This material is so water-repellent that water gets bounced off

[BDforever]

Bangladesh need it very badly because you guys are drowning, Use this to repel water which is eating your area LOL

i feel your concern of taking over your land illegally

 

[Jaat Rock]

i feel your concern of taking over your land illegally

True
BC bhejte hi jaa rahe ho, bhejte hi jaa rahe ho kuch toh sharam karo

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

@SvenSvensonov can you think of any military applications...

Underwater torpedoes, submarines, coverings for electronic devices.... @SvenSvensonov might know better.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Underwater torpedoes, submarines, coverings for electronic devices.... @SvenSvensonov might know better.

Not sure why we would use any such thing for a torpedo, you'd need a rocket motor to compensate for the lack of water touching the propeller (like on the Russian Skval), same with a ship's screw and prop. How will you move a propeller though the water if said propeller doesn't touch the water thanks to the water-repellent properties of this material (you could use a pump-jet to compensate, but then this material wouldn't be needed, unless to coat the bottom of the ship to decrease friction)!!! You'll not be able to displace enough water to achieve propulsion without having the prop actually touch and push the water away. You'd be going nowhere otherwise. Fast torpedoes don't interest a USN that is interested in control-ability, not speed. Too hard to maneuver, redirect or terminate the attack pattern of a high-speed system and good luck reprogramming it to attack another higher-priority target mid-run, something slower torpedoes can do. Yes, China does have a concept for a high-speed submarine using water-repellent lubrication and rocket motors, but that's dangerous, noisy and represents an engineering challenge that is unnecessary.

You could use this material for a hydroplane/hydrofoil, to decrease the amount of friction imparted upon it by the water, but these types of crafts are already dangerous at high-speeds and prone to going airborne, further decreasing the friction imparted upon them would increase their speeds and thus probability of being involved in an accident.

For electronics, no, we don't need it either as these are compartmentalized within a system and shouldn't be exposed unless said system is actively exploding.

For Helo-rotors, ship decks, aircraft and missile skins, and exposed radars, yes @Peter C is right and this could cut down on maintenance costs and prolong the lifespan of the system by reducing water-induced corrosion. But that's about it.

@Gufi - here's your answer.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Not sure why we would use any such thing a torpedo, you'd need a rocket motor to compensate for the lack of water touching the propeller (like on the Russian Skval), same with a ship's screw and prop. How will you move a propeller though the water if said propeller doesn't touch the water thanks to the water-repellent properties of this material!!! You'll not be able to displace enough water to achieve propulsion without having the prop actually touch and push the water away.

I think compression is more of a factor than friction. As long as you can compress water it doesn't matter if the prop is frictionless.

 

[jamahir]

Not sure why we would use any such thing a torpedo, you'd need a rocket motor to compensate for the lack of water touching the propeller (like on the Russian Skval), same with a ship's screw and prop.

Yes, China does have a concept for a high-speed submarine using water-repellent lubrication and rocket motors, but that's dangerous, noisy and represents an engineering challenge that is unnecessary.

the below picture explains the skval torpedo "super cavitation" concept well... though you mention noise... wouldn't the air gap between the rocket motor and the the water remove much of the noise??

 

[JonAsad]

Torpedoes, submarine/ship hulls and propellers, naval plane skins, propellers, helicopter rotors, ships decks, missile skins.

Anything that has contact with water.

Will that increase the friction? -
And i dont think something that is water repellent you can make it travel in straight line under water or at surface-

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I think compression is more of a factor than friction. As long as you can compress water it doesn't matter if the prop is frictionless.

Right, but I was more referring to moving the system through the water, not the friction imparted on the prop. Coating a torpedo in this stuff would render all sections less susceptible to the friction generated as the torpedo travels through water, similar to the bottom of a boat dragging itself trough the sea. Compression is what makes a torpedo move, yes, but if you can't touch the water, isolated from it via an overly active repellent, how can you compress it? Both the water being repelled and the prop doing the repelling wouldn't impart enough force on each other to achieve forward momentum of any significant velocity.

the below picture explains the skval torpedo "super cavitation" concept well... though you mention noise... wouldn't the air gap between the rocket motor and the the water remove much of the noise??

I'm quite familiar with this, we experimented with super-cavitating torpedoes a lot during the Cold War, but never put one to use, and no the air wouldn't isolate the noise, but a similar concept has been used. The "Prairie masker" uses engine exhaust to make a bubble to isolate a ship's hull from touching the sea and thus preventing a large percentage of noise from being transferred to the water.

Prairie Masker System Is Used To Disguise The Sound Of U.S. Warships On The Ocean

A system underwater, not a ship on the surface masking its presence, would still transfer noticeable noise from the air-bubble generated via cavitation to the surrounding water as it moved. Remember, even if you are above water, or in it in an air-bubble under it, sound still transfers.

Have someone talk to you from pool side while you are under water in said pool for a demonstration and validation of concept. You'll still hear them talking, though their voice will be significantly muted.

Using underwater SOSUS pods in the G-I-UK Gap, the US was able to track the very noise TU-95s of the Soviet Union as they flew thousands of feet above, noise will still transfer from air to water and vice-versa.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Not sure why we would use any such thing for a torpedo, you'd need a rocket motor to compensate for the lack of water touching the propeller (like on the Russian Skval), same with a ship's screw and prop. How will you move a propeller though the water if said propeller doesn't touch the water thanks to the water-repellent properties of this material (you could use a pump-jet to compensate, but then this material wouldn't be needed, unless to coat the bottom of the ship to decrease friction)!!! You'll not be able to displace enough water to achieve propulsion without having the prop actually touch and push the water away. You'd be going nowhere otherwise. Fast torpedoes don't interest a USN that is interested in control-ability, not speed. Too hard to maneuver, redirect or terminate the attack pattern of a high-speed system and good luck reprogramming it to attack another higher-priority target mid-run, something slower torpedoes can do. Yes, China does have a concept for a high-speed submarine using water-repellent lubrication and rocket motors, but that's dangerous, noisy and represents an engineering challenge that is unnecessary.

You could use this material for a hydroplane/hydrofoil, to decrease the amount of friction imparted upon it by the water, but these types of crafts are already dangerous at high-speeds and prone to going airborne, further decreasing the friction imparted upon them would increase their speeds and thus probability of being involved in an accident.

For electronics, no, we don't need it either as these are compartmentalized within a system and shouldn't be exposed unless said system is actively exploding.

For Helo-rotors, ship decks, aircraft and missile skins, and exposed radars, yes @Peter C is right and this could cut down on maintenance costs and prolong the lifespan of the system by reducing water-induced corrosion. But that's about it.

@Gufi - here's your answer.

What about ER tents? I realized that torpedoes and subs wouldn't need it after I made the post.

 

[jamahir]

I'm quite familiar with this, we experimented with super-cavitating torpedoes a lot during the Cold War, but never put one to use, and no the air wouldn't isolate the noise, but a similar concept has been used. The "Prairie masker" uses engine exhaust to make a bubble to isolate a ship's hull from touching the sea and thus preventing a large percentage of noise from being transferred to the water.

Prairie Masker System Is Used To Disguise The Sound Of U.S. Warships On The Ocean

A system underwater, not a ship on the surface masking its presence, would still transfer noticeable noise from the air-bubble generated via cavitation to the surrounding water as it moved. Remember, even if you are above water, or in it in an air-bubble under it, sound still transfers.

Have someone talk to you from pool side while you are under water in said pool for a demonstration and validation of concept. You'll still hear them talking, though their voice will be significantly muted.

ingenious idea and interesting result.

submarine technicians conducting acoustic analysis with sonar hear a sound similar to rain falling on the ocean.

 

[TimeTraveller]

What are featured threads...?................. @WebMaster