Water Cooling Subs

[skip asay]

"Yes a pick up tube

"Yes a pick up tube would be nice and very scale like even as was done on the Alfa's full scale intake ports for the reactors cooling exchanger,you know they even had to install a baffling section.
But alas I tried to do the same on one sub a while back and the tube had to be much to large to force watter into and around to reach the motor and then back out again, as I don't believe my subs go quite as fast as the rascing boats ,so I went back to the system that does work and its the one shown in the secound diagram."

This proves that you had a heat problem otherwise your keeping a "cool motor cooler" wouldn't apply.

"I guess the other guys must still need cooling of some sort on there motors they just won't be cool and throw around inuendos they don't even have proof of"

Innuendos? What innuendos? Statements of fact, maybe, but no innuendos.

"pleae I beg of you contact Eagle Tree Syatems and ask them if I am a traveling salesman out to steel yuor money on some gadget,I which i made this babby though!"

Again with the telemetry system. I thought this thread was about water cooling.

"Now would it be to much to ask for you gents to just calm down ,and have a Cervesa and wait a bit till I can post some interesting data on the tests that are in progress I have made?"

Does that mean you're going to try what I've suggested and add a 2:1 gearbox after the drill motor gearbox?

I've said it too many times before - with the right motor/reduction/prop combination, cooling isn't necessary.

Skip Asay

[Guest]

The above statements would be

The above statements would be indeed hard to prove if I did not use an engineering tool to prove that watercooling a motor in a submarine or closed container will run cooler than a motor of exactly the same one not using water cooling,thats all no gearbox issus here for that is not part of the test and is a personal choice to make on the sub ,right ,just is if one wan'ts to add water cooling or not.

Im not making you guys do anything you don;t wan't to in any way nor buy anything you don't want OK

Imnot crying over my dicovery of the telemtry sytem in fact I am estatic and am taking the hole family out to Red Lobster and get drunk

I am frankly very surprised that no one has trie it before its been out there for years now,man I which I had it along time ago it would have saved alot of Rand D and money .

Now with hard evidence and data I can prove it without any incinuations or I got ya attitudes that Im correct if you wan't proof than Ill give it to ya no biggie and is required.

I prmise I wn;t doctor the evedence to my favor nor doctor a video of which I have a short clip right now and was able to make before the power went out in the house Im getting punded here in Florida worst flooding in 50 years.

This video shows the U-32 under the water at about 3 ft and has been running for almost 45 minutes,note the screen its showing the RX voltage readout and above that the MTA or motor temp on sensor A and is in ferieghnhight.The sensor is placed on the motors coil and the water is about 68 or so Ill have to measure it tonight,but the motor ran actauly cooler in that water than at the pond which is warmer.Nice [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtpviaVKWw there will be more to come tomorrow.And the graf as well from the memory bank.[/youtube]

[JWLaRue]

If this thread is to

If this thread is to really be about water cooling, then it needs to include the types of test comparisons that Skip has advocated....otherwise the value is limited to a discussion around how to fix bad engineering.

-Jeff

[skip asay]

"The above statements would be

"The above statements would be indeed hard to prove if I did not use an engineering tool to prove that watercooling a motor in a submarine or closed container will run cooler than a motor of exactly the same one not using water cooling"

David - what are you smoking? Nobody has ever said that water cooling doesn't work. It does. There are ways to improve what you're doing but, like I said, nobody has said it doesn't work. All I've been saying is that it's not necessary. All you have to do is match the motor and reduction to the prop and you're good to go.

"thats all no gearbox issus here for that is not part of the test <snip>"

Gearbox IS an issue. You don't have enough.

"Now with hard evidence and data I can prove it without any incinuations or I got ya attitudes that Im correct if you wan't proof than Ill give it to ya no biggie and is required."

"This video shows the U-32 under the water at about 3 ft and has been running for almost 45 minutes <snip>."

I noticed 2 things; 1. The prop isn't turning. 2. The speed reads "41" but the prop isn't turning!?!?

Skip Asay