From: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 14:07:18 PST
Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
> I think "the plan" is more of a facetious attempt at humor than an
> actual plan. But in either case, I don't believe that you're
> correct here. A nuclear submarine does not have a "nuclear drive"
> optimized for propulsion. It has a nuclear power plant which
What? No turbines for me? Awwwww.
> generates electricity to run a motor drive, period. It *is* a
> generator. It's not steam powering or water powering any kind
> of direct drive equipment, simply providing electricity.
That makes zero sense technologically (you have to keep the power
density high and hence the weight and conversion losses down, and
one less subsystem to fail), and it doesn't seem be done in practice:
http://www.subasekb.navy.mil/propuls.htm
You usually know what you're talking about, so I presume you'll
tell us the reasons and give examples for mainstream sub designs
which use an electrical generator for propulsion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 04:38:11 PST