It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why there's no tanks that runs on nuclear or alternative energy?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I am not sure if you might remember, but back in the 90's there was a local South Australian inventor who built a new type of radial motor called "Jetfire". It was meant to use very little fuel and despite its small displacement generated large amounts of power. The patent was purchased from the inventor by the US Army to be used in Tanks. There was only one news story on it at the time, and I have heard nothing since though I have kept an eye out to see if it was ever implemented. Clearly it was shelved.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


my thoughts:

1. tanks are designed to be destroyed (you can't make a 100 mil $ tank because if it blows up you just lost it all)
2. tanks are made for the front line and can be taken out by any other weapon. RPG, missile, mine, magnetic grenade, other guns even low caliber. They are made to be lost. That's why a modern army may have 30.000 tanks and just 300 planes.
3. You can find diesel all around the world, but you can't find a H fueling station in 99% of the world.
4. space inside + a diesel engine is easy to fix, even a modern petrol engine is complicated.
5. tanks aren't supposed to be fast or go more than 400 miles on a tank because they need infantry to protect them. So a new energy source would be useless.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Alternative fuels arn't powerful enough, and nuclear... on a tank.. with people shooting at it... yay radiation. Fossil fuel ftw



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The only "alternative energy" I think we'll honestly see in combat use is bio-diesel or a JP-5/JP-8 equivalent. Existing hardware shouldn't have any problems using it without any mods. Just pour it in and go. Maybe it'll come from hemp, or maybe GM algae, or maybe your war machines will smell like french fries... Doesn't matter. It's an already proven tech.

As for nuclear? You're not going to sensibly run a reactor in anything smaller than a sea-going vessel. So rule out steam plant designs. RTG type batteries could work. But if one of your tanks takes a hit, do you really want to be rescuing somebody from a wreck that's also hot/dirty in a radioactive sense or having that mess on your side of the battlefield?

Solar? It doesn't have the power density to do the job on its own. Even if using it to charge batteries, you're not going to be battlefield ready if you can't manuever for 8 hours after running for 2.

So common sense rules out those two.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
There was talk of a "nuclear bomber" in Soviet possession during the Cold War. Although it turned out to be a hoax, at no point before the 1990s did anyone realise (from reading supposed specs of the craft) the amount of rad-shielding needed to protect the crew meant you either couldn't get it off the ground or it was an unshielded one-way-trip vehicle



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
There is many reasons why nuclear power is not used in tanks. One reason is the command of nuclear substance and engineering. In this world it cant take a few years to make one tank. An example of too good engineering is the nazis. The germans just couldn't make wholesale crap. They had to always put all there crafting abilities into one tank, in the time of one German tank the allies would make about six shermon tanks. Another reason is the pollution. Tanks are suppose to be disposable depending on the size of the military. If all tanks are powered by Nuclear substances there would be so much problems with explosions and poison. Nuclear submarines have huge engine rooms and space that tanks don't have. If and when the Tank is destroyed, there pretty much like small nuclear bombs. imagine all the ammo and a nuclear Power rod??? The reasons are endless.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


It’s clearly a massive conspiracy to destroy the environment, duh.

Think for a second...what must all military vehicles be?

1. Fast
2. Dependable
3. Repairable
4. Salvageable
5. Sustainable

Most alternative energy doesn't allow quick movement, nor are they particularly dependable. They require specialized fuel, specialized tools for repair, and specialized technicians. None of these make for good military vehicles. In a way some military vehicles DO use alternative fuels. The M1A1 for example can use pretty much any fuel you can find, from kerosene to diesel....just won't run too long on it, it uses jet fuel because its readily available and already in the supply lines.

Uranium batteries aren't terrible ideas, but the issue is when a tank gets hit, whatever is in it disperses to the area around. The depleted uranium in the armor already creates nasty dust (like all heavy metals) that will mess up your repertory system. Any type of nuclear reactor or nuclear battery creates huge liabilities, and a part that cannot be destroyed by incendiaries if abandoning the vehicle. Also, you again need specialized repairmen for these jobs-- with high clearances, very costly, and unnecessary considering gas does it cheaper.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
A tank in my platoon,runs off grease. We swing by the fast food joints all the time.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Good tanks run on turbines.

Yes that piece of equipment that propels aeroplanes and other large or demanding machinery.

Is that not enough?

Turbines are usually rated in the thousands of horsepower.

They consume petrol and other petrol based fuels. (Unfortunately)

No matter how environmental a conscience i have that's it and that's how it will be for some time.

You ask for environmental war machinery?

If humanity was as evolved war wouldn' t be an issue in the first place.

PEACE
George
edit on 3/1/2011 by GEORGETHEGREEK because: wrong person reply



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I think because of economies of scale.. tanks are so small compared to carriers and subs that it just not worth the trouble.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


Because they run on steam, which brings about it's own unique problems.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
Good tanks run on turbines.

Yes that piece of equipment that propels aeroplanes and other large or demanding machinery.

Is that not enough?

Turbines are usually rated in the thousands of horsepower.

They consume petrol and other petrol based fuels. (Unfortunately)

No matter how environmental a conscience i have that's it and that's how it will be for some time.

You ask for environmental war machinery?

If humanity was as evolved war wouldn' t be an issue in the first place.

PEACE
George
edit on 3/1/2011 by GEORGETHEGREEK because: wrong person reply


Actually I personally believe that the turbine was mainly used for the "wow factor" the turbine burns WAY more fuel for comparable power from a diesel engine. The turbine sucks down 12 gallons per hour, standing still and gets one gallon per mile, or worse. In fact the army was planning on replacing the 1960s design turbine with diesel engines of similar power with far better fuel consumption but was cancelled due to the high costs involved.

Here's a good article on fuel consumption in the military.
www.usatoday.com...

As far as alternative energy in an armored combat vehicle the new Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) self propelled gun is in fact hybrid, I'm surprised no one else brought this up.
green.autoblog.com...

I think there is also a European hybrid propulsion armored vehicle but I cannot remember the country of origin or the model.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Yeah, plus imagine the irony if the Army made ecological Tanks.

Plus the Army wouldn't waste money on such an expensive product. And in a war, nobody really gives a damn about the ecology when you're riding a tank.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Yeah, plus imagine the irony if the Army made ecological Tanks.

Plus the Army wouldn't waste money on such an expensive product. And in a war, nobody really gives a damn about the ecology when you're riding a tank.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Plutonium 238 is pretty stable and only generates heat.

A Stirling Engine only needs heat to run.

Both are combined to power satellites. There are 5 of those powerplants sitting on the moon still running at 70% rated power from the Lunar Surface Experiments. (40 years ago)

""radioisotope thermoelectric generator""

But that method is only good for a few hundred watts of constant power. A tank needs much more because it's so heavy.

BUT you could use that radioisotope thermoelectric generator to use the John Kanzius method of using radio waves to make salt water burn. The nuclear battery would run the radio ramming water with RF radiation causing the hydrogen bonds to break, releasing Hydrogen on the fly for a M1 Abrams turbine engine.

You could run a tank on salt water.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
If you have technology what you want to keep secret, they do not put it in a war machine witch can be lost to the enemy or otherwise get lost and exposed.

.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
One thing I forgot to mention is the fact that the modern turbo diesel multi fuel diesel engines are far more durable and reliable than the comparable turbine engines. Have you seen the damage even a few grains of sand can wreak inside the power pack of an Abrams? It can result in a catastrophic failure albeit the power pack can be swapped out in as little as 30 minutes by a good mechanical crew but the fact is a diesel can withstand a lot more abuse than the turbine and keep on tankin'.



Here is an example of a catastrophic compressor blade failure that is the Achilles heel in most cases especially over in the sandbox.



Please note that this larger example is not of the General Electric LV100-5 found in the M1A2 and SEP but is rather a much larger The Pratt & Whitney PW4000 out of the Boeing 767 but the same principal applies.




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join