|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
|A fact from Ictineo II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 7913 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
1)On 22 October 1867 the Ictineo II made its first surface journey under steam power, averaging 3.5 knots (4.0 mph) with a top speed of 4.5 knots (5.2 mph). Two months later, on 14 December, Monturiol submerged the vessel and ran his chemical engine, but without attempting to travel anywhere.
2)Monturiol's most important innovation was Ictineo II's anaerobic engine, which produced gaseous oxygen as a byproduct which was collected in exhaust tanks and used for breathing and illumination purposes.
seems to be that the two WP-quotes are not telling the same. and the this "anaerobic motor" never worked below the water surface, the only motor which worked was the one for the surface operations. same says in spanish: http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn119-96.htm
what worked was the surface motor and the huma powered Ictineo I. If it would have worked , why would have been sold as scrap two month after the last test?
so he was only experimenting with the idea of heating up the water to make steam by an anoxic reaction, which at the same time could have produced oxygen, but apparently never did or may me it did produce oxygen , but the submerged submarine was never moved by this anoxic reaction. --Stefanbcn (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, he only made one test of the anaerobic engine while underwater and, as is said, without actually using it to propel the submarine. It was probably run many times above water before he installed it.
- As to why the Ictineo was sold for scrap - this is covered in the article: Monturiol and his company went bankrupt and could find no more investors, and the main creditor seized the submarine.
- Salmanazar (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, what i wanted to point out, is that he just envisioned this motor without oxygen demand to propell a submarine, but he never was able to make it work and no one after him either. Innovation sounds as if the motor had worked and had propelled once a submarine.
- 2) "anaerobic motor/propulsion" who coined this term?, because anaerobic is normaly used for organisms not for machines.
- air-independent propulsion sounds more correct. a process which produces oxygen should not me called anaerobic. i feel.
- --Stefanbcn (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- We will never know for sure about the engine, but the accounts of Monturiol's work suggest it did work. However, his company went bust only 9 days after he first tried the the engine underwater. The principle used is certainly sound enough, though I think he would have run into the same problems later experimenters had with such engines if he had had more time.
- As to "anaerobic propulsion" - "anaerobic" just means it uses no oxygen, but "Atmosphere Independent Propulsion" is the more usual term.
- Salmanazar (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Matthew Stewart, who wrote Monturiol's Dream, a comprehensive history of these submarines, the problem with the engine was that it generated too much heat while operating, and made the cabin intolerably hot, and very rapidly so. This was the main obstacle to operating the Ictineo II under water, not any theoretical or mechanical issue with the engine. The underwater engine appears to have been fired up on the surface, and the craft submerged with the boiler generating steam pressure, but the temperatures in the cabin would soon reach 50 degrees centigrade, and they would have to surface. The only permanent solution to this problem was a new boat made of steel or iron, and with a separate engine compartment, but as mentioned in the article, such expenditure was unrealistic for the company, which soon went bankrupt. Historically, the important thing to note is that the invention was feasible and mechanically correct, it was a working prototype and a step forward in submarine vessel theory which anticipated modern development by almost 100 years. Monturiol deserve all the appropriate credit for his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)