h a l f b a k e r y
I think, therefore I am thinking.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
I've often wondered why, when the allies were sending convoys to and fro accross the atlantic, they didn't invent cargo submarines.
Now, I know that submarines need to be very thick to withstand the pressures of travelling underwater.
So a conventional submarine would require a large amount of
steel for a tiny amount of cargo volume.
However, if the cargo was immersed in oil and the air removed from the cargo hold, the cargo could be transported in much thinner walled submarines.
These would have been hard for the nazi subs to locate and fewer people would have lost their lives in the battle of the atlantic.
[edit this was for the original title HB alternate history category]
Luckily there aren't any subs gunning for modern cargo ships. But what about the cargo submarine? It wouldn't have a chance on the bakery because it is now totally pointless.
So would it be fun to have an alternate history category so that people can suggest interesting ideas to problems that no longer exist?
alternate history idea
Alternate_20History_20Mining
but not that similar [humanzee, Mar 01 2007]
Merchant Submarine
http://en.wikipedia.../Merchant_submarine
[nuclear hobo, Mar 02 2007]
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
would it be put under a sub category of
Marine ideas? |
|
| |
The concept of cargo submarines is not a crazy as you may think. They have been conjectured about in Popular Science at least once. The distance from European and East coast USA ports to West coast and Asian ports is consideribaly shorter if you go over the North Pole(airplanes already do this now) unfortunately the Ice is a problem for your average ship, but for a submarine that is not an issue so even if 1/3 the capacity of a supertanker the decreased distance means you could have 4 or 5 times more cargo moved in the same amount of time. |
|
| |
As to your Idea I think it is mired in extreme issues such as environemntal factors for one. How would you unload such a ship? How would you protect the shipped materials(especially those that contain Air such as foodstuffs etc.) or those that could be contaminated by oil(how do bullets hold up when soaked in oil at high pressure) The alternate history idea itself seems kind of pointless. |
|
| |
/who knows when the underlying principles will come in handy./ |
|
| |
well said. I like the idea. |
|
| |
Of course anything but raw materials would have to be shipped in pressurised containers. With very thick walls. |
|
| |
I don't think we need an alternate history invention category. As has been said, the idea here will be useful in the future, and I'd hate to miss it by limiting my search to "marine transport". |
|
| |
In the past, I have objected to an idea that was a solution to an old problem, but mostly because it was a poor idea. Any elegant solution to an old problem gets my vote. |
|
| |
Cargo submarines were considered, IIRC. The Germans called their service subs "milch cows", I think. Towed bladders full of oil were also worked on. |
|
| |
As for shipping more complex items inside those bladders, I don't know anything historical. But the pressure needn't be great, as the depth could be limited. Spherical containers could handle many items, packing grease could protect a lot more. Bullets, for instance, could be shipped inside a pipe. |
|
| |
Raw materials that would require only a light wrapper would include flour and gasoline, which were very valuable in WWII. |
|
| |
And this idea does inspire modern and future usefulness. Which is part of why I hang out at this site. [+] |
|
| |
that's great then, so i can post ideas for the Romans too? |
|
| |
You can post anything that isn't an obvious [m-f-d]. People may or may not like it, but that's people for you. |
|
| |
It would not need to be oil. It could be fresh water, which is cheaper and less buoyant. |
|
| |
I can imagine an overpowered nuclear sub tug, pulling along a string of liquid filled cargo containers under the ice, after attempts to remedy global warming go horribly awry. |
|
| |
//I can imagine an overpowered nuclear sub tug, pulling along a string of liquid filled cargo containers under the ice, after attempts to remedy global warming go horribly awry.// |
|
| |
After global warming there won't be *any* ice. |
|
| |
I think that's his point. |
|
| |
Better start reading there hobo my friend. Your last comment displays a clear lack of understanding of the nature and consequences of global warming. |
|
| |
That Wikipedia link mentions shipping Liquified Natural Gas by submarine. I assume that's refrigerated gas. |
|
| |
It seems to me that a few gasses could be shipped under water if they were at a depth where water pressure alone was enough to keep them in their liquid form. So insead of a giant refrigeration plant and a thick layer of insulation on the surface; a plastic bag a thousand feet under might work. |
|
| |
I wonder if it would be possible to pump the gas from a deep water port to a submarine several hundred meters underwater. Ethane and propane might work not sure about methane, isn't there a critical temperature or something? |
|
| |
The problem with methane is it explodes if you compress it. |
|
| |
//The problem with methane is it explodes if you compress it.// |
|
| |
Where on earth did you come up with this? |
|
| |
If he/she's right, (not that I think He/she is) then what difference would it make where he or she came up it? It still wouldn't explode. |
|
| |
I am just always intrigued to learn where people come up with information that is so completely incorrect. Is it something they made up? Is there a reference somewhere telling them this? Are they just clueless? |
|
| |
Such misinformation can be very damaging in many situations. As a manger of a business I deal everyday with employees that regularly come up with these sorts of completely wrong bits of knowledge. This costs a lot of time and emotional energy and so at least a reasonable part of my job is spent eradicating misinformation. |
|
| |
Doctors also tend to have a hatred of people who turn up complete with an incorrect or inaccurate diagnosis and treatment as supplied by an irrelevant article they skimmed on the net. |
|
| |
...especially since it forestalls the doctor
from doing the same thing himself. |
|
| |
I have bin researching biogas witch is 80 to 90% methane and that can't be stored much over atmospheric presser
But natural gas is 70% methane and it can be stored a high presser so it may be a the mix of gasses that form biogas that are the problem |
|
| |
//I have bin researching biogas witch is 80
to 90% methane and that can't be stored
much over atmospheric presser// Don't
be silly. |
|
| |
what is so silly MaxwellBuchanan?
biogass is vary volitile |
|
| |
vary...- Liquefied natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
|
| |
Yes!! If all cargo was moved by submarine, then you could safely sail around the oceans without working about running into the shipping lanes. |
|
| |
//what is so silly MaxwellBuchanan?
biogass is vary volitile// |
|
| |
Where to begin? It's a bit like trying to
explain what's wrong with the statement
"You can't make
gravity hot because the radio waves are
too dark." |
|
| |
Why should the volatility of biogas stop
you from compressing it, you ninny? |
|
| |
hydrogen is exceedingly "volatile"(this is of course a completely incorrect usage of this word, combustible or inflamable would be more appropriate), as are Propane, LNG, Methane and many dozens more gases that when mixed with a source of oxygen and exposed to a sufficient amount of heat or an open ignition source will explode or burn quite readily. They all also are regularly compressed and stored in cylinders. |
|
| |
Good luck with the research, based on what I've seen so far you have a LOOOONNNNNGGG way to go. |
|
| |
//Yes!! If all cargo was moved by submarine, then you could safely sail around the oceans without working about running into the shipping lanes// In which case, bone because I go scuba diving to avoid the nasty floaty boaty things. I don't want to be run down by a sub-aqua banana boat.
br>//It would not need to be oil. It could be fresh water, which is cheaper and less buoyant.// Maybe deuterium or tritium oxide? |
|
| |
I retract my comment And State that my dad is not a good source of information. |
|
| |