A few more music vids. Very Guitar Centric.
I will be going to see these guys pretty soon! The Reverend Horton Heat:
Horton Heat Rocks! Music starts at 0:55
A cool old San Jose Band I discovered in high school. Classic stuff with the wah pedal.
Joe Bonamassa:
A couple of videos from Nutty Jazz. These guys are pretty cool.
Three classic songs from the Robin Trower band. Trower's Bassist/Vocalist James Dewar (1942-2002) had a magnificent bluesy voice. Totally made the sound of this trio. Very reminiscent of Paul Rogers from Bad Company.
Not keen on the lyrics of this song, but the guitarist is masterful!
A nice bluesy intro and some great power chords.
Like the dual guitars - like southern rock, but metal. Awesome vocals.
And of course the magnificent David Gilmour playing the strat.
An advertisement-free blog about motorcycling, Northern life, home improvement, power plants, submarines, nuclear stuff, and a few other off-beat subjects. Comments are welcome. (Image is the Selway Crags in Northern Idaho)
Friday, January 23, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
Genetically Modified Organisms - the first fatalities
"Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley is a powerful cautionary tale. It's a story about man and science - and hubris. The nature of that hubris is attempting to replicate the work of the Creator by artificially bringing life (but not a soul) back to dead tissue. When people think of "Frankenstein" these days (who reads books anymore?) they think of the scary monster, but not the affront to the nature and the madness of Dr. Frankenstein or the immense suffering of his poor soulless creation.
"Jurassic Park" by Micheal Crichton gives us a modern version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", where an inventor, again filled with hubris, is done in by his own creation. In the process many innocent lives are lost, and the disaster wreaks havoc with nature.
With Frankenstein, it was man's use of electricity to artificially bring life into a dead body. With Jurassic Park, it was man's manipulation of fossilized DNA. Both are works of fiction, and both are powerful cautionary tales about tinkering with things that we barely understand.
The harsh lesson warned about in one of these cautionary tales has already come to pass.
Which finally takes us to the first deaths caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That's right - people have already died from GMOs.
In the mid to late 1980's, there was a surge in popularity of Amino Acid supplements. Amino Acids, as you might recall from high school biology or chemistry class, are the "building blocks of life". What that means for practical purposes is that amino acids are used to build most of the tissue that you are made of. The human body can manufacture 12 types of vital amino acids, which are called "non-essential". The remaining nine amino acids cannot be made by the body and are called "essential amino acids"
These "essential amino acids" are in supplements aimed at fitness buffs and bodybuilders. They are Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalinine, Threonine, Tryptophan, and Valine. It makes sense if you are a body-builder to ensure your body always has enough raw material on hand to build muscle. Readers are probably familiar with Tryptophan. It's the amino acid that is supposed to make you sleepy after eating a big Thanksgiving turkey dinner (actually what makes you sleepy is the carbs). Tryptophan is also the subject of today's post.
In the late 1980's the US experienced an epidemic of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), which led to 1500 cases of permanent disability and 37 deaths. EMS is a an incurable and sometimes fatal neurologic condition. The single outbreak of EMS was traced to the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko. Although the EMS outbreak wasn't recognized until 1989, there were EMS cases 2-3 years prior to that recognition. Epidemiological studies led authorities to Showa Denko, who sold most of the amino acid supplements under various brand names in the US.
Tryptophan is manufactured by a fermentation process that starts with a couple of simpler amino acids. Showa Denko decided to speed up the fermentation process by genetically modifying the bacteria that did the fermenting. They also modified their filtration process to purify the Tryptophan after it came out of the fermenter. After the EMS outbreak was recognized, samples of the Tryptophan were analyzed, and over 60 impurities were found, of which two are thought to be the toxins responsible for EMS.
Of interest here are the responses of the company Showa Denko, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both of which I consider unethical.
Showa Denko destroyed the GMO bacterial stocks when the nature of the EMS outbreak became known.
The FDA banned all Tryptophan supplements from 1991 until 2001. Tryptophan, however, was not the problem. Showa Denko's process was.
The FDA has since acted as if Showa Denko's filtration process were the cause, although it has no evidence to prove that. It has assumed the GMO process was not the cause, although it also has no evidence to prove that. And since Showa Denko decided to destroy the evidence, I would tend to lean toward GMO as the cause.
Lastly, please note that the Tryptophan that Showa Denko produced still met the USP purity requirements of 98.5% purity. So a tiny fraction of a 1.5% impurity lead to 37 deaths and 1500 permanent disabilities. Thats some pretty toxic stuff.
Here's some good reading on the 1989 EMS outbreak while you munch on your GMO corn chips. Hopefully the genetic engineers and regulatory agencies are more worried about our health and safety than they are about getting their next blockbuster GMO seed to market or protecting the biotech industry... Oh who am I kidding?
"Jurassic Park" by Micheal Crichton gives us a modern version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", where an inventor, again filled with hubris, is done in by his own creation. In the process many innocent lives are lost, and the disaster wreaks havoc with nature.
With Frankenstein, it was man's use of electricity to artificially bring life into a dead body. With Jurassic Park, it was man's manipulation of fossilized DNA. Both are works of fiction, and both are powerful cautionary tales about tinkering with things that we barely understand.
The harsh lesson warned about in one of these cautionary tales has already come to pass.
Which finally takes us to the first deaths caused by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That's right - people have already died from GMOs.
In the mid to late 1980's, there was a surge in popularity of Amino Acid supplements. Amino Acids, as you might recall from high school biology or chemistry class, are the "building blocks of life". What that means for practical purposes is that amino acids are used to build most of the tissue that you are made of. The human body can manufacture 12 types of vital amino acids, which are called "non-essential". The remaining nine amino acids cannot be made by the body and are called "essential amino acids"
These "essential amino acids" are in supplements aimed at fitness buffs and bodybuilders. They are Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalinine, Threonine, Tryptophan, and Valine. It makes sense if you are a body-builder to ensure your body always has enough raw material on hand to build muscle. Readers are probably familiar with Tryptophan. It's the amino acid that is supposed to make you sleepy after eating a big Thanksgiving turkey dinner (actually what makes you sleepy is the carbs). Tryptophan is also the subject of today's post.
In the late 1980's the US experienced an epidemic of Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), which led to 1500 cases of permanent disability and 37 deaths. EMS is a an incurable and sometimes fatal neurologic condition. The single outbreak of EMS was traced to the Japanese manufacturer Showa Denko. Although the EMS outbreak wasn't recognized until 1989, there were EMS cases 2-3 years prior to that recognition. Epidemiological studies led authorities to Showa Denko, who sold most of the amino acid supplements under various brand names in the US.
Tryptophan is manufactured by a fermentation process that starts with a couple of simpler amino acids. Showa Denko decided to speed up the fermentation process by genetically modifying the bacteria that did the fermenting. They also modified their filtration process to purify the Tryptophan after it came out of the fermenter. After the EMS outbreak was recognized, samples of the Tryptophan were analyzed, and over 60 impurities were found, of which two are thought to be the toxins responsible for EMS.
Of interest here are the responses of the company Showa Denko, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both of which I consider unethical.
Showa Denko destroyed the GMO bacterial stocks when the nature of the EMS outbreak became known.
The FDA banned all Tryptophan supplements from 1991 until 2001. Tryptophan, however, was not the problem. Showa Denko's process was.
The FDA has since acted as if Showa Denko's filtration process were the cause, although it has no evidence to prove that. It has assumed the GMO process was not the cause, although it also has no evidence to prove that. And since Showa Denko decided to destroy the evidence, I would tend to lean toward GMO as the cause.
Lastly, please note that the Tryptophan that Showa Denko produced still met the USP purity requirements of 98.5% purity. So a tiny fraction of a 1.5% impurity lead to 37 deaths and 1500 permanent disabilities. Thats some pretty toxic stuff.
Here's some good reading on the 1989 EMS outbreak while you munch on your GMO corn chips. Hopefully the genetic engineers and regulatory agencies are more worried about our health and safety than they are about getting their next blockbuster GMO seed to market or protecting the biotech industry... Oh who am I kidding?
Sunday, January 04, 2015
NR-1
The US operated only one nuclear submarine that was NOT a warship.
The ship I am talking about is of course NR-1.
Cute, ain't she? You can tell she isn't a warship because of the clutter on her deck. She clearly isn't intended to go anywhere quickly. In fact, when you look below the waterline, she's really weird!
This little ship has manipulators to grab stuff, and a little bay to store it once it has been grabbed. Most interestingly, she has retractable wheels to scoot along the bottom of the ocean!
Here are her specs from Wikipedia:
A partial cutaway of this unique ship:
The ship I am talking about is of course NR-1.
Cute, ain't she? You can tell she isn't a warship because of the clutter on her deck. She clearly isn't intended to go anywhere quickly. In fact, when you look below the waterline, she's really weird!
This little ship has manipulators to grab stuff, and a little bay to store it once it has been grabbed. Most interestingly, she has retractable wheels to scoot along the bottom of the ocean!
Here are her specs from Wikipedia:
| Displacement: | 400 tons |
| Length: | 45 m (147 ft 8 in) overall 29.3 m (96 ft 2 in) pressure hull |
| Beam: | 3.8 m (12 ft 6 in) 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in) at stern stabilizers. |
| Draft: | 4.6 m (15 ft 1 in) Box keel depth (below base-line): 1.2 m (3.9 ft) |
| Installed power: | one nuclear reactor, one turbo-alternator |
| Propulsion: | 2 × external motors 2 × propellers 4 × ducted thrusters (mounted diagonally in two "x-configured" pairs) |
| Speed: | 4.5 knots (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph) surfaced 3.5 knots (6.5 km/h; 4.0 mph) submerged |
| Endurance: | 210-man-days nominal 16 days for a 13 person crew 330-man-days maximum 25 Days for a 13 person crew |
| Complement: | 3 officers, 8 crewmen, 2 scientists |
| Motto: | The World's Finest Deep Submersible |
A model of NR-1. Not very attractive above or below the waterline!
The controls.
I had considered re-enlisting for a billet on this interesting vessel (mainly to get off the ship I was then serving on). I had a pretty high GPA at Nuclear Power School and met the good conduct criteria. Nothing was said about the conditions aboard the ship or its mission, merely the strict requirements to even apply. I would have been on board at the time of Challenger Space Shuttle mission.
However even my vapor-locked squid brain realized that life aboard even the very cool and secretive NR-1 probably wouldn't be that great, in addition to sticking me on the east coast for a while. Fortunately common sense prevailed. In the end, I sucked it up until my first enlistment ended.
Oscar Wilde once remarked that "Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience". Let me rephrase Oscar based on my personal experience: "Enlistment is the triumph of recruiters over common sense. Re-enlistment is the triumph of hope over experience". Fixed that for you Oscar. Obviously there are other (better) experiences to be had in the Navy, because plenty of people do re-enlist.
That said, I would not have missed my first enlistment for *anything*. There were some awesome guys I got to work with: Intelligent, motivated, and humorous. Many of them are still great friends. I learned a lot (some of which I share here), and it led to an interesting and profitable career in electrical power generation that is shielded from the ups and downs of economic cycles. Submarine life had really big pros. It also had really big cons - like submerging for a couple of months at a time, never having time for relationships, and doing things that might lead to angry people dropping depth charges/shooting torpedoes at you.
The bottom line though, is that I paid my dues, and decided that I didn't want to put off the pursuit of happiness a minute longer than my enlistment papers called for. Knowing today that NR-1 crew could only shower out of a bucket once a week and had to eat TV dinners reinforces one thought: I probably made the right decision back then.
Wiki also says this:
NR-1 performed underwater search and recovery, oceanographic research missions and installation and maintenance of underwater equipment to a depth of almost half a nautical mile - (about 3000 ft or 926 meters). Its features included extending bottoming wheels, three viewing ports, exterior lighting, television and still cameras for color photographic studies, an object recovery claw, a manipulator that could be fitted with various gripping and cutting tools and a work basket that could be used in conjunction with the manipulator to deposit or recover items in the sea. Surface vision was provided by a television periscope permanently installed on a fixed mast in her sail area.
Following the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986, NR-1 was used to search for, identify, and recover critical parts of the Challenger craft.[2] Because it could remain on the sea floor without resurfacing frequently, NR-1 was a major tool for searching deep waters. NR-1 remained submerged and on station even when heavy weather and rough seas hit the area and forced all other search and recovery ships into port.
The NR-1's size limited its crew comforts. The crew of about 10 men could stay at sea for as long as a month, but had no kitchen or bathing facilities. They ate frozen TV dinners, bathed once a week with a bucket of water and burned chlorate candles to produce oxygen. The sub was so slow that it was towed to sea by a surface vessel, and so tiny that the crew felt the push and pull of the ocean's currents. "Everybody on NR-1 got sick," said Allison J. Holifield, who commanded the sub in the mid-1970s. "It was only a matter of whether you were throwing up or not throwing up."
NR-1 was generally towed to and from remote mission locations by an accompanying surface tender, which was also capable of conducting research in conjunction with the submarine.
All personnel that crewed NR-1 were nuclear-trained and specifically screened and interviewed by the Director, Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program.Another public reason the Navy used this ship was to recover advanced aviation electronics and missiles from aircraft lost overboard from aircraft carriers. These would have sunk to the ocean floor, and NR-1 was used to recover them, prevent unfriendly states (the Soviet Union) from getting them and reverse engineering them.
I had considered re-enlisting for a billet on this interesting vessel (mainly to get off the ship I was then serving on). I had a pretty high GPA at Nuclear Power School and met the good conduct criteria. Nothing was said about the conditions aboard the ship or its mission, merely the strict requirements to even apply. I would have been on board at the time of Challenger Space Shuttle mission.
However even my vapor-locked squid brain realized that life aboard even the very cool and secretive NR-1 probably wouldn't be that great, in addition to sticking me on the east coast for a while. Fortunately common sense prevailed. In the end, I sucked it up until my first enlistment ended.
Oscar Wilde once remarked that "Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience". Let me rephrase Oscar based on my personal experience: "Enlistment is the triumph of recruiters over common sense. Re-enlistment is the triumph of hope over experience". Fixed that for you Oscar. Obviously there are other (better) experiences to be had in the Navy, because plenty of people do re-enlist.
That said, I would not have missed my first enlistment for *anything*. There were some awesome guys I got to work with: Intelligent, motivated, and humorous. Many of them are still great friends. I learned a lot (some of which I share here), and it led to an interesting and profitable career in electrical power generation that is shielded from the ups and downs of economic cycles. Submarine life had really big pros. It also had really big cons - like submerging for a couple of months at a time, never having time for relationships, and doing things that might lead to angry people dropping depth charges/shooting torpedoes at you.
The bottom line though, is that I paid my dues, and decided that I didn't want to put off the pursuit of happiness a minute longer than my enlistment papers called for. Knowing today that NR-1 crew could only shower out of a bucket once a week and had to eat TV dinners reinforces one thought: I probably made the right decision back then.
And now for contrast, the largest nuclear submarine ever built, the Russian Project 941 "Акула" Typhoon-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine. These actually had room for on-board weight room, sauna room, and hot tub. Two extremes :)
Friday, January 02, 2015
Sturgeon Class submarine variants
_Launch.jpg)
USS Sturgeon was the first of a new class boats which were the mainstay of the attack submarine fleet from the mid 1960s and well into the 1980s. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them:
| Operators: | United States of America |
| Preceded by: | Thresher-class submarine |
| Succeeded by: | Los Angeles-class submarine |
| Built: | 1963–1975 |
| In commission: | 1967–2004 |
| Completed: | 37 |
| Retired: | 37 |
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Displacement: | 3,640 long tons (3,698 t) surfaced 4,640 long tons (4,714 t) submerged |
| Length: | 292 ft 3 in (89.08 m) |
| Beam: | 31 ft 8 in (9.65 m) |
| Propulsion: | 1 × S5W Pressurized water reactor 2 × 11.2 MW steam turbines 1 shaft |
| Speed: | 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph) surfaced 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph) submerged |
| Range: | Unlimited, except by food supplies |
| Test depth: | 1,320 ft (400 m)[1] |
| Complement: | 107 |
| Armament: | • 4 × 21 in (533 mm) amidship torpedo tubes with MK-48 and ADCAP torpedoes, plus 15 reloads, and 4Harpoon missiles or up to 8Tomahawk missiles, instead of equivalent of number of Torpedoes or Harpoons. In minelaying configuration: • Mark 67 Submarine Launched Mobile Mines and Mark 60 CAPTOR mines instead of torpedoes. |
The last nine built were "stretch hulls", with an additional 10ft of length. We called them "stretch limos", because they were about as luxurious as attack submarines ever got. Of course to us, *any* 637 was the lap of luxury.
There were a couple of special operations boats in this class, notably the Parche, but also including Gurnard and Pintado. These don't interest me much because even though they carried spooks around, they were still basically standard 637 designs.
Of interest to me, because they had unique power trains, were USS Narwhal (SSN-671) and USS Glenard P. Lipscomb (SSN-685). These were truly unique ships from a propulsion standpoint, and that is what I find interesting.
USS Narwhal was launched in September 1967. Her unusual S5G reactor used natural-circulation for cooling, thus eliminating a major source of noise that all other nuclear subs had to deal with: The primary coolant pumps. She had primary coolant pumps available, but did not need to use them, unless high power levels were needed to increase ship speed.
Below, USS Narwhal, SSN-671. A successful prototype.
Below, USS Narwhal, SSN-671. A successful prototype.
Also eliminated on Narwhal were the reduction gears. A multi-multi-multi-multi-stage, low-speed propulsion turbine was coupled directly to the propulsion shaft, completely eliminating the reduction gears (and their noise). Rumor has it that this one-of-a-kind steam turbine was very problematic due to having an extremely long rotor that chronically suffered from bowing.
Narwhal was also equipped with scoop induction for seawater, so that the forward motion of the ship would force seawater through her cooling systems, including the main condensers. This allowed the main seawater pumps to be shut down, yet again reducing noise. Narwhal was probably the quietest submarine built until the Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine arrived on the scene in 1981, carrying some of the features that Narwhal had successfully pioneered.
USS Glenard P. Lipscomb was launched in August 1973, and was a second attempt at turbo-electric propulsion, the first being the DC motor-driven USS Tullibee.
Unfortunately, Lipscomb (which instead used AC propulsion turbine generators) was larger and weighed vastly more than a standard Sturgeon Class boat, while still using the exact same power source (the S5W reactor). She was therefore quite slow (18 knots surfaced/23 submerged). I have no idea if she was any quieter than a standard Sturgeon boat. She had a relatively short life, being decommissioned in 1990, after just 17 years of active service. Typical service life for a submarine is around 30 years.
EDIT: A very knowledgeable commenter who served on the Lipscomb (SSN-685) has provided further information on the propulsion train of this unique vessel. I'll quote him here.
Unfortunately, Lipscomb (which instead used AC propulsion turbine generators) was larger and weighed vastly more than a standard Sturgeon Class boat, while still using the exact same power source (the S5W reactor). She was therefore quite slow (18 knots surfaced/23 submerged). I have no idea if she was any quieter than a standard Sturgeon boat. She had a relatively short life, being decommissioned in 1990, after just 17 years of active service. Typical service life for a submarine is around 30 years.
EDIT: A very knowledgeable commenter who served on the Lipscomb (SSN-685) has provided further information on the propulsion train of this unique vessel. I'll quote him here.
SSN 685 propulsion was NOT AC ... it had two 1000 VDC propulsion turbine generators (PTG) each having twin armatures (2450 Amps max each Arm)... I can confirm as I had to change the brushes and clean the commutators... No reduction gears in these PTG - about 900 RPM max. The motor was direct coupled to the main shaft, 1000 VDC, twin armature, 4800 amps EACH, max. The boat was ultra quiet... had to wear a "pinger" to be allowed to play in NATO games. Carbon dust build-up and impregnation / insulation degradation where the demise (and deficient technical resources to correct these if other blogs are true). "So there ya go!
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Alice in Chains
So two posts ago was music from the 70s and 80s. This is one of my favorite 90s bands, very melodic for an alt/metal band. And of course there will only ever be one Layne Staley. Sad story, that.
So I'm posting more music vids. Because of course you installed the Ad Blocker for Youtube that I mentioned in the previous post! Amirite?
So I'm posting more music vids. Because of course you installed the Ad Blocker for Youtube that I mentioned in the previous post! Amirite?
I love this song, but couldn't find a live version, so we are stuck with the video and the studio cut :(
Monday, December 29, 2014
Must-have web browser addons, extensions, and what-have you
Like many people, I use the Intel/Windows arrangement, and use either Firefox or Chrome for a browser. Of the many available extensions (or addons) that are available online, I have found a few that are really helpful, and I highly recommend them. You can thank me later...
Adblock Plus: This does what it says. Blocks many ads from appearing on the pages you browse.
Ghostery: This blocks cookies. Install this, and it will show how many cookies it blocks on every web page. You would be shocked how many people are tracking your every page view. It's easy to allow a cookie if a site requires it for security reasons (logins, etc)
Adblock for Youtube: Tired of seeing a commercial every time you just want to watch a youtube vid? Try this one out!!!
Script Block or NoScript: These prevent Javascript attacks (which are easy and common) on your computer. They also keep those annoying animated pop-up ads from coming up on your webpage. If you need a javascript to run (perhaps for an animated weather map), you can temporarily or permanently allow java if you trust the website. If you do use Java, keep it up to date!!! If you have installed Ghostery and/or script blockers, the above link will need permissions to check your Java version.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Permit class submarine variants
Permit class boats were the mainstay of the attack submarine fleet throughout the 1960s. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them:
Preceded by: Skipjack-class submarine
Succeeded by: Sturgeon-class submarine
Built: 1958–1967
In commission: 1961–1994
Completed: 14
Lost: 1
Retired: 13
General characteristics
Type: Fast attack submarine
Displacement: 3,750 long tons (3,810 t) surfaced, 4,300 long tons (4,369 t) submerged
Length: 278 ft 5 in (84.86 m)
Beam: 31 ft 7 in (9.63 m)
Draft: 25 ft 2 in (7.67 m)
Propulsion: 1 S5W PWR
2 steam turbines, 15,000 shp (11 MW) 1 shaft
Speed: 15 knots surfaced, 28 knots submerged
Range: Unlimited, except by food supplies
Test depth: 1,300 ft (400 m)
Complement: 112
Sensors and processing systems: BQQ-2 sonar (later BQQ-5)
Mark 113 Fire-control system (later Mark 117)
Periscopes Electronic warfare
decoys:
ESM
Armament:
• 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes amidships
• 12-18 × Mark 37 torpedoes, later replaced by Mark 48s
• 4-6 × UUM-44 SUBROC anti-submarine missiles
• 4 × UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
Below, a typical Permit Class cutaway. (I have a .pdf of this image that is really clean, but don't know how to post that here)
![]()
Those were the Permit class ships. There were two that were built a little different, and those were the Tullibee (SSN-597) and the Jack (SSN-605)
Jack was about 20 feet longer than a normal Permit Class ship, and incorporated a direct drive propulsion system, connected to dual counter-rotating screws on a concentric shaft. So, an inner shaft would turn a small screw one direction and an outer shaft would turn a larger screw in the opposite direction. I have heard that the shaft sealing system on this ship was a nightmare.
The purpose for having a direct drive running a pair of smaller screws is twofold: Eliminate reduction gears (a source of noise) and reduce or eliminate cavitation at the screw.
Reduction gears are (surprise) a set of gears. Steam turbines are most efficient at pretty high speeds. The screw of a warship is most efficient at low speeds. The reduction gears take the high-rpm output of a steam turbine and reduce it to low-rpm speed for driving a ships' propellor.
Cavitation is the creation of vapor bubbles on the low-pressure side (trailing edge) of a propellor blade. As the bubbles come loose from the moving blade, they collapse and cause a crackling noise that is easily detected by sonar. When your goal is stealth rather than speed, cavitation is not acceptable.
Below, cavitation on the tips of the screw of a small motorboat. Water is flowing left to right in the image. Long-term cavitation will eventually erode the metal of the screw.
Smaller screws have less cavitation for a given RPM than large ones, because the blade tips will not be travelling as fast. In theory, you can have two smaller screws with the same surface area, and run them at a higher speed than a single large screw, with less likelihood of cavitation.
Cavitation is is typically a problem at shallow depths, where there is not much water pressure to prevent forming vapor bubbles. It is also a problem when the throttles are suddenly opened. I liken it to spinning the tires on a car - it happens easier from a standstill than at 50 mph. Not that I know anything at all about operating the throttles of a nuclear submarine ;)
Although counter-rotating props had previously produced impressive gains in speed on the experimental Albacore (AGSS-569), in this case the results were disappointing, and led to the abandonment of this approach.
Below, the screw arrangement of USS Jack
A typical submarine screw looks more like this. Note that it has an odd number of blades, which helps to reduce harmonic and beat noise.
The USS Tullibee (SSN-597) was an interesting design. Launched in 1961, she was the first to have a spherical bow-mounted sonar, and angled mid-ships torpedo tubes. This layout would become standard on all later US submarines. Her propulsion system was turbo-electric, meaning that she had main propulsion generators, and wound around her shaft was a large motor. She was also the smallest nuclear attack submarine in the US fleet. The overall details of this interesting power plant are not available, sadly. I would be interested to learn more about her.
Tullibee underway. She wasn't a fast ship - about 15 knots surfaced AND submerged. Interesting hump behind the sail. According to this source, she was terribly under-powered - 13 MW reactor heat output (for about 4 MW of useful power), and 2500 shaft horsepower. Definitely an experimental ship.
.jpg)
Profile of the one-of-a-kind USS Tullibee
Preceded by: Skipjack-class submarine
Succeeded by: Sturgeon-class submarine
Built: 1958–1967
In commission: 1961–1994
Completed: 14
Lost: 1
Retired: 13
General characteristics
Type: Fast attack submarine
Displacement: 3,750 long tons (3,810 t) surfaced, 4,300 long tons (4,369 t) submerged
Length: 278 ft 5 in (84.86 m)
Beam: 31 ft 7 in (9.63 m)
Draft: 25 ft 2 in (7.67 m)
Propulsion: 1 S5W PWR
2 steam turbines, 15,000 shp (11 MW) 1 shaft
Speed: 15 knots surfaced, 28 knots submerged
Range: Unlimited, except by food supplies
Test depth: 1,300 ft (400 m)
Complement: 112
Sensors and processing systems: BQQ-2 sonar (later BQQ-5)
Mark 113 Fire-control system (later Mark 117)
Periscopes Electronic warfare
decoys:
ESM
Armament:
• 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes amidships
• 12-18 × Mark 37 torpedoes, later replaced by Mark 48s
• 4-6 × UUM-44 SUBROC anti-submarine missiles
• 4 × UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles
Below, a typical Permit Class cutaway. (I have a .pdf of this image that is really clean, but don't know how to post that here)
Those were the Permit class ships. There were two that were built a little different, and those were the Tullibee (SSN-597) and the Jack (SSN-605)
Jack was about 20 feet longer than a normal Permit Class ship, and incorporated a direct drive propulsion system, connected to dual counter-rotating screws on a concentric shaft. So, an inner shaft would turn a small screw one direction and an outer shaft would turn a larger screw in the opposite direction. I have heard that the shaft sealing system on this ship was a nightmare.
The purpose for having a direct drive running a pair of smaller screws is twofold: Eliminate reduction gears (a source of noise) and reduce or eliminate cavitation at the screw.
Reduction gears are (surprise) a set of gears. Steam turbines are most efficient at pretty high speeds. The screw of a warship is most efficient at low speeds. The reduction gears take the high-rpm output of a steam turbine and reduce it to low-rpm speed for driving a ships' propellor.
Cavitation is the creation of vapor bubbles on the low-pressure side (trailing edge) of a propellor blade. As the bubbles come loose from the moving blade, they collapse and cause a crackling noise that is easily detected by sonar. When your goal is stealth rather than speed, cavitation is not acceptable.
Below, cavitation on the tips of the screw of a small motorboat. Water is flowing left to right in the image. Long-term cavitation will eventually erode the metal of the screw.
Smaller screws have less cavitation for a given RPM than large ones, because the blade tips will not be travelling as fast. In theory, you can have two smaller screws with the same surface area, and run them at a higher speed than a single large screw, with less likelihood of cavitation.
Cavitation is is typically a problem at shallow depths, where there is not much water pressure to prevent forming vapor bubbles. It is also a problem when the throttles are suddenly opened. I liken it to spinning the tires on a car - it happens easier from a standstill than at 50 mph. Not that I know anything at all about operating the throttles of a nuclear submarine ;)
Although counter-rotating props had previously produced impressive gains in speed on the experimental Albacore (AGSS-569), in this case the results were disappointing, and led to the abandonment of this approach.
Below, the screw arrangement of USS Jack
A typical submarine screw looks more like this. Note that it has an odd number of blades, which helps to reduce harmonic and beat noise.
The USS Tullibee (SSN-597) was an interesting design. Launched in 1961, she was the first to have a spherical bow-mounted sonar, and angled mid-ships torpedo tubes. This layout would become standard on all later US submarines. Her propulsion system was turbo-electric, meaning that she had main propulsion generators, and wound around her shaft was a large motor. She was also the smallest nuclear attack submarine in the US fleet. The overall details of this interesting power plant are not available, sadly. I would be interested to learn more about her.
Tullibee underway. She wasn't a fast ship - about 15 knots surfaced AND submerged. Interesting hump behind the sail. According to this source, she was terribly under-powered - 13 MW reactor heat output (for about 4 MW of useful power), and 2500 shaft horsepower. Definitely an experimental ship.
Profile of the one-of-a-kind USS Tullibee
More music!!! 70s, 80s
Just a few videos I stumbled upon recently. Songs I still enjoy hearing...
Steely Dan, with one of the best guitar intros ever.
Tommy Tutone
Greg Kihn
The Pretenders
INXS
Fishbone - gets pretty manic at about 1:45
A little OC punk - Bad Religion
Steely Dan, with one of the best guitar intros ever.
Tommy Tutone
Greg Kihn
The Pretenders
INXS
Fishbone - gets pretty manic at about 1:45
A little OC punk - Bad Religion
Battleships
It's a ways past Pearl Harbor Day, but I have been thinking about that quite a bit. I am not a great and well-read student of military or Navy history, but I know a little bit about it. Although I am not a surface ship guy, I think battleships are pretty cool, and so I have read a fair bit about them.
Battleships were at the core of the first modern arms race in the early 20th century. This battleship arms race began shortly before the outbreak of the first World War (and many historians believe helped to cause it). But the reign of the battleship ended decisively with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The idea of a large ship, carrying primarily big guns, goes back to the days of sail. These were called "ships of the line", because the tactics of the day required bringing a line of several ships broadside to the enemy, and blasting them with the cannons mounted on the sides (a "broadside").
The tactical goal in those days was to "cross the enemy's T", to maneuver so as to have the enemy sailing straight toward the side of your ship. The front of these vessels were poorly armed, having at most only deck-mounted hand cannons. Therefore the firepower of a broadside would likely destroy the oncoming enemy ship, with little harm coming to the ship crossing in front of the other ships.
Below, two lines of warships ("Battle ships of the line") firing broadside volleys at one another.
In theory (and in practice), the larger ships with bigger and more cannons would typically sink smaller and less well-armed vessels. The best defense for a smaller vessel was to rely on speed to escape, or maneuverability to avoid a broadside, if possible.
Below, a sail ship with three rows of cannons
The term "Battleship", while coined during the age of sail, became more common when steam-powered ironclads came onto the scene. Ironclads were the ship-builder's response to the introduction of incendiary and explosive shells, which of course were highly destructive to wooden vessels. Additionally, naval cannons were becoming more and more powerful, and later models could blast through several inches of oak, sending wooden shrapnel flying inboard to kill the crew.
This Union ironclad (USS Cairo) appears to have an armored stern wheel for propulsion. This was a ship used on the Mississippi River during the US Civil War. Most deep-water ironclads used the newly invented (and less vulnerable) underwater screw. Note the angled sides, intended to cause incoming shells to deflect rather than penetrate.
Ironclads, and all battleships made up until the introduction of the HMS Dreadnought are considered "Pre-Dreadnought" designs. The difference between an ironclad and a dreadnought-era battleship is the use of wood underneath the outer iron skin. Typically 8-12 inches of wood would underlie 4-5 inches of iron or low-quality steel cladding on an ironclad warship. Ironclads were not particularly fast, nor were they maneuverable. They used piston steam engines rather than turbines for propulsion.
HMS Dreadnought was such a technological marvel that even decades after she had been scrapped, battleships were called "dreadnoughts". Pretty impressive!
Below, the ship that started an arms race.
HMS Dreadnought made all warships that had come before obsolete. She was very fast, because she was the first warship to use steam turbines for propulsion, and thus she could run or fight on her own terms. Secondly, she was the first battleship to use only large (12 inch diameter) guns.
In the era of HMS Dreadnought, fire control consisted of spotters checking for splashes in the water where shells landed, and then advising the gun crews how to adjust their fire to get closer to the target - and maybe even hit it! Ships that had a variety of gun sizes would often confuse the spotters, who might see a splash and not know which size of gun battery had fired it, making targeting confusing. On a ship with all large guns, this issue of confusing splashes from large and small guns out on the horizon did not arise.
However even during the heyday of this arms race, a fearful enemy hid just under the surface, and that was the submarine. Every battleship captain's nightmare was that his gleaming, magnificent, treasury-busting ship-of-the-line would be sunk by a lowly torpedo. If you look at the photo above, there are a series of poles running alongside the ship. These would be extended when the ship was not in motion, and torpedo nets would be hung from them. Not as invulnerable as they seemed, then.
With the launching of HMS Dreadnought, every major ocean-going country in the world immediately set out to build their own series of dreadnoughts, or modern battleships.
France:
Germany:
Japan:
The United States (finally moving to steam turbine propulsion in 1922):
Russia:
So the naval powers of the world, just before the Great War, embarked on the business of bankrupting their treasuries to build fleets of mighty battleships, just as the emerging technologies of air power and submarines were about to render them nearly useless. And while naval strategists envisioned battles of all big-gun ships, during actual (as opposed to theoretical) wars, most of these ships succumbed to mines, torpedoes, or air attacks.
One of the few battles fought with large-gun capital ships was the Battle of Jutland, in 1916, off the coast of Denmark. The larger British battle fleet engaged the German battle fleet over the course of two days, with the intent of sinking them or keeping them contained in their home ports. The British lost twice as many men and tonnage than the Germans did, while causing the Germans to retreat home. Both sides claimed victory, although one could also say that both sides lost.
After the German fleet exploded three of the British Dreadnoughts, David Beatty (commander of the British Battlecruiser fleet) turned to his flag captain, saying "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." He was correct. British designers and the Navy had traded the weight penalty of thick armor for greater speed and more guns; the British battleships were little more than very expensive floating bombs.
Even though the battleship had proven itself not terribly useful during the Great War, maritime nations continued to build them. There was even a sort of battleship arms control, with each nation allowed to build a certain tonnage of battleships and aircraft carriers.
Below, the German Battleship Bismarck during WW II. After her rudder was damaged by torpedo bombers, the British battle fleet caught up to her. She was then sunk by both enemy gunfire and intentional scuttling.
What finally did the battleship in though, was the eye-opening events of December 7,1941. On that day six aircraft carriers sunk four battleships, damaged four more, and sunk or damaged several cruisers and destroyers, in addition to wreaking havoc on the airfield at Ford Island.
The attacking aircraft carriers meanwhile were never in any danger from the battleships. This attack devastated much of the Pacific fleet, and if nothing else, showed the vulnerability of *everything* to a carrier-based air attack.
Below, Pearl Harbor at the beginning of the attack. Ford Island (center) sits at the center of Pearl Harbor. In this photo, the battleship West Virginia has just been hit by a torpedo.
The aftermath:
USS Nevada
USS Arizona
USS West Virginia
USS California (Neosho behind)
...you get the idea...
No number of battleships could have accomplished the destruction that these six aircraft carriers did. Even if the Pearl Harbor battleships had been at sea, they could not even have gotten near enough to the aircraft carriers to harm them without being sunk by torpedo bombers first. Battleships were immediately placed in secondary roles - such as shore bombardment - in favor of aircraft carriers and submarines. The urgency of the situation forced military commanders to recognize the military shortcomings of battleships.
In between wars, battleships were gaudy, impressive, and threatening. During an actual shooting war, they were quite a bit less fearsome, spending their time bombarding tropical islands and escorting more strategically valuable aircraft carriers.
Meanwhile, over the duration of World War II, just 314 far less expensive US submarines sank 1560 enemy ships, an impressive 55% of the total tonnage sunk during the war.
And so, suddenly after one Sunday in Hawaii, the future of US naval warfare shifted sharply toward submarines and aircraft carriers (and the many, many ships required to protect and service aircraft carriers).
Oddly enough, in spite of this painful lesson of history, US battleships gained another lease on life toward the end of the cold war. Four decommissioned battleships that had been built during WWII were recommissioned, and refitted with guided missiles and also with close-in weapon systems for missile defense. These ships were decomissioned for the second time in the mid 1990s.
Iowa fires a broadside in 1982 for a firepower exhibition. Exhibition... that kinda says it all.
Now as unimpressed as I am by the usefulness of battleships in actual battles. I still think they are cool. Extremely cool. Just sayin... Check out that armor. 17 inches of steel!
USS Missouri ("Mighty Mo") after her 1980s refit with missiles and modern electronics. Also, 33-35 knots is pretty darn fast for such a monster!
In closing, I honestly believe that if the navies of the world were to engage in unrestricted warfare, *nothing* would be afloat on the surface within a week. Only land-based aircraft and a handful of very advanced submarines would remain.
Battleships were at the core of the first modern arms race in the early 20th century. This battleship arms race began shortly before the outbreak of the first World War (and many historians believe helped to cause it). But the reign of the battleship ended decisively with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The idea of a large ship, carrying primarily big guns, goes back to the days of sail. These were called "ships of the line", because the tactics of the day required bringing a line of several ships broadside to the enemy, and blasting them with the cannons mounted on the sides (a "broadside").
The tactical goal in those days was to "cross the enemy's T", to maneuver so as to have the enemy sailing straight toward the side of your ship. The front of these vessels were poorly armed, having at most only deck-mounted hand cannons. Therefore the firepower of a broadside would likely destroy the oncoming enemy ship, with little harm coming to the ship crossing in front of the other ships.
Below, two lines of warships ("Battle ships of the line") firing broadside volleys at one another.
In theory (and in practice), the larger ships with bigger and more cannons would typically sink smaller and less well-armed vessels. The best defense for a smaller vessel was to rely on speed to escape, or maneuverability to avoid a broadside, if possible.
Below, a sail ship with three rows of cannons
The term "Battleship", while coined during the age of sail, became more common when steam-powered ironclads came onto the scene. Ironclads were the ship-builder's response to the introduction of incendiary and explosive shells, which of course were highly destructive to wooden vessels. Additionally, naval cannons were becoming more and more powerful, and later models could blast through several inches of oak, sending wooden shrapnel flying inboard to kill the crew.
This Union ironclad (USS Cairo) appears to have an armored stern wheel for propulsion. This was a ship used on the Mississippi River during the US Civil War. Most deep-water ironclads used the newly invented (and less vulnerable) underwater screw. Note the angled sides, intended to cause incoming shells to deflect rather than penetrate.
Ironclads, and all battleships made up until the introduction of the HMS Dreadnought are considered "Pre-Dreadnought" designs. The difference between an ironclad and a dreadnought-era battleship is the use of wood underneath the outer iron skin. Typically 8-12 inches of wood would underlie 4-5 inches of iron or low-quality steel cladding on an ironclad warship. Ironclads were not particularly fast, nor were they maneuverable. They used piston steam engines rather than turbines for propulsion.
HMS Dreadnought was such a technological marvel that even decades after she had been scrapped, battleships were called "dreadnoughts". Pretty impressive!
Below, the ship that started an arms race.
HMS Dreadnought made all warships that had come before obsolete. She was very fast, because she was the first warship to use steam turbines for propulsion, and thus she could run or fight on her own terms. Secondly, she was the first battleship to use only large (12 inch diameter) guns.
In the era of HMS Dreadnought, fire control consisted of spotters checking for splashes in the water where shells landed, and then advising the gun crews how to adjust their fire to get closer to the target - and maybe even hit it! Ships that had a variety of gun sizes would often confuse the spotters, who might see a splash and not know which size of gun battery had fired it, making targeting confusing. On a ship with all large guns, this issue of confusing splashes from large and small guns out on the horizon did not arise.
However even during the heyday of this arms race, a fearful enemy hid just under the surface, and that was the submarine. Every battleship captain's nightmare was that his gleaming, magnificent, treasury-busting ship-of-the-line would be sunk by a lowly torpedo. If you look at the photo above, there are a series of poles running alongside the ship. These would be extended when the ship was not in motion, and torpedo nets would be hung from them. Not as invulnerable as they seemed, then.
Deploying torpedo nets.
France:
Germany:
Japan:
The United States (finally moving to steam turbine propulsion in 1922):
Russia:
So the naval powers of the world, just before the Great War, embarked on the business of bankrupting their treasuries to build fleets of mighty battleships, just as the emerging technologies of air power and submarines were about to render them nearly useless. And while naval strategists envisioned battles of all big-gun ships, during actual (as opposed to theoretical) wars, most of these ships succumbed to mines, torpedoes, or air attacks.
One of the few battles fought with large-gun capital ships was the Battle of Jutland, in 1916, off the coast of Denmark. The larger British battle fleet engaged the German battle fleet over the course of two days, with the intent of sinking them or keeping them contained in their home ports. The British lost twice as many men and tonnage than the Germans did, while causing the Germans to retreat home. Both sides claimed victory, although one could also say that both sides lost.
After the German fleet exploded three of the British Dreadnoughts, David Beatty (commander of the British Battlecruiser fleet) turned to his flag captain, saying "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." He was correct. British designers and the Navy had traded the weight penalty of thick armor for greater speed and more guns; the British battleships were little more than very expensive floating bombs.
Even though the battleship had proven itself not terribly useful during the Great War, maritime nations continued to build them. There was even a sort of battleship arms control, with each nation allowed to build a certain tonnage of battleships and aircraft carriers.
Below, the German Battleship Bismarck during WW II. After her rudder was damaged by torpedo bombers, the British battle fleet caught up to her. She was then sunk by both enemy gunfire and intentional scuttling.
What finally did the battleship in though, was the eye-opening events of December 7,1941. On that day six aircraft carriers sunk four battleships, damaged four more, and sunk or damaged several cruisers and destroyers, in addition to wreaking havoc on the airfield at Ford Island.
The attacking aircraft carriers meanwhile were never in any danger from the battleships. This attack devastated much of the Pacific fleet, and if nothing else, showed the vulnerability of *everything* to a carrier-based air attack.
Below, Pearl Harbor at the beginning of the attack. Ford Island (center) sits at the center of Pearl Harbor. In this photo, the battleship West Virginia has just been hit by a torpedo.
The aftermath:
USS Nevada
USS Arizona
USS West Virginia
USS California (Neosho behind)
...you get the idea...
No number of battleships could have accomplished the destruction that these six aircraft carriers did. Even if the Pearl Harbor battleships had been at sea, they could not even have gotten near enough to the aircraft carriers to harm them without being sunk by torpedo bombers first. Battleships were immediately placed in secondary roles - such as shore bombardment - in favor of aircraft carriers and submarines. The urgency of the situation forced military commanders to recognize the military shortcomings of battleships.
In between wars, battleships were gaudy, impressive, and threatening. During an actual shooting war, they were quite a bit less fearsome, spending their time bombarding tropical islands and escorting more strategically valuable aircraft carriers.
Meanwhile, over the duration of World War II, just 314 far less expensive US submarines sank 1560 enemy ships, an impressive 55% of the total tonnage sunk during the war.
And so, suddenly after one Sunday in Hawaii, the future of US naval warfare shifted sharply toward submarines and aircraft carriers (and the many, many ships required to protect and service aircraft carriers).
Oddly enough, in spite of this painful lesson of history, US battleships gained another lease on life toward the end of the cold war. Four decommissioned battleships that had been built during WWII were recommissioned, and refitted with guided missiles and also with close-in weapon systems for missile defense. These ships were decomissioned for the second time in the mid 1990s.
Iowa fires a broadside in 1982 for a firepower exhibition. Exhibition... that kinda says it all.
Now as unimpressed as I am by the usefulness of battleships in actual battles. I still think they are cool. Extremely cool. Just sayin... Check out that armor. 17 inches of steel!
USS Missouri ("Mighty Mo") after her 1980s refit with missiles and modern electronics. Also, 33-35 knots is pretty darn fast for such a monster!
In closing, I honestly believe that if the navies of the world were to engage in unrestricted warfare, *nothing* would be afloat on the surface within a week. Only land-based aircraft and a handful of very advanced submarines would remain.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Ballistic Missile Submarines
In case anyone is wondering why I never discuss Ballistic Missile Submarines: I don't find their activities very interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)