Re: How does a superconducting boat engine work and have they made one?

Hi Todd.

What a great question - good movie too!

Being a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, I get regular 
updates on the latest in engineering technology, and so I trawled through 
my archives to see what I could find. Sadly there was nothing about  such 
an engine being put into practice although I did find some information on 
research into such a project.

The effect of magnetism on water particles has long been known and is 
currently used in many homes in the UK. A large amount of Southern England 
is based on limestone bedrock, in fact we even use the limestone strata 
for water storage (and you may think it odd that we have to store water in 
a country as wet as ours!) The result is a lot of dissolved calcium 
carbonate in the water which turns the water 'hard' - drink some and you 
will taste it. The particles free themselves from the water and coalesce 
when heated which normally spells a very short life for water heating 
elements in kettles, boilers, and washing machines. To combat this problem 
we strap strong magnets to the water inlet pipes that have an ionising 
effect on the incoming particles; this significantly reduces the amount 
of 'limescale' attached to appliances.

If you can ionise water particles in this manner, you could then 
accelerate them using a magnet to produce a stream of water. By using a 
superconducting magnet you minimise the amount of energy loss in the 
magnet itself and thereby focus it on the field it creates. This is the 
theory behind the superconducting boat engine.

However, we need to observe the following:

Methods of fueling electric propulsion are generally ungainly and 
inefficient from a size and weight perspective. This makes long journeys 
prohibitive.
Superconductor technology forges towards producing devices that work at a 
useable temperature as opposed to many degrees below zero but has not, to 
my knowledge, produced a stable device of anything like the size and 
longevity required to power a submarine. Even if it had, I remain 
unconvinced that the total method of propulsion would have a level of 
efficiency that would justify itself.
The presence of large magnetic devices in naval vehicles is frowned upon 
since they betray so large a signature to radar. Submarines 
are 'degaussed' regularly for just this reason to remove the magnetic 
potential they accumulate from the earth.

I may be wrong, but I therefore find it very unlikely that such a 
mechanism has been pursued to a practical level of success outside of the 
laboratory.

I ran my ideas past my boss, Terry Mitchell, who is a Naval Architect. He 
nodded wisely and said "Have you seen the Hunt for Red October?" Which 
brings the discussion full circle.

Please don't be disheartened, Todd. Today's problems are tomorrow's 
successes in embryo. 100 years ago we would have scoffed at the ideas of 
television, jet propulsion, moon landings, or the silicon revolution to 
name a few. In the near future I want to watch Todd Jennings launch the 
world's first superconductor powered cruise liner and stand proud as I 
say "I am the man he proved wrong."

Off you go then - I'm not getting any younger!

Justin.