Is it a good viewpoint because we managed to develop a terrible technology that managed to save many other lives from a terrible, TERRIBLE war that would've continued for god knows how long because the Japanese would not back down?
Or is it a bad viewpoint because we managed to develop a terrible technology that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians?
That's what scientists assumed it was. But I read a news article last week that it was found out to actually work with the variables taken out, and some new projections said that early future generations of this engine could take a spacecraft to Mars in 90 days, without waiting for the orbits to align like we normally need.
There's just a lot of ifs going around and more testing to do, because it still spits in the face of physics.
I'm assuming AC motors so you don't short in water, some torque sensing to adjust requested speed when in water, but the propellers are highly inefficient shapes in water, since they are designed for air. All they did is waterproof the system and make a control theory, I'd be much more impressed if they could re-adjust the propeller shape depending on Reynold's #
I think you misread what I said. I reasoned AC motors (same as brushless) don't have to short in water, provided their wires are sealed, since there's no commutator-brush connection to be made.