Talk:Supercavitation

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Units

Should not SI units (m/s) be used as primary units and imperial units (mph) be enclosed in parentheses? Having m/s there is good. In as international project as this, usage of non standard mile and feet measures should be avoided. I'd be better to use only SI units or at least special units such as knots when talking about ships and torpedoes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkj~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14 July 2003

SI units should be used, with mph AND knots attached in paranthesis. Logic for this follows as, generally it would be nice if [everyone] used SI units, so to accomplish that it should be the primary units. mph and Knots should be included for those people who have no frame of reference of SI, colleges and most highschools in the United States teach SI units in they're phyiscs, chemisty, (but not in they're engineering classes...) classes. Even so, I still don't have a proper perspective on how fast 120km/h really is, and less so on m/s. Thus common alternate measurements should be included to give perspective. --ORBIT 20:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) (ooops forgot a sig)

The article keeps on saying that the objects are entirely enveloped in a bubble. Doesn't the nose have to be touching water, though? And if it is, then isn't it not entirely enveloped? --69.214.226.102 15:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is entirly inside of a bubble. As I understand it, the nose cone has gas ejectors that effectively "blow" the bubble bigger once supercav has been reached. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --The Singularity 22:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily completely enveloped. What you're referring to is a ventilated supercavity, but supercavitation may occur without ventilation at the proper conditions. Axda0002 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercavitation used for racing

The supercavitation principle has been used for high performance racing boats for a long time. Model racing boats uses supercavitation or alternatively surface piercing exclusively, both for propellers and rudders. The "Squall" is the 1st underwater vessel to use this principle. -- Egil 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German supercavitation

I'm going to need to see some kind of source cited (claiming that it's actually supercavitation) on this one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supercavitation&diff=56229956&oldid=55030731 ) - the Battleships (Japanese / German ?) guns used shells that dived under the water and curved upward to stike from underwater - they were far earlier than this. Megapixie 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your above description of gun shells would apply to the German Henschel Hs 293 C air-to-sea anti-ship missile and its improved follow-up version Hs 294. But I don't know if any gun shells with features and characteristics like that were in use during WWII. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.129.254 (talk • contribs) .

My point is that according to that definition of supercavitation - ANY weapon hitting the water at high speed could be supposed to be a supercavitation weapon. What about airplane dropped depth charges ?

I don't believe that supercavitation was an intended part of the design of the Hs 293 C any more than it is of a battleship shell striking the water, or a general purpose bomb being used in skip bombing, or an airplane dropping depth charges. Megapixie 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IJN designed their shells with predictable underwater ballistics. I don't recall their rationale... See Peattie & Evans, Kaigun. Trekphiler 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian underwater firearms

The line that says the russian underwater firearms do not supercavitate is incorrect- they do in fact supercavitate. It seems that the only information that they don't is that a few websites describe them as "drag stabilized", which doesn't mean they are not supercavitating as well. "drag stabilized" just means that stability is achieved by pulling back on the back, instead of pushing in on the sides. The stability of these is actually a complicated subject, but it will suffice to say that it gets stability from both "lift" and drag (from tail slap mostly, but also from the flat nose)

There is also information on the web saying they do supercavitate.

"Russian rifle ammunition using supercavitation for underwater use I have come across some mentions that the Russian APS underwater rifle uses supercavitating ammunition :

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as69-e.htm.

The APS is designed for special underwater cartridges, which fire 5.66 mm needle-like projectiles 120 mm long. The projectiles are stabilized using a hydrodynamic cavity, generated by the flat point of the projectile. The cartridges use standard 5.45 x 39 cases, sealed from water." http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:PwwmQ2YapTEJ:www.grosswildjagd.de/fundamen.htm+underwater+rifle+aps+supercavitation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

"Soviet engineers worked on supercavitation in the 60ths. At the end of the decade O.P. Kravchenko and P.F. Sazonov have developed underwater ammunition (4.5X40 mm and 5.66X49 mm) that utilized that principle. For this ammunition the Central Institute for Precision Machine building made a underwater pistol and an assault rifle called SPP-1 and APS. " http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:7YBWh1Vt298J:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php%3Fp%3D2866434+underwater+rifle+aps+supercavitation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

If that is not enough evidence, I can run the numbers for you. Notice the flat tip? That is a cavitator.

The empirical equations (which can be found online in different forms, such as http://cav2003.me.es.osaka-u.ac.jp/Cav2003/Papers/Cav03-GS-6-006.pdf#search=%22supercavitation%22) show that it does infact produce a supercavity.

Cavity radius = Cavitator radius * SQRT(Cd/Cavitation number) Cavity length = Cavitator radius * SQRT(Cd*ln(1/cavitation number))/cavitation number

Cavitation number = Pressure/(0.5*density*velocity^2) Cd (drag coefficient) for a flat disk is ~0.82

If you run the numbers (Cd = 0.82, Pressure = 101kpa, Density = 1030kg/m^3, 250m/s, Cavitator radius 2mm), you will find that the initial cavity length is about 0.7 meters near the surface, which is > 0.12meters, which is the projectile length, with a 16mm maximum radius, which is >> 2.83mm, which is the projectile radius. This means the whole projectile is in the cavity.

I got those equation from Professor Emeritus Marshall Tulin (the guy that developed the theory of supercavitation in the 60s), when I met with him this week to discuss supercavitating projectiles such as these. It was clear to him as well that they are supercavitating, although he had not heard of the weapons before.

If you run numbers assuming it is not supercavitating, you will realise the reported ranges are not possible. The drag coefficient would have to be as low as 0.07 to get as far as they claim to at 5m depth and still retain 30% of the speed. 0.07 is not a reasonable number for a dart like this when not supercavitating. This approach does not explain the depth dependence on range, which is more evidence that it is faulty. Here's how I calculated the distance constant (velocity decays exponentially with distance) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=1%2F%28%28%285.66mm%2F2%29%5E2*pi*.07*.5*1030kg%2Fm%5E3%29%2F26grams%29&btnG=Search

It's also worth noting that the dart would not be stable if it were not cavitating at all, or only cavitating off the back. The center of mass is roughly 1/2 chord, while the center of pressure is at 1/4 chord, which makes it unstable. If you're claiming the cavity coming off the back "drag stabilizes" it, you would be wrong. The pressure (or lack thereof) pushes normal to the surface, which is through the cg, leaving you with no stabilizing moment"

More on the subject of stability: "The pressure distribution on the disc cavitator is actually slightly stabilizing" - Marshall Tulin. Of course, this only applies to supercavitators.

If there is a way of upoading pictures for the talk page, I can show pictures of simulation, and graphs of closed form equations that predict the supercavitation (including the distance/depth curves, and just about anything else you need to know) of these projectiles.

Change it back.

---Jimmy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.23.207 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 October 2006‎

The initial edit was my mistake, I should have been more careful, thanks for the correction, and information.--Sukisuki 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Express program and supercavitation

General Dynamics, Electric Boat, Corp., Groton, Conn.,is being awarded a $5,748,078 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research and development to support the Underwater Express program to demonstrate stable and controllable high-speed underwater transport through supercavitation. This effort will help determine the feasibility of supercavitation technology to enable a new class of high-speed underwater craft for future littoral missions that could involve the transport of high-value cargo and/or small units of personnel. This contract contains two options, which if exercised, would bring the cumulative potential value of this contract to $37,105,768.Work will be performed in State College, Pa. (37 percent); Groton, Conn.(24 percent); McLean, Va.(14 percent); Reston, Va. (10 percent); Bethesda, Md. (12 percent); and Newport, R.I. (3 percent), and is expected to be completed October 2007.Contract funds in the amount of $3,377,441 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is being awarded under a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Broad Area Announcement (BAA) (No. 06-13), which solicited proposals via the Federal Business Opportunities website, for advanced research and development under the provisions of FAR 6.102(d)(2) and FAR 35. In accordance with the criteria of the BAA, the General Dynamics, Electric Boat, Corp., proposal was evaluated by DARPA through the process of peer and scientific review. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N66001-07-C-2002).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.81.196 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2006‎

Tactical theory

I have a problem with the evident bias against supercavitators in the discussion. "Time enough to avoid"? I'm far from convinced one minute is enough for a ship to change direction. I can't help recall WW2 boats with much slower, noisy, wake-producing torpedoes successfully sinking even destroyers. I picture spreads of three or four supercavitators, fired close in, possibly in conjunction with noisemakers or autonomous decoys. Additionally, the critic seems to assume supercavitators will never be quieter, or able to be launched silently. Unfortunately, I'm insufficiently up to date on the state of the art today to correct it. Trekphiler 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the "Drawbacks" section, then I also believe there's a heavy bias in it. It makes good mention of the guidance of American torpedoes as its main argument, however, I firmly remember reading that Germany's Barracuda supercavitating torpedo as well as Russia's new variant of the Shkvall, had guidance systems as well. Also, the section mentions many "unconfirmed" figures in its calculations. This quote I've found: "Already having underdone a whole range of successful tests, the designers of Barracuda boast that its capabilities are unmatched, claiming the design is 10 years ahead of American and Russian efforts. It is claimed the Barracuda is maneuverable enough even to home in on, and knock out an incoming Shkval!", which is based on the claim of the makers of the Barracuda, I believe has just as much merit as the types of figures claimed in the section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.45.179 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 March 2007‎

Looks to me as if the writer is in the grip of the guided torpedo lobby. Still. Trekphiler 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the Barracuda and Shkvall II are reported to be guided. Not only that, but the fact that both the U.S. and Germany have interest in supercavitation means that the entire second half of the section is basically false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.45.179 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 April 2007‎

"Drawbacks" section

There might be some merit to the claim at the end ("Supercavitation also produces an incredible amount of noise, which alerts the target to both the torpedo and the location of the launching sub."), but the first bit seems to be trying to argue that taking less time to get to a target is somehow a drawback. Doesn't make much sense...

I'm removing the whole section; if someone can find a source for supercavitation being unstealthy, feel free to add that part back in. 62.30.157.187 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited, previously tagged, material

I just removed a number of assertions that were unsourced, although they had been fact-tagged for many months. I suspect some of the material is at least partially good stuff, but without verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the claims, they really don't belong in Wikipedia. Cheers, N2e (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed from an expert on the subject

A) Theory

(sorry for the quality of my english)

Cavitation is a known phenomenon. It occurs when a liquid is accelerated at high speed, for example on the blades of a propeller. The fluid pressure drops due to its high speed (Bernoulli's Principle) and when the liquid pressure drops below the vapor pressure, it vaporizes - typically forming small bubbles of water vapor; it is to say water in its gaseous form.

In ordinary hydrodynamics, cavitation is a phenomenon that, mostly, is incidental and undesirable: usually, the bubbles are not sustained but implode because of the sudden deceleration of the fluid and the sudden rise in ambient pressure. These small implosions lead to physical damage. Misconceived propellers are vulnerable to this damages.

An object like a torpedo must at first overcome the friction of the surrounding water. The drag of an object is proportional to the density of the fluid in which it moves. The density of the liquid water being much greater than vapor water, the same pushing force moves the torpedo less rapidly in water than in vapor. So more speed, more drag and certainly not more absence of friction in front of the torpedo.

So, how to create this surrouding film of gaseous fluid in water for a torpedo ?

Bernoulli's principle can be seen, for example in the case of a torpedo, easily like the principle of conservation of energy. The torpedo communicating kinetic energy to the fluid in the form of kinetic and thermal energy. Don't forget that the density of water "pumped" more kinetic energy than in gas on the same distance.

When such an object enters a fluid the water is violently deflected (if dropped from helicopter or a bullet ejected from a gun for example). That is more created by the interface air-water than the speed of the torpedo or the bullet and it have anything to do with the creation of the supercavitation phenomenon.

This is obviously not sufficient to reduce friction and pressure of water which is always experienced at the front and which restricts the speed of the torpedo. Moreover the drag will be greater with greater speed.

Thus, the natural deflection of water alone can not cause a supercavitation by vaporizing the water in front of the torpedo and even before it comes into direct contact with water. There is simply no sense here.

Creating a supercavitation simply by exerting greater force on the water is not realistic since the friction becomes proportionally larger. At some level the water becomes as hard as concrete.

To generate a supercavitation, the torpedo must eject a hot gas who can vaporize water at the front of the object. The torpedo penetrate continuously in this gas and this gas will form a friction-reducing coating of the water. Hence the SUPER cavitation, a SUPER bubble, a neologism by analogy with the phenomenon of cavitation.

Moreover, the dynamics of a propeller or a pump where cavitation is often seen are totally not the same as in the ballistic movement of a torpedo.

This article is highly speculative and needs true experts in the matter who will be able to clear the doubts. Which I am not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyD11 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 March 2012‎

There is a reliable source for the description of the basic phenomenon of supercavitation, which is the 2001 Scientific American article referenced here by Heron since 2003-06-22. It is true that the basic effect can be enhanced by addition of internally generated gasses, especially near the nose of the vehicle and especially when the speed is not sufficiently high and the bubble needs to be expanded. Hot temperatures probably help too, but the time available for heat exchange to the water in front of a high speed torpedo would be... very short.

Projectiles fired into the water or fired underwater generally don't have a source of hot gas to expel out the nose for supplementing the cavitation bubble. And yet these devises exist and are an area of active research. The SciAm2001 article names people as sources and also the organizations that they work for. It also constitutes a peer-reviewed journal, so on the face of it, the material should probably be considered to be reliable.

I'm not an expert on supercavitation, but I am an aerospace engineer with a background in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. It seems to me that the sources that are referenced and cited make a pretty good case for what supercavitation is and how it works. I'm somewhat surprised that the material is available in the open literature, considering the implications of having or not having this type of capability. It may be that the author of the SciAm2001 article was merely trying to get scientists and engineers in the United States to become familiar with capabilities already developed and deployed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Fielding a weapons system based upon the contents of the article would still be... very expensive and time consuming. PoqVaUSA (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B) Picture shown

The picture doesn't explain at all the effect of supercavitation. The explanation below should be : " An object (black) deflects a liquid flowing (black arrows) rapidly. If the object seems to create a supercavitation, the object is stationary and must continuously support the high pressure flow. Immersed in static water and mobile, the object must overcome the drag that opposes its motion." Supercavitation is NOT just throwing something with high speed in water while praising the lords that friction will disappear.

this picture could be only good to explain the deflection of a flowing river by a rock before a falls (creating this king of open curtain).

For this two reasons (point A and B) I really consider to edit this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyD11 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 March 2012‎

New NEWS (big news today), for future editing

A really great photo: looks like a waterborne stealth fighter.

Headline-1: Maine entrepreneur builds sleek ship, but will military buy it?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/23/maine-entrepreneur-builds-sleek-ship-but-will-military-buy-it/

QUOTE: "The angular vessel looks like a waterborne stealth fighter. It rides atop underwater torpedo-shaped tubes powered by a pair of 2,000-horsepower gas turbine engines. Gyroscopes keep the ride smooth. ... The Ghost rides on struts connected to engine assemblies he says take advantage of "supercavitation," traveling underwater inside a bubble of gas" -- AstroU (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Supercavitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Supercavitation' applicable to fluids other than water?

I once read that at speeds of Lockheed SR-71 fighter and reconnaisance supersonic airplane, 'air is like jelly', this seems connected to Reynolds number, and a dimensional figure expressing the relations between inertia and viscosity forces inside a fluid. The recently released images of DARPA Hypersonic speed air vehicles have a truncated back. So: could the concept of 'Supercavitation' be used in extremely fast vehicles moving in the air, or even to 'space' itself? Comments?

File:1974 El Campillo Aznalcollar Sevilla.jpg

Thanks. Regards. Agur. Salut + User:Hijuecutivo