Kw, higher power output, and lower maintinence costs as each of the mirrors is around $1 bought wholesale versus hundreds for a large solar panel. As if that weren't enough they really do look like this irl.

>>3930542

Honestly that's enough reason to put up one of these even in more northern if only for the chance to show how fabulously green you are.

>>3930522
> There is a gradual drop in output, but it doesn't have time to fall far, as the molten salt boiler can keep the water boiling for 14 hours and the sun is up long before that.

AND YET, such installations are always declared commercial failures. Makes you wonder, eh?

The real problem is that we have a petro-culture and we don't want to adopt anything without the cheapness, density and practicality of Cheap Oil. We could be building lots of mirror-fed solar towers in otherwise unusable lands, close to heavy energy consumers, as happens across the Western US. But we don't, since we'd rather keep blowing through oil, coal and natural gas, which by no mean coincidence provides the same line of wealth to our Petro-Lords.

>>3930551

>AND YET, such installations are always declared commercial failures.

No they aren't. The ones in the picture were built in Spain to compensate for the commercial failure of solar panel farms. That's the boondoggle you're thinking of, and I agree. Basically these are an 11th hour attempt to make solar energy work in Spain in spite of the wasted investment in panel farms now being taken down.

The success of the solar towers that replaced panel farms is what spurred Google to fund the construction of the world's largest solar tower, right here in the US.

http://mashable.com/2011/04/12/ivanpah-google-solar-energy/

You can see the groundbreaking ceremony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=34o8RU5g8XY

Now what?

>>3929883
How do fuel cells degrade? I thought they were pretty much metal boxes.

>>3930576

>How do fuel cells degrade? I thought they were pretty much metal boxes.

They're almost identical to batteries in structure. They just sustain the reaction using an outside fuel source.

>>3930588
Isn't water formation endothermic? I thought that was why you could make it by filling a balloon with a mixture of the two and then popping it with a lighter.

Thanks for the help.

>>3930597

Sure, and you can combust hydrogen in a specially designed internal combustion engine. It's just not as energy dense as gasoline, the engine wastes more of that energy than a fuel cell does and you still have the problem of storing chilled, highly compressed hydrogen which gradually leaks out over a relatively short period if not used.

There are valid uses for fuel cells, but not as the main source of power for an EV. Perhaps as range extenders, but those are more likely to run on nat. gas or single use solid fuel packs than hydrogen due to cost and storage issues.

>>3930613
But I mean, how do you get energy out of the reaction? My chemistry knowledge is shitty, but I was under the impression that it would need more power in than it gets out to generate power.

Haven't been here for a while, how are the hamsters :3?

>>3930623

>But I mean, how do you get energy out of the reaction?

You don't. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a fuel.

>Haven't been here for a while, how are the hamsters :3?

Chillin. I found out I can buy their food in bulk from costco and it's way cheaper. Working on a medium sized habitat for a 24/7 hampture livestream but big things are happening right now so that's on the back burner for a while.

>>3930637
>You don't. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a fuel.

So how does it provide power? It can't just be pressure, can it?

>Chillin. I found out I can buy their food in bulk from costco and it's way cheaper. Working on a medium sized habitat for a 24/7 hampture livestream but big things are happening right now so that's on the back burner for a while.

rAmen. Anything else going on you're willing to share with us?

>>3930647

>So how does it provide power? It can't just be pressure, can it?

Uh, I think there has been a misunderstanding. The separation of hydrogen and oxygen takes energy. Hydrogen is not found, by itself, on Earth. We cannot therefore harvest and use it as a true fuel. Instead, we would invest electricity into making hydrogen from water at a 50% loss, then waste another 50% of the remaining energy in the fuel cell. What power makes it through is what a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle runs on. The way the fuel cell makes that electricity is through a reaction where hydrogen atoms cross through the PEM, or "proton exchange membrane" to combine with oxygen, which is why the waste output is water.

>fuel

Are Oil and Gas companies dedicated to what they sell? I don't believe so. At the heart they are Fuel companies. They want us to suckle on their resources our entire lives. Chained to them by our necessity of finite resources. Neigh, I do not support hydrogen cars.

>>3930647
By burning.

Fuel cells are just more effective than combustion engines with hydrogen- at least in theory, I don't have the numbers.

What about cars being power by the road through induction?

Or atleast highways to cover larger distances?

>>3930664
Ah, thanks. Have an internet.

>>3930666
well per kilo of fuel, maybe. I'd wager it's a lot more difficult to carry safely, though, and for oxygen usage it's a crap ton worse

>>3930670
Well yeah, if we're willing to strip vehicles of all electrical equipment. Otherwise, any efficiency gain is going to be more than countered by the additional weight of an insulating shell, probably. Plus, roads would become seriously desirable to scavengers if they contained enough metal to induce a current as high as 40 or so Kw, so there's that too.

>>3930670

>What about cars being power by the road through induction?

Too wasteful, requires close alignment. However an alternative now exists, magnetic resonance transmission, which allows for less precise alignment, greater distances and higher efficiency (70-90% over several feet)

>Or atleast highways to cover larger distances?

I think it's realistic to expect it in parking places first, then interstates, and eventually at stoplights. Not on every street though, as it's not necessary and would be too expensive.

>>3930687
How would we safely stop the system from frying anything near it? unless you're going with slow charging, (which isn't necessary-http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1802551/nissan-trial-fast-charge-electric-car-network
) then surely it would make more sense to just go for a conventional charger?

>>3930686

Actually magnetic resonance transmission is frequency specific and does not interfere with other equipment. A demonstration of this can be seen on TED talks.

It would be a poor idea to make it high power enough to recharge vehicles, but at lower power it could ensure your battery level stays where it is while on the interstate in a specially marked lane. That way when you get to the next city over you still have a mostly full battery.

>>3930698
That's pretty cool. And I guess so.

I still think the risk of theft is fairly high, though. Roads aren't easy to watch, for starters, so I'd imagine it would be possible to dig up coils with a cool enough drill.

Would there be any way of working out who was using this system? The power presumably wouldn't be free.

>>3930705

>Would there be any way of working out who was using this system? The power presumably wouldn't be free.

You could separate the lane via concrete divider and make the entrance work like a wireless toll booth, where you have a transmitter suction cupped to the inside of the windshield that handles payment automatically as you go through. Those who don't pay will be identified by footage of their license plates and billed by mail.

>>3930711
Or you could have a constant GPS tracking on your car (like envisioned by politicians here in Finland) that would check if you are using the recharging lanes and the data would be used to calculate the cost of service.

>>3930711
Sounds boringly feasible, let's do this.

I'm still in favour of perspex, pneumatic tubes. Also they're underwater or something.

>>3930727
I'm guessing you'd have people claiming some kind of extremely tenuous first amendment violation though, if the government had any involvement and this happened. Plus, you'd then have a legal requirement to have a GPS transmitter of a certain specification in your vehicle, publicly funded Satellites, all kinds of technically interesting but socially repugnant stuff.

>>3930742

>I'm still in favour of perspex, pneumatic tubes. Also they're underwater or something.

>>3930742

>Sounds boringly feasible, let's do this.

The other upside is that it makes long haul trucking possible to electrify. They could use relatively meager batteries as they would spend 90% of their trip in the special lane on the interstate. They could recharge at rest stops and deployment centers.

>>3930750
You know what would be cool? Vaccuum tubes, stretching a thousand kilometres into space.
You could have a small quantity of some kind of gas- Argon, probably- in it, and then as capsules came down they'd be cushioned gradually. Then, when it came to launching, you could just pump the thing full of slow burning explosive and fire it like some kind of horrifically impressive space cannon. Re-usable pods could be used, re-entry problems could be avoided altogether (with there being no friction) and we'd have a cheap/permanent way to get into L/MEO.

Perhaps if there was some kind of secondary station at the top, for getting the trajectory spot on, then it'd work better. You know more about space than me.

>>3930764
True, a lot better than trains. IIRC though, an accelerating truck uses about 360-600Kw :S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

Magnetohydrodynamic plasma. Wave ( pun intended ) of the future.

>>3930873

That's basically just VASIMR, but for submarines. Just like VASIMR it needs a nuclear reactor to produce useful thrust. The reason subs don't use it is because despite the lack of moving parts, the turbulence it creates in the water is noisy. Focus has shifted since then to supercav drives, basically exotic rocket chemistries that use salt water as half of the reaction. This makes them especially long-burning, and by forcing some of the exhaust out of pores in the nosecone, the entire rocket-shaped sub 'flies' like a missile in a pocket of air at speeds of 115mph, with supercav torpedos reaching speeds of 300mph.

This is so incredibly noisy, it's useful only for emergency escape, and in the case of torpedos a surprise attack when you have line of sight and can afford to give away your position.

>>3930915
Yeah, there's another drawback to supercavitating torpedoes... guidance.

It's noisy in that bubble, active sonar won't work that well either. So, they can only be guided by wire from the launching platform. So...
1.)Everyone knows you're there
2.)You have to stick around for your torpedoes to hit anything
3.)You'll have to attack from pretty close if you want to do a "snapshot"

Things like ASROC will rape your sub if you try to use one. This is why the Navy's largely discarded the idea of traditional supercavitating torpedoes. There is research into torpedoes that will "sneak" up to targets at normal speeds, then switch into supercavitation for terminal phase. Then again, these will either be huge torpedoes, or sacrifice warhead size.

>>3930967
Couldn't it just check it position by measuring acceleration?

>>3930967

>So, they can only be guided by wire from the launching platform.

...Unless they are piloted. Deploy under electric thrust from carrier, surprise attack, scatter in various directions using supercav, then go to electric thrust and rendesvous with carrier. They will have to choose one of you to follow, and you'll be long gone by the time the reach the spot where the noise stopped.

>>3930995
Do you know how ASROC works? If you're in range to fire without guidance, you can have a large conventional torpedo dropped right on top of your head. A modern warship can fire off several ASROCs in one minute. No worries about following you.

If you go supercav, ASW assets can drop sonabuoys and move faster than you. No matter how fast your "sub fighter" is, it likely can't outrun a S-3 viking, P-8 poseidon, or even a SH-60 Seahawk. You'll be followed relentlessly while you're noisy. Once you go silent, active sonabuoys get dropped and we ping the hell out of the water until we find you or your sub-carrier.

You're in a little sub-fighter anyway, your endurance (range) has to be limited. We'll find your mothership and sink it. It might be worth it to get off some shots at a carrier, but you'll die, rest assured.

Alternatively, once attacks from sub fighters (for some moronic reason) become a real threat, it's easy to counter. Just tow along a bunch of electrically-propelled SLMMS mines near the CVBG. Detect something sneaking up? Detonate a nearby mine. The overpressure wave will either kill it, damage it, or fuck with its supercav bubble.

>>3931028

Rebuttal: Subfighters are rad as fuck RAD AS FUCK

RAD AS FUCK

Also we have shit that's pretty close already.

>>3929861
They can't give the public at large cylinders of hydrogen

They can't store the hydrogen in an efficient manner

There were breakthroughs with sodium borohydride research but the company melinnium cell went under

>>3931041
I guess it depends on your tastes.

THIS, is rad as fuck. The Virginia Class SSN.

Nuclear reactor provides range and endurance only limited by food supplies. It can even make its own damn oxygen and fresh water.
12 VLS tubes allows it to fire 12 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 12 LASM anti ship missiles, or 48 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
4 torpedo tubes let it shoot off MK48 mod 6 ADCAP torpedoes, each of which can sink anything in the sea with one hit... at a range of 30 miles (full range is classified)
It can deploy SF teams with SDV's
It can conduct undersea espionage
It can lay networked minefields of mobile mines (SLMMs)

It can fuck up almost anything, almost anywhere on the planet. Above or below the surface of the sea. It's quiet.

It might not be glamorous, but it's an effective weapon. It's truly one of the great machines of war.

>>3931083
Why can't people get their hands on hydrogen?

Gasoline isn't exactly safe either, it is both poisonous and flammable.

>>3930056

You got that all wrong.

you are obviously not an engineer.

1.4kw/m^2 is in space, and its kw/m^2 not kwh.
On earth on a sunny day you get 1 kw/m^2

10m^2 is pretty fucking generous. 5 is more realistic.

that gives you 5kw to play with. thats 6.7 hp

>50 mwh

assuming you mean mw, no. bugatti veyron is .8 mw. 1 mw is 1300 hp

1400kg is right. 5kw on 1400kg. not very fast at all.

your right that it won't work but you analysis was fucked

>>3931095

>It might not be glamorous, but it's an effective weapon. It's truly one of the great machines of war.

I agree, existing subs awe me too. But I think you're wrong about the utility of small fast attack subs. Remember that small submersibles can dive far deeper than large subs like the Virginia class. Escape could be as simple as diving below the sub's crush depth, hiding in crevices, taking occasional pot shots. Provided an energy dense power source (like NASA's 40kw suitcase sized RTG) you could linger for enormous periods of time if need be. Something like liquid spirulina with vitamin C additive could be stored in its own tank for consumption such that the only waste could be liquid, and the nitrates from it could be fed to the spirulina to produce additional oxygen (The main source being centrifugal separation powered by the RTG)

>>3931122
Spirulina, enjoy your gout.

It'd be a miserable way to wage war. Not to mention that an unmanned system would do just as well, probably. There are limitations to that, but they're the same limitations on space probes- they have to be smart enough to act without human intervention.

As far as having sub fighters laying in wait for you, just start towing some SLMM mines along with the fleet on cables that can transmit power. It'd be trivial for a warship to bleed off that power and sub fighters would be ruined if the overpressure from a blast caught them. It wouldn't be all that difficult to see them coming.

>Detect a carrier sub or a stray sub fighter?
Deploy the SLMM mines on towing cables and keep ASW assets on either alert 5 or airborne alert.
>Sub fighters bugged out and dove deep?
Deploy SLMMs to maximum depth, leave a few sonabuoys down there with UHF network link (actually exists) to the mines. When something pops up, the mines will pursue the sub fighters.

I'm not saying that ants can't kill an elephant, but the elephant can crush a goodly number of ants before that happens.

>>3931122
However, there may be a good use for small, unmanned submersibles in warfare.

Outside of the obvious salvage, undersea espionage/sabotage, etc. there is resupply. If you could covertly drop a submersible from a CVBG to dock with a sub to resupply it with food and other consumables, that'd be fantastic.

Re-arming wouldn't be possible, but you could extend the endurance of subs in a combat scenario.

Hey guys, Thorium here, how are things down there?

>>3931213
Just chillin with the above weapons grade by-products guys, no need to worry. Not dangerous at all, guys.