Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Subhuman Project" Human Powered Submarine

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the something-fishy-this-way-comes dept.

Biotech 103

overThruster writes "Inventor Ted Ciamillo and marine biologist Frank Fish (yes, that's his real name) are at work on a human-powered sub designed to cross the Atlantic. What's interesting is the highly efficient propulsion system which uses a 'tail' modeled after CAT scans of a dolphin's. From the article: 'Ciamillo and Fish say they knew they were onto something when the first prototype Lunocet, a piece of sculpted foam sandwiched between two pieces of carbon fiber, essentially swam by itself. When they released it at the bottom of a test pool, its buoyancy combined with its cambered shape generated a forward thrust that made it scoot across the tank.'"

cancel ×

103 comments

Interesting (2, Interesting)

immakiku (777365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666005)

I'd like to see, more than the sub itself, an in-depth discussion of the mechanism behind the dolphin's tail (the foam between carbon fiber).

Re:Interesting (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666543)

Bob Dobbs couldn't have designed a better sub himself.

If you want to know marine mammal hydrodynamics... (2, Interesting)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 5 years ago | (#26674509)

If you want to know about marine mammal hydrodynamics, Dr. Frank E. Fish is the guy to go to. Take a look at some of his papers available for free download from Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.th/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=FE+Fish&btnG=Search [google.co.th]

This guy has been at it for ages. He was my primary source of information for a research paper on the subject of hydrodynamics and energetics back in 2000 for a marine mammalogy class in my final year of university. Glad to see he is still at it, because his work is brilliant. There's some pretty high level physics involved (fluid mechanics is not for the faint of heart ;) ), but still worth checking out.

Diving Depth (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666067)

With it being a water-filled system instead of an air-filled pressurized tube, I'd be interested in knowing how deep it can dive without squishing the person inside. The article says he's going to spend just over a month "living" in it at 2 meters underwater, but if they're going to call it a submarine, I'd like to see it go deeper than that.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

jamrock (863246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666735)

if they're going to call it a submarine, I'd like to see it go deeper than that.

Out of curiosity, how deep does a submersible have to be able to dive before you'd classify it as a submarine? Every dictionary I've checked only defines it, more or less, as a vessel capable of operating submerged; there is no mention whatsoever of a depth requirement to classify it as such.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668481)

Wipedia says:
"A submarine is a watercraft capable of independent operation below water. It differs from a submersible, which has only limited underwater capability." I don't believe depth comes into play, either.

Re:Huh? (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669969)

Sounds like another distinction I have in my head that doesn't exist in the real world. Thank you for the correction.

Re:Diving Depth (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666777)

From the article, he's going to dive to 20 meters for about 45 minutes periodically (full article link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126936.900-across-the-ocean-in-a-pedalpowered-submarine.html?full=true [newscientist.com] scrollbar about 1/2 way).

Re:Diving Depth (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667935)

This modern human powered sub looks a lot cooler than the earlier models
http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAone.htm [submarine-history.com]

Re:Diving Depth (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669005)

are there any actually pictures of the sub? The Subhuman website while slick, lacks this basic concept of a picture ;-)

Re:Diving Depth (2, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669291)

From the story, there's a link that says "2 more pictures". http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg20126936.900/1-across-the-ocean-in-a-pedalpowered-submarine.html [newscientist.com] (total of 3). Picture 1 can be seen in the article. Picture 2 is a drawing. Picture 3 is a blue-line.

Re:Diving Depth (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669835)

ahh thanks, for some reason Firefox is blocking any display of the picture gallery on the article page, hence why i didn't see it :)

IE brings it right up though.

probably adblock/flashblock/noscript or another one of my addons causing it...sigh

Re:Diving Depth (2, Informative)

wsanders (114993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670081)

I doesn't squish the person inside, the person inside is basically a SCUBA diver. The effects of depth on SCUBA divers is well known.

I'm not sure how long you can stay down at 2 meters without decompressing, it's not on the dive tables since most divers dive further. I would guess you could stay a 2 meters all day without having to decompress on the way up.

All day at more than 5 or 10 meters, or for any time at more than 10 meters, you'd have to start paying attention to decompression.

At more than 30 meters, things start to get complicated.

Re:Diving Depth (2, Interesting)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26673743)

US Navy Diver Charts say something to the effect of 'don't worry about decompression until you spend time below 32 feet (about 10 meters.)' Your tanks will run out of air before you've been down long enough (at 10 meters) to even consider decompression.

For the record, 32 feet is roughly 1 atmosphere of pressure. If I recall correctly (which means 'maybe'.)

Re:Diving Depth (1)

fred911 (83970) | more than 5 years ago | (#26674947)

Actually, 32ft is 2 atmospheres. One at surface.

Re:Diving Depth (1)

ishmaelflood (643277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26674625)

If he is breathing via a snorkel (I suspect a 2m long snorkel is going to be very hard work) then he won't get bends as he will be at atmospheric pressure, internally. He also says he's going to surface every night, so his maximum exposure is only one day.

Re:Diving Depth (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26671697)

but if they're going to call it a submarine, I'd like to see it go deeper than that.

If they're going to call it a submarine, I'd like to see it able to operate underwater without a snorkel.

Re:Diving Depth (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 4 years ago | (#26672353)

It can't use a snorkel unless it's at the surface. Water pressure would absolutely prevent the operator from breathing the uncompressed air through a tube at a depth greater than a few feet below surface. Try swimming to the bottom of a 9' swimming pool and then inhaling through a garden hose reaching to the surface. Won't stay down there for long, I can assure you.

Seth

A self-powered sub.... (-1, Redundant)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666087)

...invented by a man named Fish.

Subhuman eh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666107)

I didn't RTFA but I bet this is a nigger powered submarine, with rows of niggers sitting ion exercise bikes to power the props.

And then the DHS... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666111)

It should be interesting to see if the DHS chases this thing down as one of those evil drug running semi-submersibles, as they are now illegal (by U.S. law) to operate in international waters...

Re:And then the DHS... (2, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666243)

one of those evil drug running semi-submersibles, as they are now illegal (by U.S. law) to operate in international waters...

No, operating a "stateless" vessel is what will get you arrested. So long as they flag this thing, they'll be fine.

I also doubt that they will scuttle the sub if intercepted by the navy.

Re:And then the DHS... (0, Troll)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667237)

No, operating a "stateless" vessel is what will get you arrested.

Because, y'know, the US has the "right" to police outside our own borders as we see fit.

Does Saudi Arabia get to arrest people who don't pray to Mecca five times a day while in international waters? Does Singapore get to cane people who spit out their chewing gum in international waters? Does Thailand get to hide anyone making fun of their king in international waters behind a giant curtain? Do Israeli companies get to sue scientists proving them charlatans in international waters?

Some slopes come pre-lubed, no tinfoil necessary.

Re:And then the DHS... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667857)

I didn't say the law was "right"... hell, I'm in favor of ending the "War on Drugs".

I was simply pointing out that these guys have nothing to fear from some overreaching drug law and claiming that they do is hogwash.

Re:And then the DHS... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667913)

Does Saudi Arabia get to arrest people who don't pray to Mecca five times a day while in international waters?

If they are on validly foreign-flagged ships, they are prohibited from doing so under international law (e.g., the Convention on the High Seas, 1958).

Stateless vessels are not protected in the same way.

Re:And then the DHS... (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666545)

I don't know how the US hopes to enforce it's laws in INTERNATIONAL waters. In their own territory, sure but since the US didn't ratify the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea they (should) still abide by the olden laws of the high seas which allowed for everybody to do whatever they want except for 'enemies of mankind' which are mainly pirates and slave traders. Even under the new conventions they would have to abide by the laws of or deliver them to the country which flag the vessel flies under.

Re:And then the DHS... (1, Offtopic)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667021)

Since when does the U.S. respect foreign laws on foreign territory ? What... you think the rest of the world hates the U.S. just because it's trendy ? No! They hate because the U.S. government is an obnoxious self-righteous bully that still acts like it owns the damned planet.

The fact that they often get away with it, however, is an international failure. The "victims" deserve full blame for not holding U.S. envoys responsible for their actions.

Re:And then the DHS... (2, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667929)

They hate because the U.S. government is an obnoxious self-righteous bully that still acts like it owns the damned planet.

To be fair, the US only acts like it owns the bioshpere.

Re:And then the DHS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26670289)

Umh, have you seen the US' attitude in space?

Re:And then the DHS... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26676063)

Umh, have you seen the US' attitude in space?

Yes, but they soon won't be able to get there anymore.

Re:And then the DHS... (0, Offtopic)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669715)

What... you think the rest of the world hates the U.S. just because it's trendy ?

Yes. For every complaint made about the US, there are about a dozen countries which do the same or worse. Global opinions are like a large-scale version of your highschool social dynamics - it's not so much what you do that matters, as what your reputation currently happens to be.

Re:And then the DHS... (1)

revery (456516) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667671)

I'm assuming that their argument(not that I agree with it) would be that it is inter national waters, not inter personal . If you are operating under the authority of a recognized nation, they won't mess with you, otherwise you are a pirate. I believe it's always been legal to pursue pirates (with said pirates (I assume) being identified by some means other than parrots, peg legs, and Jolly Rogers)

Re:And then the DHS... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668477)

In their own territory, sure but since the US didn't ratify the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea they (should) still abide by the olden laws of the high seas which allowed for everybody to do whatever they want except for 'enemies of mankind' which are mainly pirates and slave traders.

The US considers almost the entirety of UNCLOS to be binding as declarative of customary international law; its objection to ratification centers pretty much entirely on the parts related to undersea mining in international waters.

Even under the new conventions they would have to abide by the laws of or deliver them to the country which flag the vessel flies under.

The US laws at issue apply to stateless vessels, who either don't fly a flag or who lose the protection of any flags flown by flying multiple flags of convenience (see Convention on the High Seas, 1958, Art. 6, Sec. 2.)

Re:And then the DHS... (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668819)

Please don't interrupt the US bashing with any facts.

From the GP:

I don't know how the US hopes to enforce it's laws in INTERNATIONAL waters.

It's called a carrier battle group.

But will it have laser beams on the bow? (2, Funny)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666133)

Er, "fricken' laser beams, I mean...

Can't Wait For the Next Headline ... (4, Funny)

DisplacedJoshua (919071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666167)

Scientists eaten by sharks. "They looked delicious" - JAWS

Re:Can't Wait For the Next Headline ... (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667503)

Scientists eaten by sharks. "They looked delicious" - JAWS

"Tasted just like Flipper!" - JAWS II

And at (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666183)

Overheard at Frank's (yes, that's his real name) retirement: "So long, and thanks for all, Fish."

Uh oh. (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666235)

"uses a 'tail' modeled after CAT scans of a dolphin's"

Let's hope it doesn't get caught by a trawler fishing for tuna.

Re:Uh oh. (2, Interesting)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666577)

What I first thought of, looking at the pix, was that we'd use this to scientifically test for the presence of really big sharks. Good luck out there, buddy.

Re:Uh oh. (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667785)

Actually, I would be more worried about the fact that the motion of the tail has to have a corresponding motion of the body of the sub... Rocking back and forth like that could cause "under the sea sickness"... *urp* which could be really bad when you are wearing scuba equipment.

Then again, even if you managed not to fill your regulator with chicken sandwich while getting sick, you would be chumming the waters... attracting those sharks you were talking about.

full article (5, Informative)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666299)

full article [newscientist.com]
STOP posting multipage versions of articles !!!

Re:full article (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#26672829)

I'm sure by now some submitters must have posted full page versions to the main story.

My guess is that the editors replaced it with a multipage version because they didn't want to piss off the people running the sites. After all, couldn't they make it more difficult for Slashdot to view articles if they wanted to (redirects for incoming URLs from Slashdot's IP(s))?

Considering how often it happens and how much most of us hate it, it's probably SlashPolicy.

Foam? Carbon? (0)

moehoward (668736) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666311)

Carbon and sculpted foam? What the hell? I've been wasting freaking decades and tens of thousands of dollars on DeLoreans for my time machine. Guess I'll head out to Walmart in my ADD-enhanced attempt to break fundamental laws of physics.

Nominative determinism at work. (1)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666327)

Let's hear it for Nominative Determinism! [wikipedia.org]
And he's not the only Mr Fish in Marine Biology.

A Subhuman Project, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666407)

So what's the submarine called? The SS Untermensch?

Re:A Subhuman Project, eh? (3, Funny)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666477)

Better than Hunley.

Re:A Subhuman Project, eh? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670691)

Mad scientist: Mein Führer! I announce Project Untermensch.
Crowd: stunned silence
Mad scientist: (looks confused for a while, and then realises his mistake)Mr President! I announce Project Subhuman.
Crowd: enthusiastic applause

Sounds fun (2, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666435)

But is it really any use? If it moves in a direction when started from the bottom of the tank is it actually of any practical use? presumably it's only the buoyancy action combined with it's shape that thrust it forward such that if you start it near the surface it wont do anything.

Effectively rather than forward motion, does this only offer diagonal upwards motion? i.e. can it work without being started some distance below the surface?

I'm not sure crossing the atlantic would be that fun if you have to be dragged to the ocean floor repeatedly and launched diagonally upwards in the general direction.

Re:Sounds fun (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666489)

RTFA and use your brain. It is actively powered normally. The comment about moving by itself is just to indicate how efficient the device is with even slow moving water passing over the tail (in this case, caused by the buoyant motion).

Re:Sounds fun (4, Informative)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666655)

The point is that the buoyancy allowed it to float up a bit, causing water to flow over the propulsion surfaces. That flow, however slight, moved the sub forward. That's actually rather impressive, considering most subs sink like a freaking rock or bob like a log (depending on their buoyancy) instead of moving forward while bobbing slightly. The speed of said forward motion wasn't stated that I saw but it speaks to the fact that it ought to work. Now to see if ti works as well as they think it will.

Re:Sounds fun (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26669783)

The point is that the buoyancy allowed it to float up a bit, causing water to flow over the propulsion surfaces. That flow, however slight, moved the sub forward. That's actually rather impressive, considering most subs sink like a freaking rock or bob like a log (depending on their buoyancy) instead of moving forward while bobbing slightly.

Except that's not what happened. They're talking about just the propulsion mechanism / fin, which has already been marketed as a separate product - the Lunocet [lunocet.com] .

Re:Sounds fun (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#26675011)

The point is that the buoyancy allowed it to float up a bit, causing water to flow over the propulsion surfaces. That flow, however slight, moved the sub forward.

And while that sounds impressive - it's meaningless and trivial to accomplish. Nor is it a breakthrough, as diving/gliding submarines like this are rediscovered every couple of years for a couple of decades now. They turn out not to work in practice because they either take a lot of energy to submerge against the buoyancy required, or they require an incredible amount of (very heavy but still limited in life) compressed air tankage to generate the buoyancy at the bottom of the cycle while venting at the top.
 
 

That's actually rather impressive, considering most subs sink like a freaking rock or bob like a log (depending on their buoyancy) instead of moving forward while bobbing slightly.

What other subs do is utterly meaningless - as other subs aren't designed to be aero/hydrodynamic.

Re:Sounds fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26677137)

considering most subs sink like a freaking rock or bob like a log (depending on their buoyancy)

Actually subs operate at zero buoyancy. The flood their ballast to achieve this. They DON'T use their ballast to go up and down. To move up and down they use their stern and bow planes. Its more like flying underwater.

Oh yes you NEVER use the word "Sink" in the Sub Service. Subs don't sink they submerge.

A "sub" that goes 2 meters down, and stays there? (3, Insightful)

sirwired (27582) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666491)

This is not a submarine. This is a boat that happens to float two meters below the surface of the water.

Depth control consists of him swimming to the surface, filling a bladder with air, and then attaching it to the sub.

And I'm not impressed with his claims that it practically "swam by itself." Getting something to move horizontally when provided with vertical buoyancy and travel is not exactly what one would call difficult, and it has nothing to do with how efficient the boat is or isn't under power.

SirWired

Re:A "sub" that goes 2 meters down, and stays ther (2, Insightful)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666737)

Depth control consists of him swimming to the surface, filling a bladder with air, and then attaching it to the sub

I didn't see that stated in the article. My impression was more that they'd use some of the compressed air in the scuba tanks, or perhaps a different dedicated tank, to accomplish this. The fact is that wet subs aren't all that uncommon.

Personally, I'd call this one a submersible, rather than a submarine. A submarine is typically much more autonomous than this thing would be (TFA states he'd have a chase boat for air tanks, etc).

Re:A "sub" that goes 2 meters down, and stays ther (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 5 years ago | (#26674569)

Wet subs aren't that uncommon, but they are generally propelled by electric motors, etc. They don't usually use human power. He's going to be working against the resistance of the water he's surrounded in. He'd have to do a LOT less work in a transoceanic journey if he was only fighting air resistance and not water resistance.

Re:A "sub" that goes 2 meters down, and stays ther (2, Interesting)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667975)

When I was a kid I used to buy these little delta winged Styrofoam airplanes at the dime store. The were meant to be launched via a rubber band and a small tab on their underside. However I used to play with them in my grandfather's pool instead. I'd go down to the bottom in the deep end, flip the "plane" upside down, and release. Result? It traveled nearly the length of the pool straight as a string and fairly quickly before surfacing. It was a pretty neat discovery for me as a small child :-)

So, I too am not really too impressed by the fact that this thing moved forward when it attempted to float to the surface. I fail to see how that equates to decent propulsion performance from a tail that was modeled after a dolphin.

Not Entirely Human (4, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666525)

He plans to pedal 2 metres below the surface all day, coming up only at night when he will sleep in a tent erected on the top of the sub. If the wind is blowing in the right direction he'll fly a kite to gain a few extra miles while he sleeps.

So, it looks like they'll be supplementing human power with wind power. That's kind of disappointing.

'Ciamillo and Fish say they knew they were onto something when the first prototype Lunocet, a piece of sculpted foam sandwiched between two pieces of carbon fiber, essentially swam by itself.

Yes, that's called gliding. It happens whenever a thin flat surface moves freely through a fluid. Aeroplanes and gliders use this all the time. The keel on a sailboat and the rudder on a ship use the same principle. Many autonomous underwater vehicles use buoyancy gliding as a method of propulsion. Increase the density of the robot by compressing an air bladder, and the robot sinks. Fins convert the vertical drop into a forward glide. Expand the air bladder, the robot gets less dense and rises. Again the fins convert the vertical motion into forward motion.

Re:Not Entirely Human (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666567)

So, it looks like they'll be supplementing human power with wind power. That's kind of disappointing.

Maybe for you, but I'm glad they've finally found a use for my uncontrollable flatulence. (You insensitive clod!)

Re:Not Entirely Human (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667249)

Conceivably, he could inflate the bladders and glide forward as he ascends, then deflate the bladders and glide forward as he descends - with a support boat supplying fresh compressed air every night.....

Something smells... (2, Insightful)

SebaSOFT (859957) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666587)

...fishy here. (I'm sorry I had to do it) But won't he get tired to death before leaving the first 200 miles off-shore? Fishes give up migrations all the time, can't you?

Lunocet? or is it lunotic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666739)

I thought I read something else in the story.
Is slashdot sure they didn't mispell lunocet as lunotic/lunatic?

where are you going to get subhumans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666765)

Guess there's always 4chan...

Too difficult to be submerged for that long (1)

Randy Savage (1465063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666805)

There are a couple of comments on the new scientist site about his skin probably blistering off due to being submerged in a wetsuit for that long. Ouch.

Re:Too difficult to be submerged for that long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667091)

I would expect the water to be FAR too cold for a wet suit. He would wear a dry suit.

Re:Too difficult to be submerged for that long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26672027)

the FA actually is more concerned with being too Hot rather than too cold (He's not crossing the north Atlantic).

ogligatory (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666833)

We all live in a human-powered submarine,
human-powered submarine,
human-powered submarine!
Yes, the drugs are responsible for this album,
responsible for this album,
responsible for this album.

Re:obligatory (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666989)

Dolphin's tail is my
plan for submarine
plan for submarine
plan for submarine

Using foam is
the way to keep it cheap
the way to keep it cheap
the way to keep it cheap

And our friends love making tails
There's no way
That we can fail
And there's air inside our tanks
(HORN SECTION GO!)

Who designed this thing? (1)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666889)

Stainless steel wire instead of something like Spectra or Dyneema? What about the motion losses from pedaling under water? Why bother with this crap of crossing the ocean, when it's clear he'll have a chase boat with provisions, etc? Obviously he can't stay in the water for 50+ days. Seems like there were a lot of very bad engineering decisions made on this thing. In addition, I can't believe he'd suggest going under water only a meter or two in the ocean. Does he now how large the waves get, and what will happen if he hits any type of real weather out there?

Re:Who designed this thing? (1)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670845)

Obviously he can't stay in the water for 50+ days. [...] what will happen if he hits any type of real weather out there?

RTFA

Re:Who designed this thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26672273)

Will he have time to RTFA? Those storms come on pretty quick!

Re:Who designed this thing? (2, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#26671791)

Obviously he can't stay in the water for 50+ days. Seems like there were a lot of very bad engineering decisions made on this thing. In addition, I can't believe he'd suggest going under water only a meter or two in the ocean. Does he now how large the waves get, and what will happen if he hits any type of real weather out there?

What I'm curious about is how he's going to keep his skin from dissolving after being in salt water for almost two months.

Oblig. Terry Pratchett reference (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26666915)

Jingo is not his best book by far, but he has in it a human powered submarine with a tail that imitates a dolphin.

I want one - to smuggle cocaine with (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26666969)

One of these submarines would be perfect for smuggling cocaine!

BTW - Slashdot doesn't work with Internet Explorer, the #1 most popular web browser in the world. I wonder how much of an audience they're losing.

Re:I want one - to smuggle cocaine with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667879)

BTW - Slashdot doesn't work with Internet Explorer, the #1 most popular web browser in the world. I wonder how much of an audience they're losing.

Both of them?

Patent infringement! (3, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667029)

I claim prior art! Hell, I am prior art!

They tried this in Germany (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667149)

But the "untermensch u-boot" wasn't a big success.

I bought a hman powered submarine last year (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667295)

It went by the name of:

Self Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus.

It was air tight, contained an airsupply, and was powered by my moving my legs.

Hope better than this one (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667501)

Hope they have better luck than the human-powered Hunley, a Confederate sub that sank a US ship then itself sank on the way back in. First sub to sink a warship!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.L._Hunley

Efficiency (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667681)

I think the propulsion system would be much more efficient if the occupant's body wasn't surrounded by water while he/she pedals.

A wet sub?? (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668003)

Isn't it very unhealthy for your skin to spend that much time submerged in sea water.

Not to mention it can't be that comfortable, hypothermia issues?

He has to be submerged for more than a month (1)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670207)

He has to be submerged for more than a month. There's got to be some real nasty side effects to this. Furthermore, it's sort of like a zero G environment so there may be some negative impact there as well.

Re:He has to be submerged for more than a month (1)

danzona (779560) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670457)

From TFA: He expects the journey to take 50 days, but at night (weather and sea conditions and giant sea monsters permitting) the sub will float on the surface and he will be sleeping in a tent erected on top of the sub.

Re:He has to be submerged for more than a month (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26671321)

Being underwater while in a submarine is nothing like a zero-g environment. Just ask any number of men who have served in submarines around the world. Several countries have missile subs that spent 3+ months at a time submerged.

Astronauts use water tanks for training because they allow a greater range of movement, but the only reason it works is because everything that needs those degrees of freedom is adjusted to be neutrally buoyant, but they are not experiencing zero-g.

Normal subs don't require the person to be in wate (1)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#26671543)

Normal subs don't require the person to be in water. This sub is a "wet sub" where the inside is filled with water. However, I'm assuming he will sleep dry at night above the sub.

Re:Normal subs don't require the person to be in w (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26674853)

The fact that its a wet sub STILL doesn't matter. He's on earth. There's gravity. Being in the water, wet, doesn't magically mean that gravity no longer applies. Even being neutrally buoyant, his heart still has to pump blood against gravity.

Could get crappy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26668071)

Let's see... you're in a wetsuit in a submarine needing to take a dump, can feel the runs coming on, maybe, and there's a 50 foot swell, so you can't surface... what ya gonna do? Sounds like a shitty deal.

you F2AIl it! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26668077)

And what suuplies Use the sling.

Ciamillo's History (1)

superdan2k (135614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668179)

If Ciamillo's design work with bicycle parts is any indicator of his talent as an engineer, they'll pull this one off.

I'm fortunate enough to have a pair of his Zero Gravity (0G-Ti) brakes on my road bike, and they're insanely light (the pair weighs less than a Dura-Ace front caliper) and have been pleasant to work on, and require very little maintenance.

Must ask first: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26668197)

Does his middle name begin with "N"?

Seems bogus to me (1)

iliketrash (624051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670269)

"When they released it at the bottom of a test pool, its buoyancy combined with its cambered shape generated a forward thrust that made it scoot across the tank."

OK--I'll bet it stopped going forward right around the time it got to the surface of the water.

How time flies... (2, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670475)

It's interesting to compare this latest reincarnation of the human-powered sub to the eight-man, candle-lit Hunley [wikipedia.org] that (briefly) prowled the waters off the coast of South Carolina during the (U.S.) Civil War.

I just hope... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670949)

Should any disaster strike, or shark bite the fin off, I wonder, if the sub, would plummet to the bottom of the ocean as a real fish would without its fin, did they think to come up with possible alternative plan in case, cuz' it ain't like stepping out and changing a flat tire!!!

Frank Fish (1)

DorkRawk (719109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26670961)

So, in collaboration with marine biologist Frank Fish of West Chester University in Pennsylvania, who specialises in...

A guy named Frank Fish decided to be a marine biologist? How original.

When I was a kid, the comic book... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#26672365)

had an ad in them for a submarine human powered...

PRIOR ART!!!

On a similar note... (1)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26675565)

On a similar and yet much cooler note, I encourage everyone to visit www.Expedition360.com , a most awesome site about a brits attempt to circumnavigate the globe only via unsuplemented human power. Read through the entire diary and you'll feel like you've read a great and fufilling book. Highly, highly recommended.

The SubHuman. One ugly customer. (1)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 5 years ago | (#26676401)

I remember seeing an analysis of what this is on TV. No anchor links, but just do a find on "Subhuman".

http://www.thetick.ws/tvvillains.html [thetick.ws]

designed by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26677175)

...J.R. "Bob" Dobbs maybe?

For real? (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26678555)

Frankly, this sounds a ted fishy... A dolphin-based submarine?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...