09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Blitzo]

Ok I missed that. On the other hand he is clearly pointing at the IEP display model and not the rim drive display model. Also he says that the US is using it, which if he is talking about rim drive is clearly wrong as no USN sub or USN ship is using rim drive currently, while the US is certainly already using IEP on their Zumwalts.

Yes he's obviously referring to the IEP not the shaftless drive, that's not a matter of dispute for me.

I think the possible shaftless drive display warrants a significant amount of justified attention and excitement and definitely should warrant more investigation and keeping an eye on this matter, but there is nothing Prof Ma says in the video about the possible shaftless drive display and its relationship to a future nuclear submarine.



As for the US, well he mentions the US at 9:13-9:17 he says "这个后来因为有这两个技术，这个就是我说的是我们团队在世界上第一个领先项目， 领先就领先美国， 美国也是沿这条路线走的"

Which means "this thing, because we had the foundations/experience of those last two, this is what I talked about is our team's the world's first leading project, and includes leading the US, the US is also proceeding along this path".

That's sort of a direct translation word for word but when translated more for English with context, he is basically saying "because we had the experience and foundation from developing those previous systems, this is the system I mentioned which our team developed which is the world first leading system, which also leads the US, however the US is also proceeding along a similar route as us."

Of course in this case he's still referring to the IEP systems (the three successive IEP systems/generations he has on display), but he isn't really saying that the US is also using "it" (the third generation IEP), but rather that with their latest system they are world leading and ahead of the US, and that the US is proceeding along a similar route as what he and his team did (which I assumes to mean in terms of development).

 

[antiterror13]

A correction to my previous post, the 2nd gen's name in the fyjs billboard picture (交直流集成发供电) is some thing translated to AC/DC integrated electricity generation and transmission. The generator is AC/DC combo. However somewhere else (in the interview) he also mentioned going to DC transmission (grid) skipping the US/UK practice (1st gen).

I don't fully understand the AC part in the 2nd gen either, I can't say. I do want to know that too.

However I do know in 2nd gen (the bold texts above) that the AC is not converted from the DC outside of generator by a rectifier. The generator generate both AC and DC simultaneously. What the purpose of the AC current and how it is utilized? I don't know.

AC is the best for anything use motors .. for anything else DC is as good. I suspect AC is still needed because most of equipment on the warship are designed for AC, like oven, cook-tops, fridge, dishwasher, washing machine, dryer, heater, air conditioning, lift, escalators, etc .. obviously you don't want to re-design those equipment to run on DC

So perhaps AC and DC transmission grid? not sure whether it is a good approach?

 

[danielchin]

is it a 09IV?

 

[antiterror13]

is it a 09IV?

I think it is 094B

 

[Hyperwarp]

I think it is 094B

Its an old photo of the 094. 094A/094B have sails similar to the 093B.

 

[taxiya]

AC is the best for anything use motors .. for anything else DC is as good. I suspect AC is still needed because most of equipment on the warship are designed for AC, like oven, cook-tops, fridge, dishwasher, washing machine, dryer, heater, air conditioning, lift, escalators, etc .. obviously you don't want to re-design those equipment to run on DC

So perhaps AC and DC transmission grid? not sure whether it is a good approach?

Well in Ma's (or his PhD student's) paper (check the cjdby post where it had more), he pointed out the reason of skipping the 1st gen (AC) to DC is because two fundamental disadvantages of AC grid compared to a DC grid

1. the load balancing when load fluctuate at different places, the e-gun shooting while the radar also need a peak draw.
2. AC need a stable frequency 50/60Hz that need a constant revolving rate of a generator which need gearboxes and constantly change gears if the turbine need to change its rotation rate.

So I see it the other way, DC is the better than AC in IEPS. The other AC applications are required but not essential for a fight, one can hand wash his cloth, but one can not risk the radar out of electricity. Of course, AC is not removed by 2nd Gen just for that purpose.

Regarding your last sentence of AC and DC grid, I don't know, maybe it is like that in the current application, I couldn't find any detailed infor.

 

[delft]

I'm wondering if as in some railway locomotives there is a conversion AC-DC-AC. In those locomotives the 50 or 60 Hz AC from the overhead wire or the diesel generator is converted to DC which is then converted to AC at the frequency and voltage preferred by the traction motors. Would that fit with what Prof Ma is saying?

 

[KIENCHIN]

I'm wondering if as in some railway locomotives there is a conversion AC-DC-AC. In those locomotives the 50 or 60 Hz AC from the overhead wire or the diesel generator is converted to DC which is then converted to AC at the frequency and voltage preferred by the traction motors. Would that fit with what Prof Ma is saying?

That is what a variable speed drive or more commonly call a VSD does to control speed and maximise efficiency. By generating DC power and converting to AC with the desired fequency to maintain sperd you would have eliminated the need of a rectifier.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Chinese navy deep sea rescue training

 

[davidau]

re # 1223..
...some close-ups of 094 ....
...according to US department of defence, it is estimated by 2020 China will have at least 8 094 with different variance...
..some will be deployed at a base in Hainan which strategically placed ...
(Source: SINA military ordnance technology magazine)