| Christer |
| Expect tons of dead fish floating around after each test. :( |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| I don't think there are any left in the Atlantic anyway... |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
I don't think there are any left in the Atlantic anyway... |
True, and now we know why? |
|
|
| xplod1236 |
| Would that even work? Wouldn't the transducers just push the ship to the side? |
|
|
| Nordic |
Yep and the poor whales will beach themselves...
I wish they would stop this.. it causes terrorism... if your weapons systems are undefeatable, people have no other choice... |
|
|
| soongsc |
| They would have a better chance hitting the sub it self rather than detonating the torpedo. If one calculates the pressure needed to detonate the torpedo, calculate the possible area of impact necessary to actually hit the torpedo, the energy is really large in order for it to be detonated. If the torpedo has a homing device based on sound, it is much easier to use adequately phased sounds to fool the torpedo, much like the way a surround sound speaker array is used by JVC. |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
| The link does not work for me. |
|
|
| paulspencer |
| works fine for me ... very interesting to be able to use a "speaker" to blow up torpedoes! No limit on how many times they can fire it, save having sufficient fuel/power supply. |
|
|
| Tall Shadow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nordic
Yep and the poor whales will beach themselves...
I wish they would stop this.. it causes terrorism... if your weapons systems are undefeatable, people have no other choice... |
Saying weapons cause terrorism, is like saying spoons cause fat people.
:xeye: :rolleyes:
Tall Shadow |
|
|
| paulspencer |
XPLOD, they could fire on both sides to balance if required, but I'm not sure it would be a problem anyway, it's a short burst of energy, it might just jolt the ship to one side. Think of it this way
Force = mass x acceleration
The forces must oppose, but consider that the mass x acceleration of those units is balanced by the mass x acceleration of the ship itself. Since the ship is so heavy in comparison, it might not be so bad. The mass of the transducers is small compared to the ship, and the acceleration is high. The mass of the ship is huge.
Terrorism? I don't think there is any real connection. Terrorists don't attack in a direct head-on way - they don't have war ships, submarines, etc. Instead they have fanatics, guns and bombs, and the media to add hype to their actions. Terrorism is very cheap in comparison to war ... |
|
|
| soongsc |
| Pushing water is a totally different thing.;) |
|
|
| xplod1236 |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulspencer
The mass of the transducers is small compared to the ship, and the acceleration is high. The mass of the ship is huge. |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
Pushing water is a totally different thing.;) |
What I was thinking is that the mass of the water that needs to be pushed is huge, while the mass of the ship is very small comparted to the mass of the water. Even if they fired on both sides, they would probably crush the ship if they were powerful enough to push water. |
|
|
| paulspencer |
| quote: | Originally posted by xplod1236
What I was thinking is that the mass of the water that needs to be pushed is huge, while the mass of the ship is very small comparted to the mass of the water. Even if they fired on both sides, they would probably crush the ship if they were powerful enough to push water. |
You can't be serious! :xeye:
Q: Why does steel not float in water?
A: Because it is a lot heavier!
The volume of water displaced and the mass of that water would be quite small compared to the mass of the ship. The steel that makes up the ship would most probably be far greater than the displacement volume of those units as well.
I actually think it's a trivial matter for the ship to be able to handle this. |
|
|
| xplod1236 |
| You're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulspencer
You can't be serious! :xeye:
Q: Why does steel not float in water?
A: Because it is a lot heavier!
The volume of water displaced and the mass of that water would be quite small compared to the mass of the ship. The steel that makes up the ship would most probably be far greater than the displacement volume of those units as well.
I actually think it's a trivial matter for the ship to be able to handle this. |
The mass of the ship equals the mass of the water that it displaces when it floats on water. This is basic physics.
Steel does not float on water because the desity is greater than water. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by xplod1236
What I was thinking is that the mass of the water that needs to be pushed is huge, while the mass of the ship is very small comparted to the mass of the water. Even if they fired on both sides, they would probably crush the ship if they were powerful enough to push water. |
The pushing distance is smaller than the yeild point of steel, thus the ship maintaines its shape. |
|
|
| Stocker |
Two thoughts, both of them WOW, Thank You for the posters who got there before me.
Also, this is a WOW technology. I say if it protects the lives of anywhere from 100-6000+ ***human*** sailors, the local marine life, as well as the outraged watermelon-type environmentalists can Stuff It.
| quote: | Originally posted by Tall Shadow
<snip> spoons cause fat people.
:xeye: :rolleyes:
Tall Shadow |
Fortunately, the lawsuits against McDonalds seem to have got nowhere, fast.
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
The pushing distance is smaller than the yeild point of steel, thus the ship maintaines its shape. |
It would probably get somebody fired from their job if a ship sank because they got that calculation wrong. Can you imagine the looks on the faces watching the ship sink? |
|
|
| Christer |
| I have a feeling some people try to make this thread political, possibly by reading something political into my posts. Let me thus say that I only posted a spontaneous reaction to the article, with no intention to condemn this techonology. In hindsigth my comment may also appear a bit moot, since also a torpedo explosion will have a similar effect, and torpedos are routinely detonated for test and training puproses by a large number of nations. Anyway, I suppose that despite all the naval test and training with torpedos and other explosives going on around the world, this is hardly the major cause for "unneccesary fish death". |
|
|
| paulspencer |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
The mass of the ship equals the mass of the water that it displaces when it floats on water. This is basic physics.
Steel does not float on water because the desity is greater than water. |
The mass of the ship UNDER the waterline equals the mass of water displaced. This is basic physics.
The whole ship is not under the water, hence the mass of the ship is greater than the volume of water that it displaces. This is basic common sense.
The volume of water displaced is much less than the volume displaced by the ships hull. (Some more basic common sense.)
Another factor to consider is the area of the combined piston area of the units, and their excursion ie total swept area. A very small piston area and displacement will have no noticeable effect on the very large ship area. In this case the piston area will be large, but the hull of the ship will be much larger.
Let's suppose the units of a metre diameter each move 1m to fire off a shock wave. Is the ship going to move a metre to the side? No, it would be much less, considering that the ship is very heavy relative to the water displaced by the transducers, and also the area of the ship is much larger. Maybe it would move 10% of a metre or less. No big deal unless you are eating breakfast (but would you while under attack?)
This situation is just like recoil from a gun. A small light bullet moves very fast and the gun recoils so that the mass x acceleration are equal on both sides. On the gun side, the mass is much higher and the acceleration much less. The heavier the gun, the less the gun will recoil. |
|
|
| Stocker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
<snip>
Let me thus say that I only posted a spontaneous reaction to the article, with no intention to condemn this techonology. In hindsigth my comment may also appear a bit moot, since also a torpedo explosion will have a similar effect, and torpedos
<snip>
hardly the major cause for "unneccesary fish death". |
Now that got me giggling. Good show.
:grouphug: :D :D :D |
|
|
| paulspencer |
gotta love these emoticons! ..... this one is a bit appropriate
:radar: :radar: :radar:
this guy shouldn't be playing with mains wiring :wave2s:
even :snoopy: is here!
would this face lie to you? :Pinoc:
you be the :judge: |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Paul Spencer:
Your post about the reactive forces and such is accurate and logical apart from one point:
The mass of water that is displaced by a ship isn't the mass of the ship under it's waterline. It displaces the same mass of water as the mass of the whole ship !
There is only one special case where a ship displaces as much water as it has got under the waterline: Subs while being submerged (but then you can't count the water in its dive tanks to the displaced water mass).
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| paulspencer |
| quote: |
The mass of water that is displaced by a ship isn't the mass of the ship under it's waterline. It displaces the same mass of water as the mass of the whole ship ! |
Actually you're right, I don't know what I was thinking. But still, it doesn't really affect my argument as the mass of water displaced by the hull is irrelevant in this case. |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| I meant sub as in submarine. :) |
|
|
| neutron7 |
its a really big yamaha YSP-1 Digital Sound Projector on the side of a ship. works at lower frequencies. and underwater.
it only costs US taxpayers (who have plenty of money to spare these days) only about 100 million per ship: 10 million for the hardware and labor, 6 million for bribes, 38 million for party donation, and 46 million for PORK.
definately another brilliant idea from DARPA
i wonder how much power that uses anyways? send a few dud torpedos first and the batteries would be flat. |
|
|
|
