Newsletter 59-Electronic Torpedo Detonation

I have defied Death four times that I know of in the last three months so I must not have fulfilled my destiny at this point. I cannot explain why I have more lives than the average cat except it may be because I was conceived under the 'ANGEL OAK'

Since I apparently am going to be around for awhile longer I need to apologize to several thousand subscribers and one non-subscriber.
When you get older but not necessarily wiser, medical issues become part of your life. To explain what was happening and why you haven't received any newsletters recently, here it is: It started when I got a 'pulmonary embolism' (which most people don't survive) and in my case related to the taking of a particular medication and Post Polio Syndrome. The pictured creature

is not from War of the Worlds but is actually a Greenfield filter installed in a primary vein to catch blood clots. I had two additional clots (Deep Vein Thrombosis) since the PE which caught me off guard - one in each leg that has prevented me from walking on crutches as I have for 50 years. The pain, I am told and believe, is equalivent to that suffered by cancer patients so I didn't much feel up to writing newsletters. I appreciate all of your patience and know that I am now feeling terrific, and look forward to hearing from you all. It has been a grateful Thanksgiving with much to be thankful for.

NOTE: This newsletter IS published
once a month with a link to the online addition available to subscribers only. ALL issues are dedicated not only to the brave and honorable Men of the Hunley,
but also to the Subscribers and Contributors to each issue, particularly to
the CSS H L HUNLEY CLUB. This is my tenth year of running the Hunley.com website as a free service to all those that played a part in making this happen.

Finally we are allowed to announce that the final touches are being put on the most complete and correct 1/24 scale Cutaway model of the CSS H L HUNLEY.

The model is 27.5 inches long and features the interior mechanics actually found in the Hunley including such things as the bellows, depth gage, the bench and the bilge pump.

The aft bilge pump can be mounted at 45 degree angle or straight up and down. The hatches, flywheel and other essential mechanics are all cast. There are over one hundred parts including approximately ½ lb. of metal - making this model the most complex Hunley model on the market. This model kit is for the experienced modeler able to be creative, imaginative and patient. The limited space in the cabin makes for a very crowded condition just as it was in real life.
Blackmore stated in an interview last week that he has gone with the four cable set-up apparatus for controlling the spar and torpedo. (As rendered in Mike Crisafulli's Reconstruction site and the Rugoff-Darrow site with illustrations by Bruce Kinney. He also stated that he is definitive on the issue that the torpedo was electronically detonated an issue discussed further in this newsletter. Blackmore is sending me the model to build so that I can make a historical record of the progress of putting it together. This model will separate the men from the boys and we shall see which category I fall into.

Since these models are technically not ready and limited by the first molding the Hunley Store has decided that they be reserved to give away as Christmas presents with the purchase of a $10.00 gift certificate.

The Hunley Store is offering this replica of a Confederate Ten Dollar bill as proof of reservation that can be held or given away as a Christmas present reserving one of the first of this series to be shipped sometime in February, 2006.

Was the Singer torpedo attached to the end of a 20' spar adapted to be electronically fired?

November, 2005

by George W. Penington
The Hunley.com

CHARLESTON - .Hunley researchers have presented us with a new mystery. Could the CSS H L Hunley have used a battery powered torpedo to set off its explosive force after it was attached to the hull of the Housatonic.

Researchers have uncovered a number of items that forward the issue of battery power. For example out of the sludge comes a rectangular copper plate and coils of wire, the kind of stuff used to build a battery according to Mike Drews, a material-science
professor at Clemson University. The rectangular plate had holes drilled in it and traces of zinc remained attached. Even though this material can not be described as defining it raises the mystery bar. Drews stated that "several parts of any onboard battery, such as zinc plates, would have disintegrated over time, along with paper or cloth separating the plates."

According to Paul Mardikian, the sub's senior conservator. "It is not enough to say there was an electrical system on the Hunley, but we cannot rule it out" but most researchers believe the Hunley was experimenting with the new battery technology.

The copper-and-zinc plate, a coil of wire and a single separate strand of wire with a noose on the end which was possibly the trigger wire was found in Lt. George Dixon's command post in the most forward position of the sub.

In 1863 and earlier the North and the South was experimenting with electronics.

[Confederates allegedly sank the USS Cairo with the first electric mine, which was attached by wire to the shore.]
Source: http://www.personal.dvint.com/events/
civilwarsites/civilwarsites.html

The reader may recall that the Union Navy's version of the submarine, the Alligator, was designed to release divers underwater to set electrically detonated charges to the hull of enemy ships.

After the Hunley sank the USS Housatonic off Sullivan's Island on Feb. 17, Confederates used electric torpedoes to sink a Union ship in the James River in August 1864 the same year.

All along we have thought that he Hunley's torpedo was triggered by a rope lanyard and that the torpedo exploded mistakenly early. Remember that during the excavation of the aft ballast tank, scientists discovered a coil of rope. The fragile textile and waterlogged rope was carefully removed for conservation and later documentation. At this time we have not heard further evidence of its make-up or type of material used.

We all believe that a forward thinking intelligent commander would have researched and prepared for alternative methods of sinking his enemy, after all this may have been their only chance.

"We had two pumps and deadlights reinforcing the glass ports along the top of the submarine," said Sen. Glenn McConnell, chairman of the Hunley Commission. "If the torpedo could also have been electrically detonated, this would be right in line with the Hunley to have fail-safe measures in place for all her critical functions. This would be a cutting-edge upgrade to an already state-of-the-art firing system."

Still, some think the wire could have been used as the lanyard trigger because wire would be less likely to tangle and would be harder for the enemy to see. It is apparent that 150 feet plus of 1/4 rope would have taken a larger spool than the one pictured on the starboard side of the Hunley.

Note the size of the spool in this Cook photo.

Clemson University using CSI tactics is bound to get to the bottom of this.

Was Hunley's torpedo battery-powered? Copper plate, zinc traces, wire suggest electrical system

June 25, 2005

BY BRIAN HICKS

Of The Post and Courier Staff

Lying among the tools, ballast and spare parts littering the floor of the Hunley, the rectangular copper plate looked like something from a UFO.

Drilled with holes, lined with symmetrical ridges and laced with traces of zinc, the plate at first raised more questions than it answered about the Confederate submarine.

But put it together with strange coils of wire and other things found onboard, and the plate suggests the crew might have used a battery-powered torpedo to sink the Housatonic.

"It's the kind of thing if I were trying to build a battery in the 1860s that I would have used," Mike Drews, a material science professor at Clemson University, said. "Having a piece of copper sheeting by itself isn't that strange, but this piece doesn't look like what you'd expect."

Clemson is expected to begin an analysis of the plate next week to see what else scientists can learn. The clues that Hunley scientists have gathered so far hint that the sub was experimenting with battery technology. For starters, the artifact looks similar to the copper and zinc plates used to build batteries in those days. It was found in the captain's compartment, where commander George Dixon was in charge of the torpedo. It was within an arm's reach of a coil of wire and also a twisted wire with a noose on the end that could have served as a trigger. There doesn't appear to be wire used on any other part of the sub.

While all this evidence is circumstantial, it is promising nonetheless. It means that the Hunley may have been not only the first sub to sink an enemy ship, but the first ship of any kind to sink a ship using battery-powered weapons.

"It is not enough to say there was an electrical system on the Hunley, but we cannot rule it out," said Paul Mardikian, the sub's senior conservator.

Although the Hunley's predecessor, the American Diver, was briefly fitted with an electro-magnetic engine, there is little chance a battery -- if onboard -- had any other use than weaponry. And, by the time the Hunley was launched, electrically detonated mines were the cutting edge of wartime technology.

Confederates allegedly sank the USS Cairo with the first electric mine, which was attached by wire to the shore. The Union Navy's submarine, the Alligator, was meant to take divers underwater to plant electrically detonated charges beneath enemy ships, but it was lost before it ever saw action. In August 1864 -- more than six months after the Hunley sank the Housatonic off Sullivan's Island on Feb. 17 of that year -- Confederates used electric torpedoes to sink a Union ship in the James River.

The technology took off after the war. In the late 1860s, the British Navy began experimenting with electric torpedoes, but did not perfect the system until the 1870s.

Until now, most scientists have speculated the Hunley's spar-mounted torpedo was triggered by a rope lanyard that through friction or some other means detonated the 90-pound charge of gunpowder in the torpedo. That still may be the case. It could be that the sub was merely experimenting with battery detonators, or used both methods. Hunley research has shown, time and again, that the crew was prepared for Plan B.

"We had two pumps and deadlights reinforcing the glass ports along the top of the submarine," said Sen. Glenn McConnell, chairman of the Hunley Commission. "If the torpedo could also have been electrically detonated, this would be right in line with the Hunley to have fail-safe measures in place for all her critical functions. This would be a cutting-edge upgrade to an already state-of-the-art firing system."

Another, yet related, explanation for the wire onboard the sub also concerns the spar, the pole attached to the front of the sub. The lanyard used to trigger the spar may have been wire instead of rope. Wire would have been more hydrodynamic, less likely to tangle, and nearly invisible.

And the spool mounted on the sub, as depicted in contemporary art, was not nearly big enough to hold hundreds of feet of rope. But it could have handled that much wire easily.

That, however, does not explain why the crew would have had a battery onboard.

The absence of other material is pretty easy to explain. Drews said zinc plates would have disintegrated -- that was their job in a battery -- and the paper or cloth separating the plates could have rotted, as well. If traces of such things remain, Clemson scientists should find them in their study.

With permission of the Post and Courier and Charleston.net

ARTICLE ENDS HERE******************************

Although it's tempting to envision an innovative battery sandwich of copper, tin, and cloth in the cabin next to Dixon, I'm skeptical. I've done only a little checking on historical battery technology, but it appears that Gassner's 1880s invention was the first successful dry cell. Leclanche was experimenting with improved batteries in the late 1860s and perfected one that could be mass manufactured for telegraph use. Some credit him with developing the dry cell - one type of dry cell is called a Leclanche Cell - but it appears that any battery in the Hunley would have used a liquid electrolyte. So if the copper plate was part of a battery, I'd expect the remains of a fairly large liquid-tight container to be found as well. I think it's more likely, as Brian Hicks suggests, that the loose wire coil found hanging in the tank is evidence that thin wire was used as the mechanical torpedo lanyard instead of rope. Michael"jvnautilus"

Beginning his work in 1794, Italian inventor Alessandro Volta observed the electrical interaction between two different metals submerged near each other in an acidic solution. Based on this principle, his first battery consisted of a series of alternating copper and zinc rings in an acid solution known as an electrolyte. His device for generating a consistent flow of electricity was invented in 1800. He called his invention a column battery, although it came to be commonly known as the Volta battery, Voltaic cell or Voltaic pile. Volta’s discovery of a means of converting chemical energy into electrical energy formed the basis for nearly all modern batteries. Volta researched the effects which different metals produced when exposed to salt water. In 1801, Volta demonstrated the Voltaic cell to Napoleon Bonaparte (who later ennobled him, Count, for his discoveries). http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story066.htm

4) FACTS THAT MAY HAVE MADE POSSIBLE ELECTRONIC TORPEDO DETONATION CAPABILITY IN THE CSS H L HUNLEY

The Federals didn't like our Southern presents we left them in our rivers and harbors. The torpedoes were often described as: "Diabolical Warfare", "Infernal Machines" and "little sea devils" .

Here are some of the facts and players that led us and helped develop the potential to use an electronically fired torpedo mounted to the end of a spar on the south's most modern and top secret submarine. Individuals who may have the most influence on this type of torpedo development were Mathew F. Maury, Samuel Colt, and possibly Robert Fulton to name a few.

If the CSS H L Hunley had electronic torpedo detonation capability then the Confederate States Navy Submarine Battery Service, Confederate States Army Torpedo Bureau and Confederate States Secret Service, that were all established during the Civil War, contributed to the advancement of this Torpedo capability. During October, 1862 the Confederate Torpedo Bureau was established under Lieutenant H. Davidson, continuing the work pioneered by Commander M. F. Maury.

Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1872)

Matthew F. Maury Nicknamed "Pathfinder of the Seas," with the approval of the Confederate government, began immediately experimenting and working on an electric torpedo design during the American Civil War. His initial attempts were fruitful and his work tended to be primarily with electricity. He drew several Confederate naval officers (mostly former US Navy officers who had served with him) to the torpedo ranks on a full-time or part-time basis. Maury, an underwater explosives researcher, resigned from the U.S. Navy and offered his services to the Richmond government in 1861, eventually forming the Submarine Battery Service to construct and employ electrically-activated mines. source: http://www.exwar.org/Htm/8000PopH3.htm

Diagram of electrically detonated “torpedo” of the type used by Confederate forces during U.S. Civil War.

Diagram of electrically detonated “torpedo” of the type used by Confederate forces during the U.S. Civil War. This diagram resembles the shape of the previously assumed Singer Torpedo.

The ironclad Cairo was the first major U.S. Navy ship lost to mine in the Civil War. Operating in the Yazoo River in Mississippi in December 1862, Cairo was destroyed by a mine triggered by a nearby Confederate shore party as she attempted to support mine-spotting boats moving on the river in front of her.

Sinking of the Union Ironclad Gunboat U.S.S. Cairo by Torpedoes in the Yazoo River, December 12, 1862 THE ART OF WILLIAM MCGRATH-Limited Editions

Samuel Colt (July 19, 1814 – January 10, 1862),
born in Hartford, Connecticut, was the inventor of the Colt revolver,
and founder of the Colt Firearms company.

Besides firearms, other roles Colt played in the development
of technology included the first remotely detonated explosive,
the first underwater telegraph cable, and the popularization of
using nitrous oxide as anesthesia.

In 1842 Sam Colt then turned his attention to selling the
U.S. government on his ideas for waterproof ammunition;
underwater mines for harbor defense; and, in association
with the inventor Samuel F. B. Morse, the telegraph.
source: http://www.colt.com/mil/history.asp

In 1844, Colt demonstrated for Congress his invention
of an underwater mine that used a telegraphed signal
for harbor defense. Colt’s showmanship prevailed as
he blew up a 500-ton schooner on the Potomac River
to the delight of the thousands who attended.
But to his great disappointment, Colt was once again
unsuccessful in securing a U.S. government contract.
source: http://www.simonpure.com/colt.htm

After a couple of decades, Samuel Colt, firearms inventor,
tried his hand at the torpedo business. He admittedly
springboarded off of Fulton's efforts. By 1841, he had
developed some rudimentary torpedoes fired by electricity,
developed significantly since Fulton's time.

Colt managed a couple of demonstrations during the 1840's,
blowing up ships with electrically detonated mines.
Congress was impressed and voted him a considerable
sum of money to continue his efforts.
source: http://www.infernal-machines.com/_sgt/m1_1.htm

He had experience in firearms, explosives, ships,
and the sea, and so he used his experience and
imagination to develop a device that could set off
an underwater explosive by remote control..
source: http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/ct_sc.htm

The following is excerpted from the Northern
Admiral D. D. Porters writings about Torpedo Warfare.

Torpedo Warfare. [The North American review. /
Volume 127, Issue 264, September - October 1878]
Part 2 AUTHOR Admiral D. D. Porter, U.S. Navy

Notes:

Page images are mounted at Cornell University Library.
This text was generated from the page images by optical character recognition (OCR). Corrections have been applied by George W. Penington

In the early 19th Century Robert Fulton [FULTON, Robert, inventor,
born in Little Britain township (now Fulton), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in 1765;
died in New York, 24 February 1815. ] contemplated the use of electricity to fire torpedoes,
but abandoned the effort as unfeasible. He never succeeded in arranging a battery
that would insure ignition of the fuses.. Fulton's experiments failed and interest waned.
Fulton finally gave up on torpedoes and returned to his successful invention,
the steamboat despite his prophecy, that the torpedo would finally revolutionize all naval warfare.

Note: Model available at the Hunley Store

Fulton was so violently opposed and ridiculed, he was not much out of the way in advocating a torpedo corps, to consist of a thousand boats, with their complement of officers and men, to attack the enemy’s vessels wherever they could be found at anchor or in a calm. In Fulton’s day such a notion received less encouragement than would now a scheme for transporting passengers to the Paris Exposition by a balloon. Of late years, so great has been the progress made in the sciences and mechanic arts that there is no longer room to question the success of this once dubious system of naval warfare.
All told, we lost nearly twenty vessels from torpedoes during the war of the rebellion.

The case of the Commodore Jones, a large gunboat that was blown up at Deep Bottom, on James River, was a particularly painful one. This vessel was at the time employed in dragging for torpedoes, and was surrounded by row-boats employed in the same service. The captain having been notified by a Negro pilot that he was near sunken torpedoes, the gunboats engines were stopped and she commenced backing. Scarcely had she gathered stern-way, when suddenly and without any apparent cause she appeared to be lifted bodily, her wheels rapidly revolving in the air, and persons declared they could see the green grass of the river-bank beneath her keel. An immense fountain of foaming water shot to a great height, followed by a denser column thick with mud. The vessel absolutely crumbled to pieces, dissolved as it were in mid-air, enveloped by the falling spray, mud, water, and smoke. When the excitement of the explosion subsided, not a vestige of the vessel remained in sight, except small fragments of her frame which came shooting to the surface. Nearly every one on board was killed or wounded. This vessel was destroyed by a charge of about two thousand pounds of powder contained in a tank and fired by electric wires. It is needless to say that this catastrophe checked the advance of the other vessels astern of the Jones, but measures were immediately taken to capture the torpedo-operators, who, to save their lives, pointed out the location of other infernal machines, and explained the secrets of their torpedo service.
[Note: The Confederates would hide on the shore line after anchoring their torpedoes in the river channel and running several hundred feet of wire to a triggering mechanism]

The Confederates took particular pains to defend the James River by torpedoes, which had the effect of completely closing it against the approach of the United States vessels. Our fleet would have been destroyed in detail had it attempted to force its way up against the concealed torpedoes protected by heavy batteries. In the early part of 1864 the Confederates had completed their system of defense throughout the South, and the difficulty of approaching their strongholds through their lines of torpedoes was almost insurmountable. The ideas of Fulton seemed to have taken possession of our humane friends at the South, and it would require a book to describe all the incidents connected with Confederate torpedo warfare, and to recite the damage we sustained in the latter part of the war, when the enemy had by means of blockade-runners imported hundreds of electric batteries, and tons of iron carcasses to be filled and distributed, as occasion required, through all parts of the Confederacy. Every navigable stream within their jurisdiction was amply defended by submarine batteries; and General Beauregard remarked concerning Charleston, that he attached more importance to one of his pet torpedoes for the defense of that place than to five ten-inch guns; and well he might, since our iron-clads were impervious to the latter, and entirely vulnerable to the torpedoes.

The following is a list of our vessels destroyed or severely damaged after the Confederates had succeeded in getting their torpedo system in full operation. Some of the saddest episodes of the war were in connection with the loss of these vessels Cairo, Baron de Kalb, Eastport, a wharf-boat, Commodore Jones, Tecumseh, Otsego, Basely, Patapsco, Harvest Moon, Milwaukee, Osage, Rodolphe, Scioto, Ida, Althea, Housatonic to say nothing of injuries to vessels, destruction of boats, and a somewhat demoralizing effect temporarily produced on a navy which has never yet declined to attempt the most hazardous undertakings.

top

5) SPAR UPDATE
FROM Mike (the Torpedo Man) Kochan aka "evilmike2"
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:55:44 -0000
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] SPAR UPDATE

I set this up at Hyberina park this weekend for the first time at an event and it was well received by all. I had a better spot than last year. The weather wasn't great and it's shake down cruise turned up some things that need fine tuning.
The full size, U. S. Iron Clad Steamer Monitor turret canopy was recognized from a distance by quite a few, not like the case with the Torpedoes where very few people knew about them. Now I have to do some more homework on the Monitor.
Mike. Sun, 28 Aug 2005

I've built a full size awning and stanchions repro of the Monitor's
Turret cover. So I've been digging for Monitor facts lately.

I was able to get enough Info and x-rays from Paul and Maria at the
Lasch Center this spring to build the yoke and spar and set up at a
living History mid July.
As well as working with Bill McGrath for his new Hunley attack print
that came out June or July. Check his web site for his Torpedo set up. [Note: McGrath's website is apparently down for repairs]

copies and original print purchases can be arranged through The Hunley Store

Basically from the 1 inch dia yoke bolt to the 1 3/4 long slot at the
other end of the spar is 16 feet. The first section of the 3 piece spar
is a solid bar 44 inches long from the yoke bolt to the end and
back from the end 2 inches is a hole for a bolt to fasten it the next
section. That section is 67 inches long and also has a bolt hole in it
almost 4 inches from the end allowing the yoke bar it enter aprox. 6
inches. the aprox 1/2 inch dia bolt that goes thru these holes in a
virt. position sticks out about an inch and a half on both sides of
the spar itself and had the head and nut on the ends meaning something
could have been fastened there but is not there now. For something involved
with lowering to the proper depth the attachment here at 42
inches from the yoke pivot bolt has to be thought out more.

The third piece joins the second with about a 3 1/2 inch dia. coupling 3 1/2
inches long this as well as the spar tube are really close to today's
2 inch sched. 40 pipe ( about 2 1/2 O.D. with a 1/4 inch wall
thickness.

From the info I have there are no bolts here so they no
doubt threaded together. The third section is 81 inches from it's end
to the center of the lengthwise slot with a bolt in it. the bolt has
it's head and nut leaving about a half inch space between them and the
spar tube dia. then another 6 inches or so to the very end which might
have been broken off.

Around the slot area is a lead wrap about 1/16 0r so thick . This lead
was probably pored into the space between the spar O.D. and the
Torpedo tank thimble I.D. which had an open slot in the end several
inches long to hold the bolt. The bolt was not tightened down but was
to prevent side to side swinging of the tank. The lead sleeve held the
torpedo to the spar but on impact with the hull it allowed a good 3
inches of movement loosening the joint and allowing the spar to pull
out of the thimble as the sub backed away. The spar being in pieces
and the thimble straps for the tank removal would allow it to be taken
to a forge where the lead could be pored in then taken back to the sub
for assembly.
I used Singer's drawings for the tank and trigger box for the Torpedo
which places the triggers in front of the tank so I made the tank
thimble with a holder on the barb end which allowed the barb to enter
the hull but would stop entering at the holder leaving the front of
the tank about 6 inches from the hull. You need the tank as close as
possible to get the desired effect.

A test was done back then using a thin skin tank (not boiler plate)
containing 150 pounds of black powder. It was lowered 10 feet under
water and positioned 2 feet from a ship's hull. When detonated it did
not damage the hull. This means the force went to the path of least
resistance and broke the surface and didn't build up enough force to
break open the hull.

This could very well mean that once the Housatonic's hull opened up at
about (guess) 7 foot depth any other damaging force would have broken
the surface and not come back to where the Hunley was when she was 18
feet away when she stuck the torpedo in. So if she were at 50 feet
away when it was detonated she would feel a ripple force but not a
damaging force. NOTE: THESE COMMENTS ARE THEORY BUSTERS AND WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSED IN FUTURE NEWSLETTERS - GWP

With the heavy wall pipe and the 1 inch bolt and the bearing surface
around it it's quite possible they didn't need any other support to
drop her down close to the ship and stick her in the side.
They shipped and unshipped the tank and the fact that no wench was
found I feel means that these operations were done at the dock and or
with a small boat and the spar was designed to be released to depth
and not raised and lowered at will by the sub. Enough for a while.

Don't forget to check out William McGrath's site for the view of the
tank.mike http://www.wrmgraphics.com/index.html

Barry Rogoff <brogoff@rogoff-darrow.net> wrote: No one knows the actual spar configuration and it's likely that no one ever will. There was only one month between the point at which Dixon converted the boat to a spar torpedo and the final mission so it's likely that the spar configuration was built to be as simple and foolproof as possible. The concept was based on the original David (the one that attacked the New Ironsides) but had two major differences: 1. It used a single pivot point instead of a Y-shaped spar with two pivot points on opposite sides of the hull. 2. The torpedo detached from the spar and was detonated remotely instead of on impact. You can find some illustrations of various theories and modelmakers interpretations at: http://www.rogoff-darrow.net/interests/Hunley/Spar% 20Theories/Page.html http://www.rogoff-darrow.net/interests/Hunley/Models/Page.html Also, search eBay for hunley -(con,randy,leann) for recent models. There are two issues on which there are different schools of thought: 1. Were the spar and torpedo fixed at departure time or deployed (lowered into position) when lined up for the attack run? 2. If the spar and torpedo were fixed, what sort of lateral support was used to overcome water resistance when the Hunley changed direction? Barry

From:"david coon" Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:Re: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley's Spar?

I believe that you hit the nail right on the head with your comments about the need for simplicity in the Hunley's torpedo spar arrangement. I'd say that the final spar arrangement probably consisted of the iron spar that was found, a support cable to the upper bow point, and two lateral bracing cables running to the lugs underneath the diving planes. The only justification for the additional weight and complexity of a hoisting spar would be to avoid blowing up on a floating log. The fact that Dixon and Alexander planned to ram their torpedo into the side of an enemy ship at full speed tells me that they were confident that it wouldn't detonate until they were ready for it to. Also, if I were on the Hunley, I wouldn't bet my life on her ability to handle the extra top weight when the torpedo was hoisted up out of the water. So I'd bet on the idea that the spar was fixed at departure time. Live Long and Prosper. David Coon

Barry Rogoff" <brogoff@rogoff-darrow.net
Date:Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:45:39 -0000
Subject:[CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley's Spar?

Thanks David. I'm not taking a position on the fixed vs. deployable spar question. I think either was possible. I just want to clarify the facts a bit. <<The only justification for the additional weight and complexity of a hoisting spar would be to avoid blowing up on a floating log.>> Hitting floating debris would not have detonated the torpedo because it didn't have an impact fuse. Ramming the harpoon point into a floating log, however, might have been somewhat problematic. Running with a raised spar would have increased maneuverability and kept the torpedo relatively dry. The actual fuse was connected to a lanyard and may not have been perfectly watertight. EvilMike, care to comment? <<The fact that Dixon and Alexander planned to ram their torpedo into the side of an enemy ship at full speed...>> They didn't. The mass of the Hunley was great enough to have destroyed the spar or rammed it right through the hull of the Housatonic. They wanted to hit just hard enough to firmly plant the harpoon point and may have been slowing down at the point of impact. <<...I wouldn't bet my life on her ability to handle the extra top weight when the torpedo was hoisted up out of the water.>> Compared to the actual weight of the boat (about 7.5 tons), I don't think raising the torpedo would have made much of a difference. Dixon had two ways to adjust the trim: pumping water into and out of the ballast tanks, and pumping water between the two. Barry

1. Support straps: On Saturday evening, divers had excavated the bow section and installed 6 of the straps. Foam padding is added to each strap to cushion the sub. A total of 32 slings will cradle the Hunley.

2. Snorkels: the divers discovered the missing snorkels. Source: National Park Service, Naval Historical Center, S.C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Oceaneering International Inc.

"Dr. Bob Neyland, Hunley project manager, said the two snorkels were found on the ocean floor on the sub's starboard side. The longer of the two pieces is about 1.5 meters - or 4 feet - long. The snorkel set was one of the last missing pieces of the submarine."

"This sub is getting more and more complete," Neyland said. "The fact that the snorkels were right there shows that the sub hasn't moved much."

"That the sub is probably lying almost exactly where it came to rest in 1864 is good news both for the sub's condition and any artifacts that may be inside the lost sub."

William Alexander, a lieutenant in the Confederate army and a one-time Hunley crew member, in a 1902 article suggested the sub's snorkel assembly didn't work very well. Alexander, who was reassigned before the Hunley's last mission, wrote that more often than not, the sub would just surface and they'd open a hatch to get more air."

According to Hunley historian Mark Ragan's book "The Hunley: Submarines, Sacrifice and Success in the Civil War," the idea was that the submarine would rise to just beneath the surface; the air shafts (snorkels) would be raised to filter in good air."

"In 1995, diver Ralph Wilbanks - a member of the Clive Cussler dive team that found the sub - reported the snorkel assembly was in the up position, but the breathing tubes had broken off. Wilbanks was one of the divers in the water Saturday when the snorkels were found, helping Neyland with a fiberglass tape profile of the submarine."

Hello to all the members on this site,(CSS H L HUNLEY CLUB) its really nice to be here and thanks to the Moderator for the welcoming message. I am a model maker and run a model kit manufacturing company here in England called Speedline Models. I have been specializing in the speed record cars and boats of Donald Campbell and large scale models of the Royal National Lifeboat Associations Trent and Severn class of lifeboats for a while now. Earlier this year I was drawn into the murky subject of working model submarines, in particular the dive units. I designed a simple and unique dive unit which we made up and tested and it works very well. There are loads of model submarines about to put it in but I thought I might just make one of my own. Looking for an interesting subject I came across the Hunley. Having researched it via the amazing web sites that exist on the subject I was hooked. The ship itself is amazing, the history even more so. I have a lot of information taken of the web sites and we have produced a drawing of her at 1/8th scale. Looks about right, a bit long with the spar on but its the size for me! I am lucky enough to employ a really fine sculptor who is currently working on two figures to accompany the model, for display purposes. The figures are the two in the painting, the guy leaning on the prop ring and the soldier squatting down. As a display that should be quite impressive I think? Speedline is famous in the UK for the high level of detail and accuracy found on its Lifeboat kits and this model of the Hunley will be very accurate. I do not want to go to great lengths and spend lots of money unless the model is accurate and so here comes the help! bit. The model, though a fully working, radio controlled model will not compromise any detail and will be equally at home in the board room, so can anyone point me in the right direction to get the best possible drawings/plans and detail reference material for this project? Authenticity is vital, particularly with such an important subject and ideally at least two source of the information to enable it to be collaborated. Your help would be very much appreciated. Many thanks Adrian Gosling Speedline Models."Adrian Gosling" <a.gosling@ntlworld.com>

Adrian, You need to talk to Tim and visit his web site. I build RC subs too (www.sneill.com) but Tim and David Merriman have both built the Hunley. Good luck on the project and be sure to visit sub www.subcommittee.com and post your build so we can all see it and help you.

Hello Adrian - The Friends of the Hunley have seen fit not to release enough measurements to make a perfect set of plans so Michael's plans are definitely the best out there. I suspect when the actual measurements are finally made public, his will be pretty close to right on. However if you plan to build models for commercial sale, you will need to work out a licensing arrangement with him. ...Or you could contact The Friends of the Hunley and attempt to work out a deal with them. If so, I hope you have deep and wide pockets! My www.RC-Submarines.com site has many photographs of the Hunley taken during and after its recovery and photos of my 1/12 scale radio controlled model. Note - with bow planes only and a single central ballast tank, it handles very poorly as an RC model while under water unless it is run at a VERY slow speed (close to scale). In reverse it also turns very poorly - surfaced or dived. The foreplanes only don't allow for precise anglekeeping. I suspect this was handled on the real sub by pumping and filling the bow and stern tanks to control trim. A few links follow below , but if you go to www.rc-submarines.com and once you are in the site, do a Google "Current Site" search, several dozen come up. http://www.rc-submarines.com/Alligator_Junior/id8.htm http://www.rc-submarines.com/id62.htm http://www.rc-submarines.com/id1276.htm Best Tim Smalley tmsmalley@yahoo.com www.rc-submarines.com Just to say a big thank you to all who have offered their help and advice in guiding me to the best sources of information on the Hunley. I think I now have enough to sink a battleship! Naturally enough, I have been reading with some interest the thoughts expressed about the circumstances of her sinking and for what its worth here are my observations of the situation. Clearly the captain and his crew were in great danger throughout the mission but at the vital moment, the reactions of the captain must have been determined by the circumstances at the time and can only ever remain guessed at. One thing that seems pretty certain to me is the high possibility of the ballast tanks overflowing, resulting in all the ballast moving to one end. One thing that model submariners learn very quickly is that when they go down too steeply, all the water in the buoyancy tanks floods past the baffle plates to the bow and the boat dives more steeply. Within seconds this becomes a vertical one way dive to the bottom. In a similar manner to the Titanic where a circumstance of the water flowing over the top of the open watertight bulkheads had not been considered, the Hunley's design with its open topped ballast tanks is a serious flaw. Given the circumstances of the night in question, with a twenty foot long pole stuck into a moving ship, crewmen moving and the nature of the sea at the time, is it not reasonable to suggest that the charge was detonated early because the Hunley was sinking and the crew had little chance of surviving anyway. Better that than to loose the mission? "Adrian Gosling" <a.gosling@ntlworld.com>

"jvnautilus" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Date:Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:30:34 -0000
Subject:[CSS H L HUNLEY] Friends of the Hunley Freedom of Information lawsuit

4) FACTS THAT MAY HAVE MADE POSSIBLE ELECTRONIC TORPEDO DETONATION CAPABILITY IN THE CSS H L HUNLEY

Hunley case may be out the window.

My concerns are that the story, “USS Monitor and the CSS H L Hunley teams to collaborate on preservation”

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments

comments