New propulsion sytems for ships [Archive]

D'ARTOIS

12-03-2005, 06:09 PM

Guillermo, with pleasure I forward you this info. We have a large estate and we employ several tractors. My brother in law who has also a position in the local community was first against the use of biodiesel but now our equipment runs on it. The cheapest for us is sunflower or cornoil this cost us about Euro 0.20 ct per liter - grosso modo. I can get it cheaper but that is not from a guaranteed supply.
Technically, very little has to be done to the diesel engines: the vegetable oil is preheated by an electrical system that is pleced before the fuelfilters and a bypass from the watercooling that winds around the fuellines.
The oil increases in volume by almost 50% and therefore the engines run very economical- in general the econo,y is increased by 25%; almost no emissions and another advantage is that biodiesel puts oxygen in the atmosphere and not sulphurs and carbons.

If the preheating system works well, almost any vegetable oil can be used.

We have tried a variety of vegetable oils in a VW dieselengine that has a mechanical fuelpump. It took cornoil, oliveoil, walnutoil any oil we put in the tank.
I thought that the engines would became less powerfull, but no, not at all it went that way.

Of course this is only a practical example. But as lonmg as it works, I am not interested in the how's and why's. It works.

There was an immediate reaction by the tax-authorities, threatening with draconic measurements to users of Biodiesel. Only they forgot that within two years ther's election and only after a broadside volley from the environmentalsts they had to admit they were whistled back by the politicians.
The problem is that the energy-supply has a political relation wqith oilcompanies and banks and therfore nobody dares to make the first step.

Specifically in France, shortly before election time, with a government that is impopulars as a government can be, politicians are quite like mouses and do not dare to take measurements against the biodiesel users. Mostly farmers that are capable of making their own oil or capable to buy it cheaply.

A 1600 cc diesel that runs normally 6L on 100 kms will run now 4,5 L on 100 kms - that what I measured in a VW diesel.

Again, thwese experiments are all empirical, but in Germany real tests have been done and although the outcome is same as mine, this one is technically proved and explained for.

So far my findings....

gonzo

12-03-2005, 06:19 PM

I agree that the energy supplies are a major source of political power. There are many technologies that would shift this power to others. It has happen in the past. For example, when automobiles first made their appearance, buggy and carriage makers either adapted or went out of business. At the same time, waste materials like gasoline became valuable. I support any system that improves our lifestyle and protects the environment. At the same time, I'd like to see the transission as peaceful as possible.

cyclops

12-03-2005, 06:31 PM

Would you as the president of a oil company want to be told that oil from fossil deposits can ONLY BE USED FOR LUBRICATING purposes and nothing else?------------------------ Would you and the Oil Cartels Say, " Right on , for the betterment of future generations."

gonzo

12-04-2005, 12:46 AM

Castor oil is still used for racing engines. It comes from a nut.

tom kane

12-04-2005, 02:44 AM

Guillermo

12-04-2005, 06:42 AM

JONATHAN COLE:
You asume: "...24 watts per kilo is 24 watts per hour..." (?)
24 Watts (Power unit) is different from 24 Watts-hour (Work unit).
24 Watts/kilo (If power) bring us to the needing of a 2500 kilos batteries to develope 80 HP (roughly), so, Could we use them for 10years-refueling-free medium/heavy displacement monohulled motorsailers?

D'ARTOIS:
Thanks a lot. Any boat application?

TOM KANE:
I'm not able to find at http://www.diogenemarine.com/ info related to biodiesel propulsion.

ALL:
Have a look at this interesting info:
http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051108-025641-4486r

Grant Nelson

12-04-2005, 06:59 AM

Guillermo

12-04-2005, 03:11 PM

Hi, I dont have much to input, but some time ago there was some hype around putting tall rotating tubes on ships ... but I would like to know if someone else remembers this and can provide some information ....

Those sails are based on the Magnus Effect and a german engineeer, Anton Flettner, developed the idea of rotating cylinders to be used as sails. More info at:
http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/2002/may9.htm

Cousteau and otheres developed further this idea and they called them "Turbosails", mounting them on "Alcione" one of the Cousteau Society's vessels. More info at:
http://bluegreenpictures.com/perl/Cyan.pl?mode=view;inum=125790

Grant Nelson

12-04-2005, 04:24 PM

oh wow, thanks!

D'ARTOIS

12-04-2005, 05:24 PM

Guillermo: yes, there are small boat applications. I will post shortly a technical diagram what to do to get this working in your own diesel configuration. Don't put cornoil in a gas engine:p ( American warning)

tom kane

12-04-2005, 08:14 PM

kach22i

12-05-2005, 11:11 AM

The Jirnov Vortex Engine:http://generalvortexenergy.net/
I had not read about this one before, so I looked it up on a Google image search.

This was the first image hit.
http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_Jirnov_Vortex_Turbine/Jirnov_Vortex_engine_dyno.jpg

Jirnov Vortex Engine Supported by U.S. Navy
http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_Jirnov_Vortex_Turbine/
25 kW prototype shown to have strong torque, using half the energy, with half the emissions. $1 million grant awarded General Vortex Energy by the Navy to build 125-kW prototype. Nine U.S. patents.

kach22i

12-05-2005, 01:10 PM

http://www.2wglobal.com/expo2005/images/355x280_altEnergy.jpg
I've seen this one before, but don't remember all the foils down below.

You should try the "simulator" if you get a chance - I don't have the hang of it yet but working on it.

Link:
http://www.2wglobal.com/expo2005/english/zeroEmissionCarrier/energySource/index.jsp

Guillermo

12-05-2005, 06:29 PM

Jirnov Vortex Engine Supported by U.S. Navy
http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_Jirnov_Vortex_Turbine/

KACH22I:
Thanks a lot for the link and image on Jirnov's Turbine.

The Wallenius Wilhelmsen's futuristic ship, doesn't she looks pretty? Very Starwars Space Battleship looking.

mattotoole

12-06-2005, 08:25 PM

The thing is, it's still incredibly cheap to send things by ship. Most of the cost is in handling the goods before and after, with fuel cost being a very small percentage of the goods' final value.

That said, kites are interesting.

I suppose we could build nuclear ships, but not cheaply enough in the near future. Today's geopolitical climate wouldn't encourage it either. Things could be different in 50 years though.

sharpii2

12-06-2005, 08:37 PM

Hi, I dont have much to input, but some time ago there was some hype around putting tall rotating tubes on ships, these presumably using somekind of aerodynamic lift to move the boat, or maybe it was someother type of power transfer to the props, I really dont remember, but I would like to know if someone else remembers this and can provide some information - I have searched far and wide on the internet but can not find it... I am sure it was not a dream...

I think you are refering to the Fetner Rotor ship. It, IIRC, was a small tramp steamer fitted with two large rotating cylinders. The cylinders were rotated by modest engines of about 9hp each. It was to work on the principle of a curve ball in baseball. The spinning of the cylinders was supposed to create a low pressure area on one side as, the wind passed by, and thereby create lift.

It was built and it did work. Its speed, however, was modest. Maybe 5 or 6kts in a good wind. The project at that time (the '30's) was not competitive and was abandoned.

Bob

mattotoole

12-06-2005, 08:52 PM

Tom,
Do you know about any experience, or study, about using biodiesel in vessels? If so, Is there a place where I can get the info?
I'm trying to investigate all possible propulsion alternatives available nowadays, even the weirdiest ones, so every :idea: contribution to that end will be most appreciated.

You might try www.biodiesel.org.

People in the field whose opinion I respect say that about 10% of US petroleum use could be replaced easily with biofuels. That's without major changes in our agricultural system, or available technologies. Beyond that would require more land for farming, water that has to come from somewhere, etc., not to mention the (unknown) environmental effects of all that. There are promising new technologies such as biodiesel from algae, but they're still unproven.

Ships in Los Angeles will soon be required to plug into grid power, to reduce pollution from their big diesels. This is a major source of pollution in the area, and one that can easily be prevented. Los Angeles has some leverage over the shipping industry, because it is where so many ships must go.

--

sharpii2

12-06-2005, 10:02 PM

"Go back to each country building its own products "

And you loose the efficency of specilazition.

Willing to pay $300 for a pair of shoes?

Willing to walk WORLDWIDE because your locals cant build a 747?

Globalization gives the entire world a far higher std of living , INCLUDING the $1.00 an hour labor ...
(that would be getting $1.00 a DAY as much of the world now does).
FAST FRED

Dear FF:

I beg to differ with you.

Where I sit, it does not work at all.

It is true, without cheap Chinese labor, I would probably be sitting in front of an old 386 instead of a Pentium (R) whatever. And I would probably be paying $100 a pair for walking shoes.

But I would also be doing better than $9.00hr with next to no benifits and living in terror that I might be laid off next.

Globalization is not about specialization. We had that (for at least 3,000 years) before GATT, NAFTA, and WTO. It is about about insane profits, cheap labor, and ludicris CEO saleries and benifits. Period.

The only country I see benifiting at all from all this is China. And that 1.) she is big enough to have decent bargaining power, and 2.) she is still an autocracy (a former communist one and now a fascist one) and can force her people to 'behave'.

As far as the good old U.S. of A goes, we are sinking. And, like the TITANIC, it is the steerage (people like me) who are first to notice. The water leaking into our cabins is pretty hard to ignore. On the original, I hear the crew had trouble getting the 1st and 2nd class passengers to get into the boats. These passengers refused to believe that there was a problem. That was, until they noticed the disturbingly forward tilt of the deck.

The main benificiaries of this system, as I see it, are:

1.) The multinational corporate leadership and their top stock holders,
2.) The leaders of autorcatic countries that get the best bribes,
3.) (temporarily) A tiny fraction of the people living in those countries, And
4.) Affluent American workers and retiries who have not yet been fired or who have not yet lost the generous retirement benefits that they have earned while working before WTO and all that.

I know that you are most likely a decent and reasonable man. You may have read books by Thomas L. Friedman and his fellow flat Earthers (I have too). And you have seen footage of the nut cases smashing store front windows (for what, I can't figure out).

But let me assure you. I have never smashed a store front window in my life (nore do I intend too). And I really do want the poorer people of this planet to do much better than $1.00 a day. I also want to survive. And maybe, some day, get to build one of those boats I keep drawing (the only way I keep my sanity).

I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals.

Bob

FAST FRED

12-07-2005, 06:30 AM

gonzo

12-07-2005, 02:48 PM

I have spent years of my life aquiring skills. This allows me to be competitive regardless of world changes. When engines went electronic, I took the factory training classes. The same with other technologies, like epoxy composites, new diesel controls, etc. I don't feel threatened by unskilled labor. Biodiesel and other sources may have advantages. However, they also have bad points. To blame multinationals for every ill in the world is plain idiocy and a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. We choose who to buy from. If alternate fuels are better and/or the market demands it, the multinationals will produce and sell it.

D'ARTOIS

12-07-2005, 03:24 PM

Biodiesel is a fact, not a fiction. As I have stated before that in smaal appliances biodiesel is feasable, is based on the fact that it is available in quantities that allow refinery plants to produce for consuption purposes, not for use as engine propellant. That requires tremendous large quantities. One single Ha produces about a few 100 litres. Only one ship that burns 10 m3 per hour requires the yearproduction of one plant. Good news to the farmers!

Guillermo

12-07-2005, 04:28 PM

Improvements in propulsion are also related to new advances in hulls design. What about this X-bow (http://www.ulsteinverft.com/kunder/ulstein/UlsteinWeb.nsf/c5c6075bbb6eeb64c125693d0049e2fb/b1a50bcfa3658ce5c1256aa300482a11/$FILE/Ulstein%20Today%201-2005.pdf)from Ulstein?

boltonprofiles

12-07-2005, 05:07 PM

JohnathanCole - think the nuclear thing is spot on, trouble is no government would back it as they would loose revenue hand over fist.

We are involved with a 700t double skin tanker at the moment which is being built to carry Biodiesel so there must be a fair market there even now.

sharpii2

12-07-2005, 07:52 PM

"I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals."

No offense but $9.00 an hour is what very unskilled entry level labor gets paid.

As you can put together a sentance (however wrong) perhaps a change of employment will increase your take home.

I would suggest Skool teaching , it starts at $35 an hour and runs over $100. an hour in big cities , counting the 40% fringe package.

"I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals".

You don't understans the modern world , where production & mfg are so competative that the usual large industrial MFG profit markup is about 3%.
Even the Chinese are loosing mfg to "low wage areas" , as the world gets MORE competative by the day.

The middleman always gets the lions share of most profits IKEA does far better than Shell, if you look at capital invested , rate of return ect.

So start a business , rather than be a wage slave.

I "profit" from the competition , even US autos are far better than they would be with out any competiton, better, cheaper , although still far from "World Class"

Sorry you have been sold a political bill of goods that doesn't relate to 2005 , and are not willing to educate yourself on the real world.

FAST FRED

Well FF.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

History will be the ultimate judge and jury on this issue. If the U.S economy is hale and hearty in 2012, I will be the fool.

And I do appreciate your suggestions. I just wish it were that simple. The job you mentioned requires a little thing known as a degree. And it's an expensive little bastard (about as much as a small house).

If I could afford to get one of those, I wouldn't be bitching. I would get it in a heartbeat.

As for the small business thing, I'm working on that. I have tried several times and have failed. I have the debts to prove it. Going further into debt on the hopes of getting a job after a degree seems down right fool hardy at my age.

Especially after what I have been through.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Happy sails.

Bob

tom kane

12-08-2005, 03:24 AM

wet-foot

12-08-2005, 04:49 AM

The next big thing in ship propulsion is engines built with super conductor wire instead of copper. In a nut shell S/C wire can carry 150 times the same amount of electricity with near 0 resistance. It truly is becoming an electric world. the leading Company doing this is in the US, check it out; http://www.amsuper.com

FAST FRED

12-08-2005, 06:01 AM

"If the U.S economy is hale and hearty in 2012, I will be the fool."

With the boffo economy we are now experiencing , mostly due to freeing up capital with tax cuts, the probability is we will have a normal cyclical resession sometime in the next few years.

Depending on the reaction of the Feds ,
the recession will be long and steep (if lots of federal "help" is administered,
or only a quarter or two if the Frds leave the market to sort it SELF out.

Of course that's hard as overextended busineses , that made BAD decisions will be demanding other folks cash to "solve " their problem.

Farmers now collect $175 BILLION in welfare .

The big fun will begin as the Gov stsarts to print money to cover the Socalist Security Pinzi Scheme.

Its broke , and unfortunatly democracys are great at "solving" current problems , but have no way to look foward past the next election.

Bush tried and was shot down , by the current crop of public spenders , all of whom will be retired wnen the *hit hits the fan.

You should check around at the local Publik Skools and see if one or two Education credits will get you a "temp" teaching cert.

Buro-rats love "pending" , so you should be able to begin work and "work" on your pending teaching cert.

Will work in most any big city, check with the union to find out how teaching "jobs" are created.

"If you cant DO , Teach!"

FAST FRED

kach22i

12-08-2005, 10:34 AM

cyclops

12-08-2005, 07:40 PM

cyclops

12-08-2005, 08:43 PM

The Chicken Flu epidemic should help balance the books very easy, when a lot of seniors fail to start collecting. I keep hearing when , not, if.

Boat slips, yachts, should be available at a good price. Have to be positive.

sharpii2

12-08-2005, 09:20 PM

Cow fuel targets global warming.
Local Environment Correspondent.
A $17 million factory near Montreal started producing "biodiesel" fuel last month from the bones and other animal parts.Rothsay.a unit of Maple Leaf Foods Inc,is also making "biodiesel at a plant by recycling oil from fast food resturants.Biodiesel emits little of the smog of conventional gasoline or diesel fuel and almost none of the heat trapping gasses that most scientists say are driving up temperatures.At full capacity Rothsay will produce 35 million liters of biodiesel a year.A plant in Germany,Rudolf Diesel and a plant in Kentucky also produce biodiesel.Germanys Rudolf Diesel,who built the first diesel engines in the 1890`s designed them to run on peanut oil.Biodiesel is produced by combining natural oils or fats with methanol or ethanol.The process leaves two products,biodiesel and glycerin.My comment.. Just a thought,the many animals used in biodiesel manafacture must have created a lot of heat trapping gasses.Are we going around in circles.

The only fuel that does not create 'heat trapping gases' is pure hydrogen.
All the rest, biodiesel (which is certainly an improvement) included are all hydrocarbons. And the best hydrocarbon is methane. That is because it has four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom. The proportion drops down from there but should be no worse than two hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom (it's almost always better than that).

Whenever you have any carbon atoms at all in your fuel, they are going to combine with oxygen to make carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide when the fuel is burned. If they are telling you any different, they are telling you science fiction.

The key to winning the greenhouse game is to have as many hydrogen atoms and as few carbon atoms in your fuel as possible. Ethanol then would be the theoretical 'perfect' fuel that would stay liquid at room temperature.

This is what I learned in college chemistry (during the few times I managed to stay awake)

Here in the good ole U.S. of A, we are having a problem with natural gas. It is going up in price at a dizzyingly high rate. Some say it's the greed of the suppliers. Others say that it's the simple fact that we are running out. As much as I have sympathy for the first theory, I am leaning toward the second one.

I think that the sad truth is that we are using energy way beyond our ability to replace it (as we always have) and now it is starting to catch up with us.
I won't be surprised if the energy future for those born this decade will be best described in three words. Expensive, Dirty, and Dangerous.

To move toward an alternative energy future will probably mean massive government intervention into market place (the implications of which I am not entirely comfortable with). The 'lead time' for alternative energy investment is well beyond the usual 'quarterly report' and people would grow old waiting for their 'returns'. The usual 'market forces' will demand much quicker returns than that.

So. If you think the crap we are using now is bad, just wait a few years.

In the next twenty years I think sails will return on ships 100m or less in length, not because they are pretty, and certainly not because some over priveleged 'tree hugger' demands it. It will happen because all the other alternatives are either unavailable or just plain too expensive.

Bigger ships will use whatever sludge they can get thier hands on (probably something coal based).

Bob

JonathanCole

12-08-2005, 10:16 PM

Oh c'mon you guys, don't be so pessimistic. There's 3 trillion watts in one lightning bolt. We can capture it in superconducting rings where it will remain for a thousand years until we draw it down. http://www.imagesco.com/articles/supercond/08.html

We live in a sea of energy. The primitive age of chemistry will end because we have the knowledge we need to end it.

At the end of the dark ages when the cities in Europe had built up to overpopulation levels, the sewage being dumped into the street was actually overflowing from the gutters back into the houses. Underground sewers had been invented by the Romans a thousand years before. But in Europe, only when the sewage was flowing back into the houses did the society, finally see the light and utilize what was available to clean up their ****. Human beings can be lazy, perverse, stubborn and arrogant, but in the end are survivors. We have been crapping all over this beautiful planet for a few hundred years and now the **** is piled up to our noses. Clean energy anyone?

wet-foot

12-09-2005, 06:01 AM

So lets see here, the polar ice caps are melting which cools the ocean which cools the gulf stream which brings cooling air and colder temperatures to Europe. So there really is no such thing. the old every (+) has a (-) ....... that's life.

FAST FRED

12-09-2005, 06:16 AM

"The Chicken Flu epidemic should help balance the books very easy, when a lot of seniors fail to start collecting. I keep hearing when , not, if."

If you read up on the Pandemic of 1918 you will discover the highest DEATH rate was the young adults that were healthy before infection.

So hopeing to cure the problem$ of massive unemployment and long living Geezers in Old Europe by the use of chicken flu won't work.

Since "global warming" is a fact of life for 13,000,000 years (since the last ICE AGE) it is easily accomidated.

If the Gulf Stream stops , it will give most of old europe with massive unemnployment problems a great boost.

Instead of endless welfare , the excess unimployable population can earn money cutting wood.

A renewable resource! The GREENEY "solution" to life.

FAST FRED

Guillermo

12-09-2005, 07:18 AM

... only when the sewage was flowing back into the houses did the society, finally see the light and utilize what was available to clean up their ****...and now the **** is piling up to our noses...

Interesting: My deceased father, also a Naval Engineer, had a theory: Humankind developes and grows till its own **** comes up to the people's noses. Then several million people die, we solve the problems and restart again, until the next **** level reach again our noses....:rolleyes:

sharpii2

12-09-2005, 09:33 AM

I Seems that there are three types of people in this world.

Ostritches, Chicken Littles, and Red Hens.

The ostritches bury their head in the sand and hope the problem will go away. Or at least find another victim and pass them by. They are the ones who used to say "Have faith in God." Now they say "Have faith in 'free markets'."

The Chicken Littles think that the problem is always unsolvable. Their refrain is and has has always been: "We're all doomed!"

And the Red Hens always try to face the issues honestly and look for real solutions, not fantasies that may or may not come true on their own.

It's the Red Hens that make useful things happen in this world. And they are everywhere (as are the Ostritches an Chicken Littles). You find them in business, you find them in citizen groups, and you even find them in that Darth Vader of institutions, The Government.

As for myself, I used to be an Ostritch. Now I'm a Chicken Little. And I hope some day to be a Red Hen.

Anyone care to join me on that quest?

Bob

sharpii2

12-09-2005, 09:54 AM

diogenemarine.com relates to a World record attempt to be the fastest boat to circumnavigate the globe.And using bidiesel.In a recent news bulletin a New Zealand business man has set up a pilot plant to demonstrate burning coal with Zero emissions,using a form of Carbon Di Oxide filter.He has invited sceptics to see it in operation,there are many who say that more energy would be used running the system than any useful output.

Not if he 'sequesters' (stores) the Co2. The main product he's after is heat. With enough heat you can do useful work (such as make electricity, seperate hydrogen from water, or even drive a ship). The Co and Co2 must then be bottled or contained some how. Some are talking about pumping it into old wells. The ones that used to produce natural gas... Don't laugh. It is atleast theoreticly feasable and I won't be surpised if it becomes part of a vast smorgesborg of 'little' energy sources that replace the three biggies: open burning of coal, petrolium, and natural gas.

Bob

Guillermo

12-09-2005, 12:41 PM

...Some are talking about pumping it (CO2) into old wells...
Bob

Not only talking. Have a look at:
http://carbonsequestration.us/News&Projects/News&Projects-List-by-Project-Title.htm

gonzo

12-09-2005, 05:59 PM

Fast Fred and Guillermo:
Hitler and Stalin both tried to clean the world with such methods. It created war, which in turn created a healthy economy with an increase of population and energy use. History shows it doesn't work.

Vega

12-09-2005, 07:20 PM

Ok. We are running out of oil. So we start making Bio-fuel as a substitue. Great. What use to be returned back into the food chain ,will now be made into fuel to be burned into nothing. Aren't we going to run out of animals bones and vegetable waste and starve to death? It seems each improvement is worse at the end, then the problem it solved.

Yes I believe we are at the edge of a big chrisis. China and Asian countries' inevitably wild industrial development with cheap labor, will bring huge unbalances (rise of the price of fuel, earlier finish of natural resources, savage pollution, global warming, unemployment in the more developed countries). If you add that to the unbalances created by all that hate germinated in the middle west, fuelded by a complete inapt and unrealistic approach by the western world, that managed to turn that hate against themselves, I fear that we will have a harsh near future till a new equilibrium ( social, economic and ecological), a sustentable one will be reached.
I believe unemployment will rise sharply and that riot situations like the ones lived in France will be common.
I hope to be wrong...

gonzo

12-09-2005, 10:50 PM

We are on a time of radical changes. I think it is comparable to the 19th Century's Industrial Revolution, or the opening of America to European conquest. Not everyone will adapt. Fuel and other sources of energy are also sources of power. However, that is nothing new. It may have been horses in the middle ages, or ships in the 1700's. There may be technologies though, that make possible to create energy economically in small quantities. This will change the world, like the internet did. I mean that the ability to control power sources is spread out more and accessible to a larger group.

Guillermo

12-10-2005, 02:28 AM

...It may have been horses in the middle ages, or ships in the 1700's...

Another theory:
May western civilization main power have followed the sun through centuries, with the extinguishing of woods? (While shipbuilding was based in wood, of course)
Let's see: First Phenicians, then Greek, then Rome, then Spain and Portugal, then the UK, then the USA..?

GONZO:
I don't see Hitler nor Stalin like having used the "**** theory" to exterminate people. They had some other cruel methods...

VEGA:
Unluckily I quite agree with you.

P.S.:
Not for this thread, but interesting and clarifying
Antigravity (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/gravity/gravitsapa.htm)
Phantom Works (http://www.boeing.com/phantom/flash.html) seems to have forgotten about it.

gonzo

12-10-2005, 10:53 AM

I didn't mean they use the same theory. Rather, that social upheavals of this type usually encourage growth.

wet-foot

12-11-2005, 12:53 AM

and the next country to rule the world is? Mr. Bush should be very proud of himself proving that anyone truly can be president.

Raggi_Thor

12-11-2005, 05:15 AM

Not only talking. Have a look at:
http://carbonsequestration.us/News&Projects/News&Projects-List-by-Project-Title.htm

This will soon be done with all CO2 from natural gas power plants in Norway I think. Then we can get even more gas and oil out of the wells and produce even more CO2 :-)

Electrical propulsion is used on some ferries here, the charge their batteries from renewable electricity (water falls turned into pipes an turbines) while we import electricity based on nuclear and coal heated power plants...

Guillermo

12-11-2005, 02:24 PM

and the next country to rule the world is?....

China?

ALL:
More for the thread's original intention:
http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/abb/
http://www.ch2bc.org/index16.htm
http://www.voithturbo.de/media/vhos_vcr_e.pdf
http://www.oilendgame.com/pdfs/TechAnnx/TechAnnx11.pdf

Vega

12-11-2005, 05:34 PM

I am puzzled. Why is there so little information on the net about the Jirnov Vortex Engine?

It looks awesome, not to speak that it is the one that has more immediate advantages for small boats (yachts).

Is it possible that the engine is so good that US Navy is making a secret of its development?

Look at this data:

"The JVT runs at only 1,800 to 3,600 RPMs while delivering the same amount of energy as the conventional counterparts that spin many times faster than that. ....

GVE Inc claims the JVT is 58 percent to 70 percent fuel-efficient, depending on air temperature from the combustion chamber. In comparison, coal or steam combustion runs around 30 percent, gas turbines at 35 percent, and 20 percent for auto engines, while fuel cells run at around 50 percent fuel-efficiency, converting the fuel into energy.

In 2003, the Department of Naval Research awarded GVE Inc $100,000 to build a 25-kW prototype. Pleased by the results, the Office of Naval Research then provided General Vortex with a million-dollar grant to build a scaled up 125-kW prototype. When completed, it will undergo extensive tests at a Navy facility. If that performs along the lines of the first prototype, General Vortex could receive a purchase order and a $3 million grant from the Navy to establish a production facility.

The deadline for completion of the 125-kW prototype is March 2006. Presently, two of the four components have been built and are being tested. The heat exchanger and the expander have been built, and are testing out "very good according to design specifications," said Borissov. They are using parts from the earlier prototype to run the tests on the new components.

Representatives of GVE Inc. say the vortex turbine could one day replace most of the internal combustion engines and gas turbines now extant in the power industry.

......Utilized with fuel cells, the JVT will allow for the hybrid fuel cell industry to explode."

http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_Jirnov_Vortex_Turbine/

Raggi_Thor

12-12-2005, 04:21 AM

Guillermo, I think some kind of sails is the only answer to your original question. Out on the sea you have (almost) always some wind.

FAST FRED

12-12-2005, 06:13 AM

The only time I found a really "new" concept in diesel engines it became Classified as a backup engine for cruise missels. It had very good power to fuel use.

The current engine MFG are not very interested in really NEW tech as so many millions of factory and inventory will become obselete.

A CEO is a simple manager of what exists , not a visonary that might endanger the corp.

The MYTH of "were out of oil" exists ,
as now what was once common knowledge of new finds and fields among the oil folks , is now closely held by the various governments the oil fields are located in.

Why lower the price , if you know there is 500-1000 years of oil in the ground?

Soon enough we will be using Fusion , rather than Fission to generate electric and run our planet, and oil will mostly be for aircraft and lubrication.

And of course its BEST use,, to make resin to create boats from!!

FAST FRED

kach22i

12-12-2005, 08:26 AM

The only time I found a really "new" concept in diesel engines it became Classified as a backup engine for cruise missels. It had very good power to fuel use.
Was that Williams International (in Michigan)?

About five years ago they had an engine ready for the Eclipse 500 business jet, but something about the deal fell through. Could there be a connection to this "Classified" stauts you speak of?

Daan Coolegem

12-12-2005, 10:10 AM

marshmat

12-12-2005, 10:34 AM

Was that Williams International (in Michigan)?

About five years ago they had an engine ready for the Eclipse 500 business jet, but something about the deal fell through. Could there be a connection to this "Classified" stauts you speak of?
My understanding is that Williams ran into financial trouble. They had a really innovative engine, but I believe they didn't have enough investment to make it fly. Developing a new class of engine takes many years; in a marketplace driven by quarterly reports, it's not easy for a small player to do something big. Then again, if the military were involved, they'd certainly want to hide it. I'd note that almost all such new-engine-technology ventures by small firms have failed for similar reasons- the OX2 class, several innovative rotaries, etc.

Fred, I don't mean to offend you, but the oil shortage you refer to as being a long way off is in fact more like 10-20 years off. I realize that not everyone has access to academic publications and internal corporate data, and so many people rely on the media for such predictions. Looking through the internal reports of the oil companies, though, reveals that despite vast increases in exploration funding, no large new oil fields are being found. Not one comprehensive evaluation of total oil reserves has put the absolute production peak any later than 2027; most estimate around 2015-2020 if not sooner. It should be noted that both independent and oil-company geologists generally agree on this issue. It's not something we can afford to ignore.

kach22i

12-12-2005, 12:25 PM

My understanding is that Williams ran into financial trouble. They had a really innovative engine, but I believe they didn't have enough investment to make it fly. Developing a new class of engine takes many years; in a marketplace driven by quarterly reports, it's not easy for a small player to do something big. Then again, if the military were involved, they'd certainly want to hide it. I'd note that almost all such new-engine-technology ventures by small firms have failed for similar reasons- the OX2 class, several innovative rotaries, etc.
Sam Williams and perhaps private investors own Williams International, not a public stock company. Eclipse was tied to a Russian perfume guy with a shady past. Paul Alan and the boys had to rework that and lots more after 9/11/2001 to get the Eclipse 500 off the ground.

I think you are right about the cost, Williams did not have the govenment writting the checks on this one and learned a hard lesson dealing with the private sector.

kach22i

12-12-2005, 12:27 PM

Vega

12-12-2005, 01:49 PM

most estimate around...-2020 if not sooner.

yes, that was what I have read...but again, the wild development in China, that I believe is going to be quickly followed by India, makes these estimates quite inacurate.
Anyway, prices of oil are going to skyrocket a lot sooner than that...and for having fusion energy available, which most people see as the ultimate solution to energy problems, scientists think it is going to take at least 50 years of development.
That leaves a big hole without any viable energy substitute, at least to the huge quantities we spend per capita in the western world.
Big changes in our way of life will be inevitable.

Guillermo

12-12-2005, 04:20 PM

VEGA:
I posted about JVE in my firt post. I'm also wondering why there seems to be so little excitement about this engine...

DAN COOLEGEM:
I have no idea, sorry, but you may find something probaly related at:
http://www.cnse.caltech.edu/Research/reports/polsenberg-full.html
http://enstrophy.colorado.edu/~mohseni/PSpdf/MyPapers/UUST2005a.pdf

RAGGI THOR:
Sails may show useful for certain applications, but I'm watching through this thread several other very interesting means of propulsion coming to surface. So, Maybe another frustrated era of commercial sails...?

ALL:
Have a look at:

YAMATO I, magnetohydrodynamic vessel (http://www.mesj.or.jp/mesj_e/english/pub/english/pdf/mv23n011995p46.pdf)

"Outside the Box" technologies (http://www.seaspower.com/PDF%20Documents/EPWoutofboxBrief.pdf)

marshmat

12-12-2005, 05:11 PM

sharpii2

12-12-2005, 09:07 PM

Dear Guillermo,

I'm looking for the first developments of waterjet propulsions. I wands read that the first water jet was based on a cylinder principal. Comparable to a membrane pump. My question is if you know something about this principal and why this development stopped. Was it the inconstant flow or was it something else?
Kind regards,
Daan Coolegem

The trouble with water jets is that they send out a relatively narrow column of water that has to be accelerated more in order to provide the same amount of thrust as a wide column. So eccelerating a narrower column that has half the mass as the wider column will require nearly twice as much hp as the wider column did.

This is plainly bad economics all around. Especially in an industry that has to get by with a 2 to 5% profit margin. The prop is here to stay. Wind and solar energy are what really needs to be looked at.

I imagine very large ships will be nuclear powered more and more as the cheap oil runs out. The economics of running a very large ship (300m or more) will simply be too good to pass up. Especially for trans continental use. Even if, because of its higher speed, it has to be exclusively engine propelled.

Smaller ships of 100m or less will someday most likely be mostly sail propelled.

Bob

wet-foot

12-13-2005, 06:31 AM

yes sir, wind power, super litho-ion batteries, high efficient solar cells and super conductor electric engines will change the shipping industry within a decade!!!!

marshmat

12-13-2005, 04:12 PM

yes sir, wind power, super litho-ion batteries, high efficient solar cells and super conductor electric engines will change the shipping industry within a decade!!!!
Superconducting motors, yes. Wind, yes.
I wouldn't put too much faith in either batteries or solar photovoltaic over that timeframe though. GaAs solar cells are still over a hundred bucks per 4-inch cell. Five kilowatt-hours of LiPo battery is still twenty thousand bucks, plus protection circuitry, and they're awfully easy to destroy. There will definitely be big improvements to come- such as totally new solar cell technologies currently in the labs- but a lot of the effects are still quite some time away.

Vega

12-13-2005, 06:12 PM

When I had a look at the site of Solomontechnologies and understood that the best they can do is 4 hours of continuous work from an electric motor, before having to recharge batteries, I have lost interest. That could be interesting for a daysailer or a racer, as an auxiliary motor. Not for a cruiser that sometimes (when bad luck strikes) can use its motor nonstop for 48 hours or more.

What I didn’t understand was why Nigel Calder wanted one on is Malo 45, his new bluewater cruiser.

I have heard some crazy talk of having a generator making electricity for running the electric motor. That doesn't make any sense to me, because with two energy conversions in between, with losses in each one, surely the result would be worst than running directly a conventional diesel.:rolleyes:

Well, I don’t understand very well why, but they get a more efficient performance with the generator and the electric motor. This is not the same concept of Solomon technologies; these guys propose to run the electric motor primarily, not on a big bank of batteries, but on the electricity produced by a diesel generator, using an almost traditional bank of batteries.

The company that leads the technology is Fisher Panda and when I have read that they had experimented the motor on a Bavaria 49 (5000 miles) with fuel savings up to 78%, I got very interested.;)

http://www.bavaria-fischerpanda.de/eng

http://www.aziprop.de/E_0098B269F5A950DAC1256E68003E7E45_6C775508FC8D3C0B00256CC3003DC561.html

http://www.whisperprop.de/E_1FEF76507EF4738DC1256E68003E64FC_30545F2B2B895624C1257035001F8D2C.html

http://www.bavaria-fischerpanda.de/E_7_2_2_l.html

http://www.aziprop.de/E_0098B269F5A950DAC1256E68003E7E45_444107261F4CBBB200256CC3003DC559.html

http://www.solarnavigator.net/fischer_panda_diesel_electric.htm

What do you think of it:?:

marshmat

12-13-2005, 07:21 PM

Raggi_Thor

12-14-2005, 02:44 AM

What about gas?
We have some ferries running on natural gas and methane.
Methane can be made from waste when it's rotting :-)
There is a lot of hype around hydrogen now, but most people forget to ask where hydrogen should come from. We can use hydro-power (waterfalls) to make hydrogen, but why? Maybe solar energy can be used to produce hydrogen?
Iceland is soon the first country to use only renewable energy, they are 300.000 persons and have a lot of waterfalls and thermal heat a few feet down in the ground. I suppose their large fishing fleet is not included in the "all renewable" picture?

sharpii2

12-14-2005, 07:13 AM

One of the reasons passenger ships use diesel electric is so they can convenietly tranfer energy around. For instance, when the ship is at anchor wouldnt be nice to be able to use the ships main engines to heat shower water and run blow dryers and air conditioning for the passengers? Especially if it saves having to carry a large gen set and all its support systems.

One problem with internal combustion engines is that they seem to have just one speed they like to run efficiently at. Running them too slow or running them too fast over long periods of time can harm them.

If you have a ship that runs at one speed, like most cargo ships do, most of the time, that is hardly a problem. Just pick the right engine and prop for your desired speed and you're set. That's what I plan to do if I ever design a motor sailor. The motoring part will be almost exclusively for flat wind and near flat water conditions. And it will be for speeds significantly below LWL (4kts for a 27ft WL) speeds.

A boat like this in the wrong hands, though, can be a dangerous thing. If the skipper is depending on brute engine power to get him out of trouble, he will be in for a rocky surprise.

The beauty of electic motors (DC) is they have a much wider range of efficient speeds. So if I wanted a motorsailor that could loaf around on flat calm days to get the best milelage, yet have enough brute power to fight off a lee shore, I would go with diesel electric model.

For this reason, I expect to see that system on sail assisted motor ships and motor assisted sailing ships by the fourth decade of this century.

Bob

sharpii2

12-14-2005, 07:41 AM

Re- "outside the box"
There's an awful lot of interesting stuff here. Kind of afraid to look into certain things, for fear the US government will be on my tail....
No scientific theory is ever complete or perfect. Newton's laws are not facts; they're very close approximations to actual systems in certain circumstances. The same goes for quantum theory, relativity, string theory, etc- all approximate models of what we observe. Simply because something comes along that is different is no reason to toss it out (how do you think Galileo got himself in trouble?), a hypothesis can only be rejected when it is proven to contradict physical evidence. Any 'scientist' who rejects an idea offhand with no evidence to back up his rejection, is not worthy of his title.

I agree with you absolutely, Marsh. But nowdays there seems to a tendency to turn on the hype engines long before the conlusive data comes in. I've been reading 'Popular Science' for over thirty years now. And I have an affectionet nick name for it: "Popular Science -fiction"

Passing up systems that aren't perfect but are workable now in the hopes of having something much better shortly down the road is, in my opinion, always a risky endevevor. And, in this day and age, with the cheap oil (and Natural gas) about to run out, it can be a fatal one.

To better understand the issues at hand, I am trying to teach myself physics.
They don't call it HARD science for nothin'.

Bob

gonzo

12-14-2005, 09:48 AM

Raggi_Thor: Ever hear of the doldrums? These areas can have weeks of no wind. In the areas between the Trade winds and the Horse latitudes it is also possible to be becalmed for days. For a commercial ship that may be unacceptable.

Raggi_Thor

12-14-2005, 11:52 AM

OK, I see that, but maybe som carco is more cost sensitive than time sensitive?

JonathanCole

12-14-2005, 12:19 PM

Robots Powered by the Ocean Itself
Released: 10/2/2002 Point of Contact:
ONRPAO
Office of Naval Research
Corporate Communications Office
Phone: 703-696-5031
Fax: 703-696-5940
E-mail: ONRPAO@onr.navy.mil
They call them "gliders," but these move through water instead of air. Two new robotic gliders—autonomous underwater vehicles—powered by changes in their own buoyancy or by different temperature layers in the ocean—will be tested opera-tionally off Southern California this winter. Both gliders were developed with support from the Office of Naval Research and will participate in Navy and Marine Corps exercises between 21 January and 7 February 2003.

Webb Research of East Falmouth, MA, a company with long experience designing and building oceanographic instruments, will deploy its Slocum Glider during the exercise. The Slocum Glider uses a Webb Research heat engine that draws energy from the ocean thermocline—a layer where the ocean's temperature changes rapidly: it's the boundary between the warmer water above and the cooler waters below. The Slocum Glider cycles thousands of times between the surface and a pro-grammed depth, getting the energy it needs to change its buoyancy from the heat flow of the surrounding water. This long-range deep ocean glider is designed to cruise for five years in a vertical zig-zag from the surface to depths of about 5,000 feet and back. As it does so it measures salinity and temperature, plots currents and eddies, counts microscopic plants, and even records "biological" sounds like whale songs. An earlier battery powered model is used to study coastal waters up to 656 feet in depth for up to 30 days at a time. Webb Research named the glider in honor of Captain Joshua Slocum, who sailed alone around the world in a 37 foot sloop between 1895 and 1898.

The second robot—the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory's Seaglider—is propelled by buoyancy control and wing lift to alternately dive and climb along slanting glide paths. It dead reckons underwater between Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation fixes it obtains at the surface, and so glides through a sequence of programmed waypoints. It transmits data and receives commands via satellite data telemetry when it exposes an antenna above the sea surface for a few minutes between dive cycles. Seaglider has enough range to cross an entire ocean basin in missions that last months, all the while diving and rising between the surface and waters as deep as 3500 feet. It can be launched and recovered manually from a small boat with a crew of two, and so doesn't rely on costly ships for its deployment. Seaglider collects high resolution pro-files of physical, chemical, and bio-optical properties of the ocean.

The Office of Naval Research is interested in systems like Seaglider and the Slocum Glider because they offer the Navy and Marine Corps potential tools for collecting data about regions of the ocean necessary for mine countermeasures and other tasks important to expeditionary warfare. In conjunction with Exercise Kernel Blitz 03, the Office of Naval Research is sponsoring demonstrations of these and other advanced mine countermeasures systems off the beaches of Camp Pendelton, CA, from 21 January to 7 February 2003. These systems represent advanced science and technology being developed to de-tect, identify, and classify mines in shallow and very shallow waters. They exploit recent advances in sensors (especially lasers, sonar, and television-like imaging), robotics (the sensors are installed on a variety of autonomous underwater vehi-cles—submarine robots), networking, and signal processing. Developed by teams of government, industry, and academic partners, the mine countermeasures technologies offer the prospect of ultimately reducing or eliminating the need for Sailors and Marines to enter the dangerous shallow waters just off shore in order to clear mines in preparation for expeditionary op-erations.

MILTECH
(http://www.spacewar.com/)
US Navy Submarine Makes First Launch Of Underwater Glider
http://www.spacewar.com/images/oceans-navy-glider-underwater-bg.jpg
Artist's rendition of the United States Navy undersea glider. By Chief Journalist (SW/AW) David Rush, Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs
Pearl Harbor HI (SPX) Nov 24, 2005
In a first for the U.S. Navy, an underwater glider was launched with the aid of Navy divers from the Dry Deck Shelter aboard USS Buffalo (SSN 715) November 14. The glider is a uniquely mobile network component capable of moving (http://www.spacewar.com/news/naval-05e.html#) to specific locations and depths and gathering various information, which is transmitted on a predetermined interval when it surfaces to computers via a built-in satellite phone.
"Our interest in the submarine force has been to use these to characterize the ocean," explained Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Cross, Pacific Submarine Force oceanographer.
"They're equipped with sensors that can give us [readings on] salinity and temperature versus depth, and from that we can get sound speeds (the localized rate at which sound from a source travels (http://www.spacewar.com/news/naval-05e.html#) through water). We can feed that data into our MODAS (Modular Ocean Data Assimilation System), run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (http://www.spacewar.com/news/naval-05e.html#), and that provides a picture that we provide to our submarines," said Cross.
The battery-powered device paints a picture for assets below and above the ocean that can be used to their advantage, according to Cross.
"It's basically a three dimensional depiction of ocean conditions that is used in tactical decision aids to determine sonar performance," said Cross. "The gliders are a great way to have a persistent sensor out there to continuously feed us data on what the ocean is doing," he said.
"Then we can feed that to our shore-based computer models and get a better picture of the ocean and give that information to all tactical assets - not just submarines, but anyone involved in ASW (anti-submarine warfare)."
Cross added that the gliders have demonstrated their capability in various exercises.
"We have had incremental success since we began using them in exercises, including a glider in RIMPAC (exercise Rim of the Pacific) '04," he said. "It did a great job (http://www.spacewar.com/news/naval-05e.html#) of demonstrating the technology."
Retrieving a glider via submarine is a logical next step.
"One of the future exercises we hope to do is recover a glider on board a submarine, demonstrating both deployment and recovery. We would locate the glider via GPS, and divers would retrieve it and bring it aboard," Cross said.
The gliders are relatively inexpensive, easy to reconfigure for various missions, and have a long life span with minimal maintenance required. When new batteries are required, they can simply be replaced and the glider can be put back in the water again.

gonzo

12-14-2005, 12:55 PM

sharpii2

12-15-2005, 01:08 AM

The cost of crew, operating expenses and sail/rig maintenance and repair is higher than the cost of fuel. That is why steamships replaced sailing ships. It was an economic decision. A sailing ship of just 4,000 tons used to have about 25 miles of running rigging, 12 miles of standing rigging, 1,200 blocks and about 52,000 sq/ft of canvas. Modern materials may make it simpler and cheaper to maintain, but engines seem to still be more economic. I suppose using sails as auxiliary power may be possible. The problem is that the structural increases in scantling plus the space the rigging and related parts take could be used for cargo. I have seen small cargo boats that work under sail in Third World countries. It is well suited because labor is cheap compared to fuel.

I agree with you about 50%, Gonzo.

As of now and maybe the next ten years, pure motor ships are the only way to go. The loss of cargo space, the need for more, and more specialized manpower, and the vexing vaguarities of contemporary weather patterns make even sail assisted ships noncompettitive for the time being. It is the next quarter of a century that concerns me.

I will not be surprised to see some system of global rationing of the remaining 'cheap (easy to pump out of the ground) oil'. That may be the only way to keep the peace (and major cities from disappearing under mushroom clouds) once supplies start falling behind growing demand.

The story of the last century has been one of greater and greater use of more and more concentrated energy. We (1st worlders at least) have become spoiled. We have been doing this for so long, we expect it to go on forever. Few of us realize that this concentrated energy comes from only one source: oil. And the competing source, Natural gas, is running out at an even faster rate. That leaves us with only two alternatives: coal and plutonium. All the rest are much more expensive to produce.

Yes. We Americans can produce ethanol and methanol by converting much of our food crop land to energy crop land. In effect starving ourselves to feed our cars. Or drastically reducing our grain exports which the world has grown to depend on. Such a move could be very dangerous, geopolitically.
Starving countries with nukes give me nightmares.

I expect the story of this new century is going to be pretty much the opposite of the last. Energy is going to be more diffuse, more expensive, and even more dangerous. Plutonium producing breeder reactors are going to be a common sight. As are coal powered electrical generating plants. This is going to highten greenhouse gas concerns, causing many of us 1st worlders to make some pretty tough choices. Do we go to war to hang on, temporarily, to the lifestyle we are acustomed to. Or do we severely cut back. My vote is for the second option.

If we do that, life in my country, the good ole U.S. of A. is going to become unrecogniseable. Gone are going to be the 30 mile commutes every day to work and back in 4,000lb autos along with all the side industries that make that possible. It can be beautiful. It can be terrible. I expect it to be a little bit of both. The other day, I saw on television, a Kennedy descendant on his sailing yacht being harrassed by a Green Peace rubber motor boat, because this particular Kennedy was fighting the construction of a wind turban farm in the middle of HIS beloved harbor. For an old lefty like me, it was a very surrealistic sight.

Now back to boats.

Once energy (the stored concentrated kind) becomes more expensive, the unreliable and cantankerous diffuse kind will become more and more attractive. The hybrid vessel of this new century is going to be nothing like the one of your great granfather's.

Back in his day, an engine's weight was counted in tons per hp. Now it's pounds. The hybrid ship can have a much smaller and lighter engine.
Back in his day, all the sail handling (or most of it) was done by the muscle power of the crew. Now it can be done hydraulically.
Back in his day, sails were furled by hand. Now they can be mechanically furled.
Back in his day, weather was something you watched from the deck. Now we have satellite weather.
Back in his day, navigation was time consuming and not all that accurate. Now it is within feet and at the push of a button.
Back in his day, cargo was laboriously brought on board and painstakenly stowed. Now it will be loaded in standard shipping containers within minutes.
And back in his day, voyages were for indefinite periodsof time. Now, with vastly better engines and feathering propellers, ships will come and go like clock work. Just as they do today (but somewhat slower than we're used to)

Many of my leftist friends say we made a lot of mistakes during the last three centuries. I agree with them on that.

But we learned a lot too.

Bob

Raggi_Thor

12-15-2005, 03:36 AM

Oil prices can rise dramatically as a result of increased demand and less supply, or we can get some (international) agreement on taxes that will be higher for crude oil if environmentalists say that ship's engines has much higher emissions than cars for example.

FAST FRED

12-15-2005, 06:18 AM

Raggi_Thor

12-15-2005, 07:14 AM

They don't have to know anything about engines, but som of them will know a little about oil qualities, NOx, sulphur and so on.

sharpii2

12-15-2005, 08:23 AM

"environmentalists" say that ship's engines has much higher emissions than cars for example.

What would an enviro-nut know about ships engines?

These are severly regulated by intl rulles to a very strict standard.

The enviro-nut sobbing is because it is a LARGE engine that powers a ship with 8000 sealand boxes aboard.The newest designs will have 13,400TEU.

And many enviro-nuts are against world trade and the standard of living it provides.

FAST FRED

Hey Fred:

Ever hear of 'flags of convenience'. If you haven't, maybe you should look into it. The shipping biz is nothing like the airline biz.

And I think this name calling thing has gone a bit too far. Don't you?
After all, reasonable people can dissagree, reasonably, can't they?

Bob

Vega

12-15-2005, 10:58 AM

Oil prices can rise ...we can get some (international) agreement on taxes that will be higher for crude oil if environmentalists say that ship's engines has much higher emissions than cars for example.

Like the one about Pollution and Global warming? Get real, there will always be some countries that will not care ( it is bad for local politics) till the moment everything collapses.

Raggi_Thor

12-15-2005, 12:14 PM

Vega, I agree with you, some countries, like the USA, will not care :-)
I myself think that actions to reduce CO2 emissions may (or may not :-) cost more than the consequences of global warming.

marshmat

12-15-2005, 02:47 PM

Raggi, Vega- Afraid I can't argue with you on that last point. Much as I'd like you both to be wrong (and I suspect you'd like to be, too), it seems there are certain entrenched powers that aren't particularly amenable to change. Whether current actions to reduce CO2 emissions will do anything is becoming increasingly questionable- Canada and many other countries are squirming out of their promises by bureaucratic manipulation, while the US blatantly ignores science and claims global warming is a farce. Some of you may have seen the recent studies of Russian and Canadian tundra that are indicating that runaway melting may have already begun- releasing millions of years worth of methane and other built-up greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To give the subject its due would require far more space than I can fairly take here, but I'm sure most of you are aware of the severity of the issue and its consequences.

Back to boat engines though-
With so much hype over fuel cells for cars, it's easy to overlook the emergence of SOFC technology (solid-oxide fuel cell)- in particular, how it's a near-perfect match for the marine industry. Ships require constant engine power over long periods of time, and startup/shutdown time isn't critical. High operating temperatures, which are bad in cars, are fine in boats. Efficiencies of 70-80% or better are possible for a SOFC with turbine condensor (cogeneration), compared to the 40-50% of the very best large freighter diesels. Outputs well into the megawatt range will soon be commonplace with these cells, which can be made to operate on hydrogen, any hydrocarbon, or almost any organic liquid fuels, with appropriate reformers. http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=919&head=Solid%2BOxide%2BFuel%2BCells for more details on the technology.

Guillermo

12-15-2005, 06:01 PM

Interesting post about SOFC cells and co-generation, Marshmat.

All:
Have a look at these interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/f0300207.pdf
http://www.tev.ntnu.no/utlysning/dring_sofc_2002.htm

JonathanCole

12-15-2005, 10:49 PM

No comments on scaling this up?

http://www.webbresearch.com/slocum.htm

Products > Slocum Glider
Conceived by Douglas C. Webb and supported by Henry Stommel and others, the class of Slocum Gliders is named after Joshua Slocum, the first man to single-handedly sail around the world.
It is a uniquely mobile network component capable of moving to specific locations and depths, occupying controlled spatial and temporal grids. Driven in a sawtooth vertical profile by variable buoyancy, the glider moves both horizontally and vertically.

Long-range and satellite remote sensing systems are being realized in the ocean measurement field. These systems are being used to quantify currents, sea surface height, temperature, and optical properties of the water enabling modeling and prediction of ocean state variables in the littoral zone. A similar nested grid of subsurface observations is required to maximize the impact and ground-truth the more extensive surface remote sensing observations.
The long range and duration capabilities of the Slocum gliders make them ideally suited for subsurface sampling at the regional scale. The Slocum gliders can be programmed to patrol for weeks at a time, surfacing to transmit their data to shore while downloading new instructions at regular intervals, at a substantial cost savings compared to traditional surface ships.

The small relative cost and the ability to operate multiple vehicles with minimal personnel and infrastructure will enable small fleets of Gliders to study and map the dynamic (temporal and spatial) features of our subsurface coastal waters around-the-clock and calendar.
http://www.webbresearch.com/electric_glider/gif_jpeg/slocum7_small.jpeg

http://www.webbresearch.com/gif_jpeg/bluearrow_8.gif

Versatile, maneuverable and powered with alkaline batteries the electric glider can be deployed for a period of 15 to 30 days at a 600 to 1500km range. Its flexible payload allows it to carry customized sensors. The Coastal glider can be operated to a depth of 4-200 meters. The 1km glider can be operated to depth of 1000 meters.
http://www.webbresearch.com/thermal_glider/gif_jpeg/Thermal_small.jpg
http://www.webbresearch.com/gif_jpeg/bluearrow_8.gif

Long range and endurance using environmental energy (Thermal Engine), the thermal glider can be deployed at a maximal depth of 2000 meters for a period of 5 years at a 40,000 kms range.

http://www.webbresearch.com/electric_glider/glider_science/b148x%20assem%20whole%20view_small.jpg
http://www.webbresearch.com/gif_jpeg/bluearrow_8.gif

The science bay is an exchangeable 5L payload capacity that can be adaptable to a number of sensors used in scientific data retrieval. This section has an independent computer that operates the data acquisition process and communicates with the main vehicle computer, which in turn accesses and transmits the information

Source:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (FCx(this.href);")
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif Date:
2005-09-07
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif Rensselaer Researcher To Showcase New Solar Underwater Robot Technology

ARLINGTON, V.A. – A new solar-powered underwater robot technology developed for undersea observation and water monitoring will be showcased at a Sept. 16 workshop on leading-edge robotics to be held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Va.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/09/050907101648.jpg
Solar-powered Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (SAUV). (Photo: RPI/Sanderson in collaboration with Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute, Falmouth Scientific Inc., and Naval Undersea Warfare Center)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif = rnum=Math.round(Math.random() * 100000); document.write(''); [/URL]* http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/spacer.gif

Arthur C. Sanderson, professor of electrical, computer, and systems engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, will display the robotic technology being developed by a team of research groups, including Rensselaer, and led by the Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute directed by D. Richard Blidberg.
Sanderson also will participate on a panel of six robotics experts who recently completed a study to be released at the Sept. 16 workshop. The World Technology Evaluation Center International Study of Robotics is a two-year look at robotics research and development in the United States, Japan, Korea, and Western Europe.
As the principal investigator of an NSF-funded project called RiverNet, Sanderson is working collaboratively with other researchers to develop a network of distributed sensing devices and water-monitoring robots, including the first solar-powered autonomous underwater vehicles (SAUVs).
“Once fully realized, this underwater robot technology will allow better observation and monitoring of complex aquatic systems, and will support advances in basic environmental science as well as applications to environmental management and security and defense programs,” said Sanderson.
The SAUV technology allows underwater robots to be deployed long-term by using solar power to replenish onboard energy. Long-term deployment of SAUVs will allow detection of chemical and biological trends in lakes, rivers, and waterways that may guide the management and improvement of water quality. Autonomous underwater vehicles equipped with sensors are currently used for water monitoring, but must be taken out of the water frequently to recharge the batteries.
According to Sanderson, the SAUVs communicate and network with one another in real time to assess a water body as a whole in measuring how it changes over space and time. Key technologies used in SAUVs include integrated sensor microsystems, pervasive computing, wireless communications, and sensor mobility with robotics. Sanderson notes that the underwater vehicles have captured the attention of the U.S. Navy, which will evaluate their use for coastal surveillance applications.
The SAUV weighs 370 pounds, travels at speeds of up to 2 miles per hour, and is designed to dive to depths of 500 meters.
Sanderson and his colleagues will continue field testing the vehicles in coming months at locations including Rensselaer’s Darrin Fresh Water Institute on Lake George, N.Y., to determine communication, interaction, and maneuvering capabilities in testing dissolved oxygen levels, one of the most important indicators of water quality for aquatic life.
Sanderson is collaborating on SAUV development with the Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute, Falmouth Scientific Inc., the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, and Technology Systems Inc.
The Sept. 16 workshop is sponsored by NSF, NASA, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The international robotics study was organized by the World Technology Evaluation Center, a United States-based organization conducting international research assessments.
“This gathering of researchers and their robots shows the necessity of federal support for basic research that leads to new technologies with useful applications in health care, the environment, and industry,” said Sanderson.
Editor's Note: The original news release can be found [URL="FCx(this.href);""]here (http://ads.addesktop.com/ads/ad10548d-map.cgi/ns/v=2.0D/sz=300X250A/kw=KEYWORD/).

FAST FRED

12-16-2005, 05:57 AM

"Ever hear of 'flags of convenience'. "

Sure but the CIVILIZED world does NOT allow these vessels into their ports.

So how much trade does go on between 3rd world countries with barely floating garbage with a Liberian flag of convienance?

Hardly enough to cause that 14% of global polution .

The REAL world goes on,

FAST FRED

Vega

12-16-2005, 09:44 AM

I find this report on oil shortage and future previsions quite interessant:

OIL & GAS 2006: Global Ten-year Projection by Douglas – westwood

A data report available from Energyfiles in association with Douglas-Westwood will revolutionise the analysis of future oil trade balances and potentially rewrite oil price forecasts advocated by such luminaries as the CEOs of Shell and BP. Having predicted, and now witnessed, the first oil price surge Energyfiles has decided to publish its comprehensive ten-year dataset, forecasting oil and gas production, consumption and trade in every producing country in the world.

Energyfiles Director Dr Michael R. Smith, and lead analyst, says "the ten-year data demonstrate that it is no longer appropriate to accept glib demand forecasts from oil companies, financial institutions and governments that predict, with wishful thinking, ever-growing demand levels, contrary to observations on oil supply. Suggestions that oil consumption will grow to up to 120 mm bbls per day by 2020 and that automobile and airline traffic will increase at extraordinary rates are futile and damaging to policy makers."

"Such forecasts, divorced from reality, fail to take account of tight supply conditions and rising prices. We will be unable to produce oil at these rates without unbelievable step changes in technology. After 2010, and for periods before this, oil supply limitations and prices will seriously subdue energy demand unless suitable liquid alternatives are developed."

….."Projections in 'Oil and Gas 2006' are consistent with rapidly rising prices after 2010 accompanied by painful conservation," Smith says. "Sufficient new supplies will not come onstream to replace the inexorable depletion of existing fields,..."

"Until 2010 oil supplies will struggle to keep up with demand causing intermittent upward pressure on prices as the supply/demand ratio swings in and out of balance. After 2010 upward pressure will be permanent. The near term effect on the economies of countries will differ depending on their level of development, location, dependence on imported oil, and availability of other raw energy materials and/or infrastructure to produce fuel alternatives. Gas, the best short-term substitute, will be available only if investment in infrastructure, above all long distant pipelines and LNG conversion and receiving plants, is well advanced".

gonzo

12-16-2005, 09:52 AM

The solution and the problem is as much political as technological. As long as we, the public, demand cheap abundant fuel, governments will oblige. I was reading an article in a local newspaper, and it pointed out that most solutions seem to be either/or. There can be a phasing out of cars and mega highways and a development of more mass transportation. With boats it is different, since it is more difficult to justify their necessity. I mean, driving to work in a 4,000 lb SUV by yourself can be rationalized as safety. Driving your 100 Kt rocket at 150 GPH not. The world will change whether we like it or not. It is a golden opportunity for inventors and enterpreneurs.

Guillermo

12-16-2005, 05:31 PM

....No comments on scaling this up?

1.- Maybe big and slow intercontinental cargo submarines for products not requiring tight-time deliveries?.... Difficult even for commodities, as the market, although allowing for some 'on-board speculation time', asks for quick deliveries once deals are closed....

2.- Stealth automated submarines carrying nuclear weapons, diving slowly and quietly between termoclines in the middle of the oceans, ready to be brought to surface and fired whenever necessary? ....Maybe they exist already...?

3.- Subsurface fuel storing units, hiding between termoclines, ready to refuel military vessels in the middle of the ocean?... Same 2nd question as before.

4.- Same as in point 2, but for spy units.

5.- Whales' migrations observatory?

6.- Captain Nemo's dreamt submarine..?

JonathanCole

12-16-2005, 08:25 PM

1.- Maybe big and slow intercontinental cargo submarines for products not requiring tight-time deliveries?.... Difficult even for commodities, as the market, although allowing for some 'on-board speculation time', asks for quick deliveries once deals are closed....

These gliders use gravity to propel them. The wings give lift and forward movement as the ship dives. Maybe the weight of a big ship would increase the speed of submerging, especially if the ship is very hydrodynamically shaped. Actually the ship can also use its wings to move forward when it is surfacing by means of bouyancy.

Guillermo

12-17-2005, 04:05 AM

.... The Slocum Glider uses a Webb Research heat engine that draws energy from the ocean thermocline—a layer where the ocean's temperature changes rapidly: it's the boundary between the warmer water above and the cooler waters below. The Slocum Glider cycles thousands of times between the surface and a pro-grammed depth, getting the energy it needs to change its buoyancy from the heat flow of the surrounding water....

Do you know how this heat engine works?

...Maybe the weight of a big ship would increase the speed of submerging, especially if the ship is very hydrodynamically shaped...

Well, I just was speculating. Probably these gliders are only good for small units working with no variable cargo. But anyhow something to keep on thinking...

Guillermo

12-30-2005, 04:52 AM

More weird propulsion systems:
http://www.rbbi.com/folders/tech/product/penguin.htm
http://web.mit.edu/towtank/www/Tuna/tuna.html

More info or comments on them...?

Interesting:

Review of Fish Swimming Modes for Aquatic Locomotion (http://www.ece.eps.hw.ac.uk/Research/oceans/publications/Michael_Sfakiotakis/IEEEJOE_99_abs.html)

Guillermo

01-01-2006, 06:33 AM

This seems to be a real alternative to conventional propellers in inland shipping, allowing a 20% gain in propulsion efficiency.

A New Way of Stimulating Whale Tail Propulsion (http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimit.cgi?isbn=0309058791&chap=946-958)

Whale Tail Wheel Propulsion (http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Whale-Tail-Wheel-Propulsion-74828T.html).

More in Dutch (http://www.innovatietoolkit.novem.nl/menudoc.asp?key=82,184,124)

Anybody has more info on this, please?

Interesting paper:
FANTASIE Deliverable 12 (http://www.etsu.com/fantasie/d12exec.html)

wet-foot

01-01-2006, 02:57 PM

hey it looks like an old paddle wheel set-up from a riverboat!!!!!!!

JonathanCole

01-01-2006, 04:47 PM

This seems to be a real alternative to conventional propellers in inland shipping, allowing a 20% gain in propulsion efficiency.[/URL]

Anybody has more info on this, please?

[url]http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309058791/html/946.html (http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Whale-Tail-Wheel-Propulsion-74828T.html)

Whale tail propulsion gives a much greater surface area but what about the vulnerability to debris?

kjell

01-06-2006, 04:19 PM

Now is the time to use Hydrogen as a steam generator. I have had this idea to make a marine pulse thruster. The exhaust from the burned air / hydrogen mix is conducted in the middle of a multi venturi "nozzle" converting the high speed gas in to slow speed water movement. Adapting the pulse frequency to the wave frequency will maybe reduce hull frictions as fishes do.

marshmat

01-06-2006, 06:17 PM

Kjell- you might be interested in Pursuit Dynamics' prototype steam/shockwave jet pump, i believe PDX is the series name. Look them up- might give you some more ideas.

Guillermo

01-06-2006, 07:56 PM

Good info, marshmat, thanks.
Kjell, could you please more extensively explain your idea?
About marshmat post, have a look at:
http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/Ajax/design.pdf
Information there is from 2002. Has anybody heard of further developments/boating applications?

kjell

01-07-2006, 05:02 AM

The marine propulsion system I am working with is different to the PDX steam/shockwave jet pump. It is not producing steam. The exhaust from the burned hydrogen/air mix is conducted in the middle of the nozzle.

marshmat

01-07-2006, 12:02 PM

It is not producing steam. The exhaust from the burned hydrogen/air mix is conducted in the middle of the nozzle.
Kjell, the exhaust from burning hydrogen is steam. The combustion reaction for hydrogen is
2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O
If this reaction occurs in air, the end product is a mixture of steam and nitrogen.

kjell

01-07-2006, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=marshmat]Kjell, the exhaust from burning hydrogen is steam.
QUOTE]

-Matt-
You are right. I tried to say that it is not working with a continuo steam supply from a boiler.

Guillermo

01-09-2006, 02:37 PM

A new (to me) propulsion system: "Hydrodynamic Flushing"
See:
http://www.tyvik.com/index.html
http://baat.stud.hive.no./
http://baat.stud.hive.no./filer/Artikkel%20i%20The%20naval%20Architect%20pdf.pdf
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20060006115400ibinews.html

Anyone has more info or comments?

D'ARTOIS

01-09-2006, 03:00 PM

Has it been tried at 60 knots of wind? I am very sceptical of anthing that is mounted on the bow and has to propulse the ship. For barges, moving in relative quite waters it might work, even good, bot not at full and open sea.

Why not?

The movements of the bow might be that fierce that they will intercept the jetstream that is pumped out and destroy the order.

Just an idea.

To be honest, it needs a close study to evaluate the system in real time, but that is not up to me to do so.

kjell

01-24-2006, 02:53 AM

This is one new marine propulsion system. Flapping wings make the horizontal thrust.

Vega

01-24-2006, 06:36 AM

That´s a good one. If they flap them really fast, probably, they can fly:D

Guillermo

01-29-2006, 04:52 AM

Another aim to improve marine propulsion efficiency is reducing friction-drag.
Some info on this:
http://www.nmri.go.jp/turbulence/group/040615Energy_saving_by_microbubbles.pdf
http://www.darpa.mil/DARPATech2000/Presentations/ato_pdf/6AlbrightFrictionDragB&W.pdf
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/2398/DSTO-GD-0290.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~terrapon/research.html

Super Eco-Ship projects:
http://www.nmri.go.jp/eco-pt/topics/pamph/pamph-1_e.html
http://www.ecoship.com/Ecoship.pdf

New technologies for reducing fuel consumption in marine vessels:
http://www.fsb.hr/sorta2004/abstract/t8-1-tavakoli.pdf

marshmat

01-29-2006, 11:13 PM

I must admit that I'm rather leery of a lot of radically different ideas. I'll treat them fairly, for sure, and give them due consideration- but it often seems that not all factors are being considered. What impact might we create on the oceans if we start squirting jets of synthetic oils out of our hulls- all that lubricant is going to end up in the water, so what will it do there? There's other projects, like "Ecoship", that appear to promise so much- but what is "Ecoship" other than a conventional ship with a tweaked diesel-electric powerplant? Yes, it's an improvement over the current generation- but it is by no means revolutionary thinking. We would all be better served if the marketing types were to be a bit more honest with sensational claims, and if engineers were left to do their job without having to cater to spur-of-the-moment marketing.

wet-foot

01-30-2006, 03:49 PM

perhaps the ultimate answer is to have China ship workers world wide so all goods can be manufactured at point of need!!!!!!! this would require no shipping.
no ship is a green ship yes?

Ari

02-05-2006, 11:16 PM

D'ARTOIS, how high is the temperature after the heater? Very keen to try what you had experienced.

D'ARTOIS

02-07-2006, 04:32 PM

I owe you that one, give me some time and I will draw a schedule for you. I guess the temp shall be around 60-70 degs Celsius after the heating element.

Ari

02-07-2006, 08:53 PM

Thank you D'ARTOIS. I 'am more familiar with fired boiler/waste heat boiler that use heavy fuel oil or asphalt burning system. I would like to apply eco diesel concept that you had experienced with your tractors back in Holland at a place name Enok in Indonesia.The alternative oil that they have there(coconut oil) is a lot cheaper than Diesel.Nearly every household can make coconut oil..it's so easy..and the fuel for this 'refining' purpose is free..O.K..it is open burning of coconut husk and shell..quite smoky..

Guillermo

02-16-2006, 01:40 AM

Outstanding new propulsion system!:D

Guillermo

02-16-2006, 01:53 AM

Anybody knows something else about this new hull design & propulsion system?
http://www.emcc.se/
They claim a 90% efficiency! (?)

JonathanCole

02-16-2006, 11:29 AM

Anybody knows something else about this new hull design & propulsion system?
http://www.emcc.se/
They claim a 90% efficiency! (?)

This appears to be a planing catamaran with stubby hulls with variable pitch turbine blades directly in the water. By having a large blade surface it can turn relatively slowly avoiding cavitation problems. With variable pitch props you can increase efficiency since once the boat is planing it takes relatively small power and pitch approaching parallel to the direction of movement to keep it at speed. The hull/turbine protrusions are like stubby cat hulls. But God help you if one of the turbines becomes disabled when planing!

Guillermo

02-16-2006, 02:51 PM

Jonathan:
I like your interpretation. I'm not sure about what efficiency they talk when stating a 90% one. Let's wait further developments and info from these people...

Another innovative propulsion system, more close to reality:
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/PRODSMMV/2006prdfeb002.html

safewalrus

02-16-2006, 03:01 PM

seems to me Kjell has this forum to rights - now that is exceptional! I want one - goes with some of the other featherbrained ideas you get here at times!;)

Wellydeckhand

02-19-2006, 02:51 AM

Outstanding new propulsion system!

IS that a Real Picture:confused: :confused: :confused: or digital funny edited type

Wellydeckhand

02-19-2006, 02:54 AM

Ari

02-19-2006, 09:04 PM

You are right Welly..in Malaysia crude palm oil (CPO) is lotsa cheaper than coconut oil..especially virgin oil..you are in Riau province Welly?Any chance of getting the CPO there ?Malaysian companies do open lots of palm oil estate there..in fact bigger than our very own peninsular I heard..I mentioned coconut oil because majority of the people there have coconut trees..palm oil need big estate..with coconut they just put in the physical afford..they doesnt need to pay for it..:)

Wellydeckhand

02-20-2006, 04:46 AM

If u want an estate to plant palm oil just shout I can connect u to proffesional people of the palm oil field.:):):)

Sumatra is the largest and kalimantan is growing strong...... Your choice:D:D:D

Ari

02-20-2006, 08:10 PM

Thank you Welly..what ever small holdings we have in Malaysia is good enough for us..too bad we had just clear off our rubber trees..price of rubber is the highest now..should have replanted that 5 years ago..anyway..we have no intention of expanding the plantation..We had decided to sail and see the world..:):D

Wellydeckhand

02-21-2006, 02:28 AM

kjell

02-23-2006, 02:03 AM

seems to me Kjell has this forum to rights - now that is exceptional! I want one - goes with some of the other featherbrained ideas you get here at times!;)

I f you like to see how it works, have a look to #6
http://www.ornithopter.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28

Kiteship

02-23-2006, 02:31 AM

A note on water jet drives for fast freighters....
http://www.cdicorp.com/government/files/Govt%20Serv%20Marine%20Design%20Case%20Study.pdf
CDI is claiming theoretical pump efficiencies of over 90% from driveshaft to thrust. Still 57,000hp of gas turbine is needed to turn the thing, of course, so it's not exactly a low-energy-use system. But it's a trend in freighter design to go for fast ro-ro, for sure.
This is neither a "trend" nor very bloody likely. You perhaps didn't note that this ship uses *4* of these turbines, for a total of more than 225,000 hp. As gas turbines burn something like double the diesel (or more expensive kerosene, likely) that piston engines do, this leaves this ship burning something like 20 times the amount of fuel as a 25,000 hp diesel. Further, this is an 8000 ton ship--the 25,000 hp diesel typically powers a 200,000 ton ship.

So, you've got 10 times the horsepower, burning 20 times the fuel to move 1/25th the tonnage at twice the speed. And you believe there is financial sense in this equation? It is only a junior NA's pipe dream.

I've just discovered this thread. It is interesting reading, but come on, folks. Use some common sense. Large cargo ships are already some of the most efficient transport devices ever devised. Current propellers are already 85-90% efficient, "20%" increases are physically impossible--bragging about "90% efficiency" is like selling the ashtrays in your new car--it's there, but so what?. Gear boxes are already 98% efficient; "direct drive" systems aren't going to pay their way, let alone save fuel. Sloughing "polymers" isn't very likely--you're going to inject polluting hydrocarbon-based compounds into the world's oceans and call it "green"? Electrohydrodynamics have been "just around the corner" for 40 years and the US Patent office is still refusing Tom Rearden a patent as they won't patent perpetual motion.

There are very real problems in energy and especially transportation energy, but magic isn't going to do the trick. It's going to be very hard to avoid nuclear power generation, afloat and ashore, unless the best minds (some among you guys) go to work on the actual problems and possible solutions, and set the science fiction aside. (No, I'm not blowing my own horn here. Wind power has a great future in marine transport, and kites offer compelling advantages over masted sails, but wind power will be an assistive technology until petroleum prices rise much higher, rather than a prime mover)

In the meantime, thanks for a great read.

Dave

Ari

02-23-2006, 03:32 AM

safewalrus

02-23-2006, 05:36 PM

What's wrong with magik - keeps you lot going at times!!;)

Wellydeckhand

02-23-2006, 11:32 PM

Witches and Wizards on holiday walrus.......... left their broom behind........ lets clean up the thread......:D:D:D

kach22i

02-26-2006, 04:16 PM

Memo to Editors: Navy Christens the Advanced Electric Ship Demonstrator
http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/article.asp?ID=97
Released: 8/23/2005

Point of Contact:
Kate Shirley
Office of Naval Research
Corporate Communications Office
Phone: 703-696-0738
Fax: 703-696-5940
E-mail: onrpao@onr.navy.mil

What: Christening of the Advanced Electric Ship Demonstrator
When: Wednesday, August 24, 2005
9 a.m., PDT – Media availability
10 a.m. – Christening ceremony
Where: Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division
Acoustic Research Detachment
Lake Pend Oreille
33964 N. Main Ave.
Bayview, Idaho

Arlington, Va.—The Office of Naval Research announces the christening of the Advanced Electric Ship Demonstrator (AESD) on August 24, 2005. The ceremony will take place at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Acoustic Research Detachment in Bayview, Idaho.

Chief of Naval Research Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen will deliver the principle address at the christening. The ship’s sponsor is Kathleen Harper, wife of Thurman Harper, vice president of engineering for Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc. In the time-honored Navy tradition, she will break a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship "Sea Jet."

The 133-foot vessel will serve as a model representing a destroyer-size surface ship and will be launched on Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, where it will be used for test and demonstration of various technologies. An underwater discharge waterjet from Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc., called AWJ-21 ™, will be among the first technologies tested. It allows vessels to operate in shallow water with increased maneuverability and stealth.

Following demonstration of the AWJ-21, the RIMJET propulsor from General Dynamics Electric Boat will be installed in Sea Jet for evaluation. The RIMJET is a novel type of podded propulsion system that relies on a permanent magnet motor to drive the propellor.

Reporters wishing to attend should identify themselves as press at the front gate. Photos and video footage will be available shortly after the event from ONR’s online media gallery at http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/.

Guillermo

02-26-2006, 04:42 PM

Guillermo

02-26-2006, 04:49 PM

...Wind power has a great future in marine transport, and kites offer compelling advantages over masted sails, but wind power will be an assistive technology until petroleum prices rise much higher, rather than a prime mover...

Dave,
Do you think it's feasible to use a kite as an auxiliary propulsion system for a high seas fishing trawler, 70 mts length, 3000 HP, making trips from, let's say, Galicia to Falkland islands' fishing grounds?
(Both for the trip and for the trawling)
Most interested in knowing about this.

kach22i

02-26-2006, 05:26 PM

Thanks, kach22i. Most interesting.

"The AWJ-21 is designed to increase ship speed, making hulls sleeker by working without rudders, shafts and propeller struts. Unlike conventional waterjets, the system works completely underwater, reducing noise and surface wake and improving stealth"

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=3809

Anymore info on the trials of this ship?
Cool, I was disapointed that the article I found offered no picture. It's kind of ugly, but looks to be Stealth....................special operations craft, a natural choice.

JonathanCole

02-26-2006, 05:39 PM

Volvo IPS with Joystick control. Definitely want the joystick! Hope they sell it separately.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5271/

kach22i

02-27-2006, 09:00 AM

I hate the Giz-Magazine pop-ups and other nasties associated with the site. It's like I risk a system crash just clicking on a link to them. Other than that, I love the actual content.

JonathanCole

02-27-2006, 11:44 AM

I hate the Giz-Magazine pop-ups and other nasties associated with the site. It's like I risk a system crash just clicking on a link to them. Other than that, I love the actual content.
I don't know what browser you are using, but I suggest you download Mozilla Firefox. Its free, works similarly to IE but with better management features. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
I have been using it for a couple of years and it completely eliminates popup advertising,. Personally speaking I have never seen a popup on Gizmag nor had my computer freeze!:)

kach22i

02-27-2006, 12:00 PM

I don't know what browser you are using, but I suggest you download Mozilla Firefox. Its free, works similarly to IE but with better management features. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
I have been using it for a couple of years and it completely eliminates popup advertising,. Personally speaking I have never seen a popup on Gizmag nor had my computer freeze!:)
I've redone my browser settings since having the problems with that site - still shy though. Consider it a friendly warning to others.

Guillermo

03-02-2006, 01:49 AM

Propulsion and lift at the same time....:confused:
http://www.foils.org/yourown.htm

Guillermo

03-02-2006, 02:11 AM

Somebody has info on the JaVaBa-Maritima BV (Holland) Vector-Prop system? (Rudderless, pitch-controlled, propulsion system)

Kiteship

03-05-2006, 07:09 PM

Hallo kite ship.
Is there really a kite that can tow/sail a 300tonnage ship at very reasonable cost compare to nowadays sail cost at the moment ? I had found theory and application for very small size 'boat' and the spinnaker style for bigger boat. I'am very keen to utilise this sail for our family round the world project.Sorry I'am interested only in the real product not on discussion on wether kite can sail/tow a ship.Very keen to know.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to ignore you Ari; my "forward responses to email" command is not working and I thought this thread died.

Do you mean to say that you have a 300 ton family yacht, or are you asking two questions; one regarding a 300 ton ship and another a family yacht?

Please define "very reasonable cost," since no sailmaker offers rigging for 300 ton ships at present. What would masts, reinforced bulkheads, ballast keel, yards, sails--all custom built--plus huge numbers of extra crewmen cost, do you suppose? We use none of this, with kites. If one includes all the costs of masted sails--or even of spinnakers on conventional yachts, kites are much, much less expensive. (remember, spinnakers require poles, struts, uphauls, downhauls, tracks, plus stoppers and extra winches--and the sail of course!)

We are currently installing kites as large as 420 sq meters on private yachts as large as 25-35 tons. We have some 70+ customers at present. I would welcome the opportunity to build and install something 2-3 times this large, and a 300 ton vessel would make a very good test bed/early adopter.

For what it is worth, no other entity on Earth has shipping kites which are even 5% as large as ours--there are many plans out there, but no shipping product.

Please, tell me more about your plans and your project?

Thanks,

Dave

Ari

03-05-2006, 09:08 PM

Send a private answer to you.

Guillermo

03-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Somebody has info on the JaVaBa-Maritima BV (Holland) Vector-Prop system? (Rudderless, pitch-controlled, propulsion system)
Now I got it. Have a look at:
http://www.air-composite.com/englisch/html/news/frameset_news.html

brian eiland

03-12-2006, 11:35 PM

I must returm to this thread when I have a little more time. There are a number of diverse and interesting subjects here.

In my real quick look I did not notice a reference to the relatively new rim-driven propeller technology that is emerging as a result of the new DC electric motor technologies.
"Interestingly it appears as though the relatively new permanent magnet electric motor technology has driven this new interest in rim-drive propulsion. From Brunvoll," the development of RDT has been triggered by market demand for an increased number of ships where both the main propulsion units and the manouevering thrusters have electric motors with variable speed drives. In this context the RDT offers a number of advantages."

I thought a cross reference of the subject threads was in order. Rim Driven Thrusters & Propulsors (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9432)

kjell

03-13-2006, 05:01 AM

Now I got it. Have a look at:
http://www.air-composite.com/englisch/html/news/frameset_news.html
Hi Guillermo.
I like this system. Do you know what kind of propulsion system they are using?
Diesel or hydraulic?

Kjell

Guillermo

03-17-2006, 05:23 PM

Hi Guillermo.
I like this system. Do you know what kind of propulsion system they are using?
Diesel or hydraulic?

Kjell

Hi, Kjell
I do not know. Have to find out...

Guillermo

04-03-2006, 05:38 AM

Kjell:
The Royal Denship 82 Open M/Y seems to use two supercavitating propellers in a similar disposition to the air-composite's idea:
http://www.nautica.it/superyacht/521/royaldenship/82eng.htm
http://www.royaldenship.com/Default.aspx?ID=32
http://www.q-spd.com/Custom%20Drives.htm

tugboat

04-12-2006, 08:05 PM

with biodiesel production, would not the pollution from phosphates offset the emissions savings?? since in order to produce the amount of fuel needed for the worlds demends, there would need to be a more massive production of crops. this in turn will create more agriculture and land clearing and then the fertilizers used will pollute the oceans and rivers ?? just a thought...
seems like the best possibility for fuel needs though, even with the added pollution and/ or deforestation.

mattotoole

04-12-2006, 08:19 PM

with biodiesel production, would not the pollution from phosphates offset the emissions savings??

I guess this depends on the farming techniques used.

since in order to produce the amount of fuel needed for the worlds demends, there would need to be a more massive production of crops. this in turn will create more agriculture and land clearing and then the fertilizers used will pollute the oceans and rivers ?? just a thought...
seems like the best possibility for fuel needs though, even with the added pollution and/ or deforestation.

These are important issues which need to be discussed.

Brazil is often cited as a biofuel success story, with much of their vehicle fleet running on domestically produced ethanol. But they're cutting down the rain forest at an alarming rate to do this!

The best estimates I've seen, or at least from the sources I trust most, say that about 10% of US fuel consumption could be replaced easily by domestically produced biodiesel. Beyond this would require major changes to our agricultural system, and cause a lot of new problems.

tugboat

04-12-2006, 08:42 PM

It breaks my heart to see the damage here in canada emissions are doing, we used to get really bad (or good depending on your perception)winters. in the last ten years the weather has been eratic even raining in mid January, never saw that as a kid. so we as mariners have to figure out a solution to those issues. We can't take the complacency attitude. I was looking at Cousteau's society and his ideas for a funnel shaped sail. maybe hydroponics could be a solution for growing certain biofuel plants. anyway, i refuse to give in...there is a solution out there for maritime trade. hydrogen technology seems reasonable too.

Guillermo

04-13-2006, 04:53 AM

I do not see biodiesel as a solution for shipping, because of the limited amount of crops available to produce it and the secondary problems induced, as said by tugboat and mattotoole. I think it will be used mainly to reduce pollution in the big cities and the like, in countries where actual crops are available, using it for public transport. Maybe we'll also see a generalization in recreational boating, as enviromental regulaments for this activity are getting more and more stricts and the amount of fuel used by the fleets is not big.

Nuclear is too expensive and dangerous for commercial shipping .

Hydrogen based fuel cells are still expensive and bulky, but they will popularize in a not too far away future, if oil prices keep high, as it seems they will. Probably a long term future for shipping applications.

For the time being I think a combination of techniques is already feasible and desirable:

- The use of very efficient engines and working schemes, such as diesel-electric plants and superconducting motors (still an expensive technology) for not very big power applications and variable operating schemes, as happens in fishing fleets, i.e.
- More efficient propellers, as CLT, composite's, etc.
- Widespreading forms optimization through CFD and tank tests, avoiding hydrodinamically aberrant forms and excess of power as seen nowadays in some cramped fishing boats, i.e.
- In certain cases using rigid or kite sails, as a complementary way of propulsion.
- Alternative fuels as natural gas i.e., for certain applications.
- Using solar panels for some appliances powering, such as electronics.
- Connecting ships/boats to shore mains when at dock.
........

Interesting engines as the Jirnov turbine are still in the developing stage, and may lead to further fuel savings.

Cheers.

sharpii2

04-13-2006, 09:04 AM

I think, sooner or later, we are going to have to face the fact that we are using too many of this worlds resources and putting out way too much waste product.

The implications of this are grim, but, with careful managment, I believe, liveable.

There will be many casualties in this era of great change.

I think of my grandfather and the world he grew up in. If he had told his parents in 1911 (when he was about 6) that someday, well within his life time, just about every American adult would own a motor car, people would be flying coast to coast in flying machines at the rate of about eight miles a minute, and that he, his children, and his grandchildren would be watching people walk on the moon, his parents would think he was crazy.

Now I can imagine my Godson, now 4 years old, someday telling me that, well within his life time, only about one in five American adults will own a car, that all stored energy usage will be formally rationed, and that ecologist will replace economist as the primary arbiters of what goes on and does not go on in our society.

If he does, I will be dismayed but not shocked.

The transportation of goods, that can easily be made locally, over long distances in a timely fashon is, I believe, going to be an early casualty to tomorrows grimmer realities.

Much of todays global corporatism, often refered to as 'globalism', is based on 20th, not 21st century assumptions. And these assumtions are:

1.) That energy is always going to be cheap and plentiful,
2.) That the accumulation of waste product, anything from toxic trash to greenhouse gasses, can be safely ignored, and
3.) that there will always be a '3rd world' of poorer countries in which the richer countries can both extract the resources they have exhausted on their home turf and deposit the waste product they want to get rid of.

21st century realities, I believe, are going to be somewhat different.

The order of easy and reliable shipping is going to corrode much the way it did during the implosion of the Western Roman Empire. Nobody will be able to afford a navy to protect them. (the appearance of modern day pirates may be a symptom of this process already starting)

Future motor ships will be powered much as they are today by diesel and/or its bio counterpart, but will have much smaller engines (less than 1 hp/ton) and, correspondingly, much greater armenment. These ships will carry huge bulk cargoes. Smaller ships, which may become quite numerous, will be either sail assisted or sail powered entirely. STORED energy use, such as hydro electric, biomass, fissionables, and fossil fuel, will be the energy use taxed and rationed. DIRECT energy use, such as wind and solar, will not be (but not for the lack of trying).

In the words of a character in the novella I recently finished: "We need ships, more ships, and new kinds of ships."

Just one wipe of my crystal ball.

Bob

Stephen Ditmore

04-27-2006, 04:33 PM

Here's another underwater glider. This one, called "Spray", is going for a distance record and measuring climate change along the way.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/84462eaf4766a010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Kiteship

04-27-2006, 05:57 PM

Here's a good paper, recently presented to Congress, on how the US Navy intends to reduce fuel consumptioin (including nucs--and kites!) It is in PDF format: http://snipurl.com/po1i

Also, May Popular Science has a good article on sail for commercial vessels, including our kites.

Regarding biodiesel; I have a hard time imagining quadrupling the world's arable land (as I have read, to produce enough crops for biodiesel) while at the same time refusing to dig for tar sands and oil shale on environmental grounds.

I do not see biodiesel as a solution for shipping, because of the limited amount of crops available to produce it and the secondary problems induced, as said by tugboat and mattotoole. I think it will be used mainly to reduce pollution in the big cities and the like, in countries where actual crops are available, using it for public transport. Maybe we'll also see a generalization in recreational boating, as enviromental regulaments for this activity are getting more and more stricts and the amount of fuel used by the fleets is not big.

Nuclear is too expensive and dangerous for commercial shipping .

Hydrogen based fuel cells are still expensive and bulky, but they will popularize in a not too far away future, if oil prices keep high, as it seems they will. Probably a long term future for shipping applications.

For the time being I think a combination of techniques is already feasible and desirable:

- The use of very efficient engines and working schemes, such as diesel-electric plants and superconducting motors (still an expensive technology) for not very big power applications and variable operating schemes, as happens in fishing fleets, i.e.
- More efficient propellers, as CLT, composite's, etc.
- Widespreading forms optimization through CFD and tank tests, avoiding hydrodinamically aberrant forms and excess of power as seen nowadays in some cramped fishing boats, i.e.
- In certain cases using rigid or kite sails, as a complementary way of propulsion.
- Alternative fuels as natural gas i.e., for certain applications.
- Using solar panels for some appliances powering, such as electronics.
- Connecting ships/boats to shore mains when at dock.
........

Interesting engines as the Jirnov turbine are still in the developing stage, and may lead to further fuel savings.

Cheers.

Kiteship

04-27-2006, 06:11 PM

Sorry, bumped the "Send" button.

Coal conversion to diesel becomes profitable at about $40/barrel; much less expensive (and environmentally less intrusive) than biodiesel. US coal reserves >300 years of proposed US consumption.

The military paper suggests nucs become profitable (for the military, which isn't necessarily similar to civilian use) at between $70 and $200/barrel, depending

Sail power becomes similarly profitable at about $40/barrel for crude oil; kites (we argue) at about $25/barrel. i.e.: for some time now already.

The likliest future includes sourcing energy from multiple places; at sea I expect one or another form of synthesized diesel, petro-diesel, sail assist and nuclear. Though I oppose nuclear for personal reasons, we must be practical and include it. I don't see hydrogen at sea (hydrogen isn't really an energy source, but more of an energy transfer device, like a battery), nor raw coal, for volume and energy density reasons. Practical considerations put nucs out several more decades, I believe, so for the short term, I see synthesized and petro diesel and residual oil, and sail assist. I don't see pure sail, except in the longest-term scenarios, and I certainly don't see slower ships or "retrograde" civilization. A good friend of miine, an economics prof, suggests that a real negative trend in the world's growth rate would instantly trigger world war--almost certainly nuclear.

Sobering thought, but far from inevitable. The goal needs to be ever more efficiency, streamlined production and transportation, and increased productivity from the entire world. Our civilization is far from the peak in this sense.

KiteShip

Guillermo

04-27-2006, 06:36 PM

Here's a good paper... http://snipurl.com/po1i
Most interesting. Thanks, Dave.

SeaSpark

04-27-2006, 08:04 PM

My penny in this thread:

Combustion engines either piston or turbine, burning bio or other fuels produce waste gases that will never be really clean.

The yachting industry should be one of the first to adopt fuel cell technology. Engines in yachts are expensive anyway because they are not produced in large numbers. Most yachts are expensive compared to the engines that drive them.

This means a fuel cell system could be implemented on a yacht in an early stage of development.

Ronald O'Rourke must have visited boatdesign.net

Kiteship

04-28-2006, 01:03 AM

Fair enough, but fuel cells have yet to be brought below $1000/watt, installed cost; they'll need to drop by two orders of magnitude before we can afford them. Worse, they "burn" hydrogen, right? Most likely source for said hydrogen is... petroleum. That or very expensive electricity, dissociating water. Fuel cells, at their best, fundamentally do not solve the energy problem. Hydrogen = batteries. Once you realize that, you can see the futility of the concept.

KiteShip

My penny in this thread:

Combustion engines either piston or turbine, burning bio or other fuels produce waste gases that will never be really clean.

The yachting industry should be one of the first to adopt fuel cell technology. Engines in yachts are expensive anyway because they are not produced in large numbers. Most yachts are expensive compared to the engines that drive them.

This means a fuel cell system could be implemented on a yacht in an early stage of development.

Ronald O'Rourke must have visited boatdesign.net

SeaSpark

04-28-2006, 03:16 AM

Hydrogen can be produced on shore by wind, wave, solar or geothermic power,

If hydrogen is a sort of battery, development of efficient batteries is key to the succes of electric powered vehicles of any kind.
Hydrogen could even be produced on board when there is a surplus of energy from a wind/tow generator or solar cells.

Need more kite ships, i agree.

Guillermo

04-28-2006, 06:15 AM

The NA & ME Association in Galicia (NW Spain) has organized a conference on alternative propulsion systems on fishing boats, to be held in Vigo the 25th of May.
We will discuss biodiesel, hydrogen, kites, diesel-electric, solar, new propellers, etc, etc. As I will preside the thing (so I'll have to carefully listen to everybody... :)), I promise to post in this thread what said there.

kjell

04-28-2006, 08:14 AM

Talking about alternative propulsion systems on fishing boats, maybe the Tail-Jet Propulsion is an alternative?
http://www.dahlberg-sa.com/kd/WJet.htm

brian eiland

04-28-2006, 07:56 PM

Looking for more efficient ship propulsion concepts is all well and good, but one should realize that modern commerical container ships are really pretty efficient with their super big slow turning diesels and hulls operating at or below hull speed. Fast navy ships are very likely not nearly as efficent. Some of the big diesels also burn relatively lowly refined fuels.

But in the scheme of things the total fuel burn by commerical ships is probably miniscule in comparision to our vehicle usage, and particularly that of the USA. If we really want to effect the conservation of our world's oil based energy supplies, this is the technology we really need to concentrate on in the short term. If we did nothing more than demand an increase of only 10% better fuel economy of our US vehicles, we could effect the supply-demand equation in a VERY substantial manner. And we could easily do this 10% without even decreasing the overall size of our vehicles....just decrease the cubic-inches a little.

It's unbelievable that our Congress had the balls to pat themselves on the back when they passed the "comprehensive energy bill" a short while ago, that included practically no conservation, and only minimal acknowledgement of alternative research. I've preached for years now that we should divert a very small percentage of our budget and brain power devoted to building WMD into a national effort like our moon space program and really attack this alternative fuel vehicle question. Not only would it work to conserve our world's petroleum resources, but would result in some significant number of new technologies that we could likely export around the world.

One big solution to our energy equation has to be 'storing energy'. We just don't have a lot of good storage capabilities, particularly as related to electrical energy. Many times we are forced to use as we generate it. Think of the possiblities if we could really efficiently store electrical energy. Our sun is a fantastic source of energy as it bombards us with it every day. But our collectors (solar cells) just don't have the capacity to give us the energy density we need to power up a lot of our energy consuming items. And we need better storage methods than our current crop of batteries.

I have always had an interest in 'super flyweels' as a storage method ever since I learned of their original development by Johns Hopkins Labs years ago doing my college days. Hopkins wanted to put BIG flywheels (at the time low-tech weighted wheels) in underground chambers at power plants and have the excess energy available at night from these plants spin up the wheels so they could be called upon the next day during peak periods rather than turning on a 'peaking turbine'. And I began to follow their re-development in the late 90's as several parties sought to re-invent them for auto use. I was real excided when Chrysler sought to enter La Mans with a flywheel powered car.

I still have a lot of old material stored away on this subject (before my computer days). But I believe if you simply 'google' "super flyweels" you will get a lot of info, for instance:

http://www.answers.com/topic/flywheel-energy-storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

http://www.n-t.ru/tpe/ts/hpu.htm

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home5/PG01898441/flywheel.htm

http://www.inc.com/magazine/19980601/939.html

http://www.allpar.com/model/patriot.html

http://www.rqriley.com/sld010.htm

Guillermo

04-29-2006, 12:40 AM

Most interesting post, Brian.
Bringing things to boats, Could it be possible a mains-flywheel-alternate energy boat?
The idea, for weekend use boats, i.e., coud be storing energy in a flywheel during the week by means of solar, wind and/or electric power supply from land, and then use that energy for weekend use, helping the main powering sytem, if not alone....:?:

"According to information from the Livermore National Laboratory (USA), actively participating in development of hybrids for cars, specific energy capacitance of graphite super flywheels can reach 545 Wt h/kg, that by far outperforms modern sodium and sulphur batteries..."

Maybe the hybrid mains-flywheel powering system could be like this:
"A fuel cell (ECG) is connected to an electric engine. The electric engine consumes a small amount of power from the ECG and transfers it to the super flywheel of the flywheel energy storage, thus storing mechanical energy, required for propulsion. Then the torque from the super flywheel is transferred to the driving wheels through bevel gearing with clutch, shaft(s), power take-off box, reversal mechanism, planetary disc variator with supplementary gear-box, shaft and propeller..."

brian eiland

05-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Just thought a cross reference was in order. Have a look at this technology, Gas from Water, (WaterFuel), HHO technology

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=88377 (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=88377)

This technology, with more than five years in research and development at Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. (HTA), illustrates that the solutions to our energy and environmental woes may be in the common elements that surround us. The patented process safely generates a molecularly stable hybrid hydrogen/oxygen gas (Klein/HHO) on demand from water. The gas is extremely environmentally friendly in that it has no polluting subgases when burned and produces only pure water in vapor form. It is currently being used to cut, weld, solder and fuse such materials as metal, plastics, ceramics and glass in commercial as well as artistic applications

StianM

05-15-2006, 11:20 PM

Annyone sugesting hydrogen as energy should be beaten up seriously and prosecued if surviving
(after reciving negative repitation I wish to modefy this so everyone understand what I actualy mean)
"annyone sugesting hydrogen as energy trying to make profit on it or gain political power should be beaten up seriously and prosecued if surviving"

(giwing neagtive reputation to people anonymous is quite cowardly)

1.Hydrogen is not a energy source.
2.to produce Hydrogen you nead more energy then it will produce.
3.the smal hydrogen atoms are leaking out off almoust anny container.

If you want to use wind power it's great, but the propeler will just casue drag and steel effect from the propulsion if the wind is ahead and if from the stern a sail would be more effciant.

Solar power is great, but you will have biger payoff by running it directly to a electric propulsion engine than making stupid hydrogen.

I hydrogen dead and buried now?

SeaSpark

05-16-2006, 04:11 AM

Stiam,

Hydrogen is not a energy source

You can argue about this, you can also argue if electricity is an energy source this still does not solve our problems. Finding an efficient way to store energy will solve a major part of the energy problems of our world. In some places energy is abundant in other places it is there but at irregular intervals.

Hydrogen is a promising manner of storing energy for later use or in another place.

Raggi_Thor

05-16-2006, 04:12 AM

The problem with hydrogen is how to make it. It's not an energy source, jus an energy carrier. Of course you loose some energy when you make hydrogen, so it's not allways the best solution.

FAST FRED

05-16-2006, 05:50 AM

Raggi_Thor

05-16-2006, 06:24 AM

It's promising and interesting, but flywheels can never be a source, just a storage.
Sources can be wind, waves, currents (tidal or other), waterfalls (rain), fossile (oil, coal), organic (wood, grass, etc), the sun, nuclear power (fusion, fision?) Others?

SheetWise

05-16-2006, 09:58 AM

Just an observation ...

Wind, waves, waterfalls, sun are all classified as solar energy. The abundance of solar energy that is untapped, and the many inexpensive methods of capturing it, make even inefficient conversions to fuel attractive. Efficiency is not really a part of the equation since since the supply is inexhaustable -- solar energy falls under a simple cost/return rubric.

The prospect of any significant change in energy use is governed by storage, and whatever solution is in our future -- it will be a storage solution.

StianM

05-16-2006, 09:00 PM

It's one way to save the world and that is for europe to stop buying cars from japan and us for the americans to stop buying cars from japan and europe ans so on. How mutch fuel is consumed every year by larg car carriers crossing the oceans?
Buy more products from local industry instead off cheap import.
How mutch fuel is burned off by transporting beff from new zealand to japan and europe? how mutch for transporting toys from china and malysia?

More tax on import products would lover the consumption on fuel and pulution off nature. It would have a faar bether effect than hydrogen since it would mean the start off manny coal and nuclear powerplants.

The next 10 years some exsperts asume that the worlds energy demand will increase with 300%

SheetWise

05-16-2006, 09:32 PM

StianM --

There are energy costs associated with production inefficiencies as well. It's not that simple.

I live only a mile from my office, and ride my bike over a freeway in town every day -- and every day I marvel at the miles of six lane traffic moving at 20mph. We will eventually rethink transportation, and there are signs we're making progress.

You're right that many obstacles to alternative modes of transportation are legal -- but I strongly disagree that protectionism should be in the arsenal of potential solutions.

StianM

05-16-2006, 10:41 PM

Leet me put one exsample. Fish is sendt from norway to chine where they are producing fish sticks. They are sendt back to norway for consumers market. How crasy is that?

Our energy consumption is a serious problem so we have to take a drastic aproatch if we actualy want to change the curent state.

Norway has the worlds 4 largest quantety off natural uran and new tecnolegy is able to convert this into energy with minimum waste, but the Norwegian goverment prefere to focus on gas powerplants and hydrogen. Norway is a oil nation and hydrogen is best exstracted from oil. Sweden has no oil so they focus on bio energy.

Goverment found of railroads would benefitt sine a train can pull large quantety off cargo with a minimal frontal area to cause drag. Also the steel weel's make mutch less friction then a rubber tire.
The US has to consider if they really want to continue building there 50 year old v8's they could be brought down to bether consumption by implementing new tecnolegy, but so far the cadilac north star is the only high tec v8 I can think off. A v6 would consume a litle more since it has fewer bearings and therfor less frictional loss.

We don't nead to rethink the powerplants, but how we manage the energy we have. Do we want to use our energy sources on buying products from the other side off the globe when we can buy one made localy for 1 dollar more?
What will we do with our electric sex toy from bangkok and tv from shanghai when we don't have the power to enjoy it?

Guillermo

05-17-2006, 02:36 AM

StianM

05-17-2006, 04:01 AM

StianM,
This trade is a nice way of sharing richness among the earth's populations bringing it from the first world to the developing one.

What capitalistic organisation brainwhas you??

It's not about sharing ritchness, but for us that are ritch being able to save our money by buying cheap stuff.

What hapend now when the sosialisic movement in south america want to make the oil fields goverment property for economical income for the countrys people? Big USA want to give money suport to anny political movement that still want to allow the big capitalistic oil companys from US continue exstracting there oil.

Nothing in trade and politics are about what is best for the people.

And I'm not taking this problem simplistic, but we have to consider seriusly how we want to use our recorses. It's naive to belive that there will pop up some great new energy source.

I think it's on one off moons on the other planets in our solar system that contain big lakes off liquied pertolium gas and maybe some thing we can just stretch a fue line to there, but you can think again:D

And for those beliving in Hydrogen I wish you the best off luck. Our electric powersuply has to be under quota regulations because alot off it has to be used for Hydrogen production. Exspensive fuel and exspensive electrisety that is. Say good bye to your icecube macine and aircondition unit, you wont aford using it annymore. Even the holywood stars will worry about there electrisety bill.

And for ship to be the moust effician transportation is not necesary true, it depends on geografical locations, a train use alot off energy crossing montains and ship use alot if they have to go around a big pice off land. like the USA west to USA east coast and trains are energy efficiant because air has less refriction then water and unlike ships they can safely be powered by nuclear powerplants.

SheetWise

05-17-2006, 05:09 AM

StianM -

You confuse politics with markets. Politics is about unfair advantage, markets are about efficient distribution. Very little about politics is about what's good for the people -- because it's about manipulating markets. Everything about free markets is good for the people.

sharpii2

05-17-2006, 07:44 AM

StianM,
I find your approach to the problem quite simplistic. Go tell the developing countries they have to lose the opportunity of manufacturing goods to be sold to the first world. They will give you a kick in the ass, I'm afraid.
Ship transportation demand is strongly growing nowadays precisely because emerging economies like China's, India's and the like are taking advantages of their cheaper manwork to increase the wealth of their people.
And shipping is the cheapest and most energy efficient way of moving goods.
This trade is a nice way of sharing richness among the earth's populations bringing it from the first world to the developing one.

Dear Guillermo:

I would agree in principle with everything you say. But, in actual working reality, Global free trade (AKA Globalism, or in my words, Global Corporatism) doesn't even work on paper. Not when you start adding up the the likely longterm consequences.

Being an American, I have experienced first hand the consequences of what I call Market Force Determinism and what I have seen is not pretty. I have seen my own standard of living drop precipitously. And I'm not, nor ever was, one of those $70 an hour assembly line workers you may read about in The Wall Street Journal. My highest wage was $11.20 an hour and that didn't last. I now work for $9.00 an hour.

I can imagine that to a lot of you that seems pretty generous. Just remember that we Americans have little or no social safety net. I have no medical insurance and the auto I must drive is so old and often so neglected (there is almost never any money left to maintain it properly) that it is really becoming a road hazzard. And the area I live in (like most of the USA) has no public transportation worthy of the name.

Under the laws of Market Force Determenism, public transportation was ruled out decades ago. Since, back then, just about everyone could afford a car and there was a lot of money to be made by building cars and the roads to drive them on and, at the time, energy was literally dirt cheap, it was an automatic decision to go exclusively with autos and forsake all other means of transportation. Even walking (most newer communities in the USA don't even have side walks).

Now. My Great Country is faced with the dilema of either fighting an imperial war for controlable energy prices or face an economic melt down that could make the 1929 crash look like a dress rehersal. By the rest of the world depending on the American consumer markets, they are putting thier own economies at great risk. If the SS USA ECONOMY goes down, it will take them with it. This is, as far as I can tell, very similar to the very conditons that lead up to World War ll.

China, who has been buying USA government bonds for years, stands to be the most horrific casualty of such an American implosion. Without the USA to sell her stuff in, what will she do for a living? Has she become so dependent on imported food (bought by exported products) that she can not even feed herself? Talk about a double nightmare. Depression in the USA and Famine in China. (Both armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons)

This is, of course, entirely predictable (as it has been for well over a quarter of a century). The trouble with (what I call) Market Force Determinism is that it (from my experience) is entirely incapable of considering the future. It can only deal with the present and always makes long term decisions (like making autos the main and usually the eclusive mode of transportation in the USA) based on short term realities (like the presence of cheap energy at the time most of the imfastructure I now live with was planned).

For this reason (IMHO) it is doomed. It will be replaced with, at best, a new form of democratic capitalism, or, at worst, a new form of absolute despotism (re marxism). There may even be a nuclear war. Not based on communism vs capitalism or even modernism vs jiihadism, but most likely, between desperate nations trying valiantly to feed and house their people in a climate of growing energy scarcity.

The saddest thing about our present dilema is that there are really no decent villans here. Just good people making bad decisions based on the utter refusal (because of an ideology they paid good money to learn) to look at (likely) long term realities.

I know that this may seem to have nothing to do with 'new propulsion systems for ships', but I think it has everything to do with it. People have been plying the oceans for at least the last thousand years. And they, no matter what happens, will be doing so for the next thousand years.

Here, we are at an interesting juncture. Between awsome technology (brought about by at least 10,000 years of learning) and horrific future posibilities. Will we, in the end, be wise enough save ourselves.

Stay tuned.

Bob

Guillermo

05-17-2006, 02:20 PM

Dear Bob,
First of all, my respect to you and to your wonderful country.

Maybe I'm a 'born optimist' man and I tend to trust people rather than the contrary, so I do not see future as dark as you see it. I do not see China and the USA coming into a nuclear war: Both of them have much to lose nowadays and in the foreseeable future. My major concern is this dilemma with the 'close' East situation. Probably not really a world war threaten, but a high risk of petroleum reching values as big as to make all economies to slow down or even going back. On the other hand (At last!) these high oil prices are forcing us to much more actively search for, and use, new energies: All for the best.

And maybe what you explain about your situation is a clue to support my way of thinking: Richness is being transferred from the first world to those emerging countries at an incredible rate (Unluckily not so to the third and poorest world, i.e. Africa) Maybe that's why your wages in the USA are going down.....

Maybe you, the USA are the ones condemned to more tragically pay the price of globalization, because till now you've been the biggest and the richest. But all of us, wealthy nations, are already paying a price (And I find this quite fair, attention!). I only have to turn my head round and see how many firms in Spain are closing their premises here and transferring them to those emerging countries, making us somehow poorer. And that's why we are looking frantically for more technological lines of products to be produced here and sharply increasing investments in I+D+i. But this is not an easy ride....

From my point of view this Iran, Irak etc., problem is one of the 'test markers' of the growing weakness of the USA: People out there smelling already the smell of the 'corpse'....and the 'corpse' resisting to be such!

I find this globalization thing a very good one, helping to redistribute richness. Not that the process runs at the same speed for every country and many are still suffering a lot (paradigmatically Africa). But we'll arrive there, sooner or later. Rich countries are prisoners of their own wealthiness in this process, want it or not.

Coming back to this thread's intention, I only support the goodness and convenience of shipping as the cheapest and most practical way of trading and helping in this globalization thing, not burning petroleum oil in those ships forever. That's why I'm trying to learn about more efficient ways of propulsion for ships (understanding the thing from the energy source down to the way of more efficient uses of it).

I'm afraid, StianM, that I still keep on thinking you have a too simplistic way of facing the problem, sorry.

Raggi_Thor

05-17-2006, 03:37 PM

I agree with you saying it's too simple, importing small cars from Japan to USA for example will save the oil used for transportation in a few weeks compared to driwing large american cars. On the other hand I agree with Stian, transpoprtation is too cheap. Why is fuel for ships and airplanes so much cheaper than for cars?

SheetWise

05-17-2006, 04:19 PM

sharpii2

05-17-2006, 05:55 PM

"Why is fuel for ships and airplanes so much cheaper than for cars?"

Because the people who calculate the tax for different fuels figure they don't have to build roads, bridges, controlled intersections, etc., etc., etc., plus the cost of maintaining them.

Also, it is usually of much lower quality than what governments (at the prodding of thier own citizens) will allow in road vehicles. Check out the QE2 web sight. Thier fuel is so crappy, it has to be heated up to 150 deg. F before it can be injected.

Bob

Raggi_Thor

05-17-2006, 06:12 PM

I think it's also because it's hard for me to fill my car any other place than here, while airplanes and ships will fill their tanks where it's cheapest EDIT: It was the different tax levels I first thought of. The same diesel for boats are cheaper than for cars (in Norway).

Vega

05-17-2006, 06:36 PM

You mean, the diesel is less expensive for all the boats, professional and recreational, or only for professionals?

Raggi_Thor

05-17-2006, 06:40 PM

That's the strange thing, diesel for all boats are so called "tax free".

Then there are local variations, we pay more one the south coats (typical recreatinal area with lots of summer houses) than in the west and north, but that's not because of taxes.

I think farmers (tractors), buses and trailers (road trasnport) can buy the same diesel as boats.

SheetWise

05-17-2006, 06:51 PM

In the US there is coloring added to kerosene, aviation, and other off road fuel -- and steep fines if you are found using them on the road.

Vega

05-17-2006, 07:24 PM

Sheetwise, In the EC also.

Raggi, in the UK it's also like that. There is talk that it is going to finish (U.K. magazines).

Doesn't make any sense.

Ari

05-17-2006, 10:41 PM

In my country..somewhere in the 90's 1 litre of premium grade petrol(97 RON) sold at 25 cents by refinery to the marketing company who add in some more handling cost and goverment taxes and that same litre will reach the buyer at $1.50, diesel are sold to end users at $0.60 per litres..now we pay $1.91 per litre of petrol and $1.60 for diesel, commercial vehicle pay $1.00 per litre of diesel (lorrys, busess,taxis,tractors,fishermans boats)factories diesel $1.60. boat marinas will charge the boaters $1.80-$2.00 per litre of diesel.($ sign=RM. Malaysian currency, not USD. 1USD = RM3.6)

Road diesel or Automotive gasoil have a higher Motor Octane Number - MON. Industrial Diesel Oil have lower MON.Higher MON will give better combustion and easy starting.Ship/industries boilers use very high viscosity fuel.Fuel temperature are normally kept very high for good atomisation at gun burner tip.(centralised asphalt burning system are maintain at 230 degrees Celcius).
Jet A1 or Avtur for jet turbine engine have different specification compared to kerosene. Kerosene specification on smoke point is very stringent- if that batch fail this test..it can be used as jet A-1 only. Jet A1 got no specification on smoke point.To differentiate this two products some country coloured their kerosene with blue colour.Jet A1 are about colourless - the colour are measured using ASTM Saybolt unit.
Kerosene, diesel and 'Fuel oil'( black stuff like asphalt) normally are straight run product or a by product/ blended from a simple process, Petrol cannot be make from straight run.It is from cracking process / quality enhancement unit.This involve another complicated processing plant.
The tax for petrol do take into account that the user is actually the end user..those diesel customer normally are business oriented thus there is chances that they will be tax again on their product and company revenue tax..diesel tax or diesel derivative tax are actually as high as petrol..only they are spread over a bigger base...

SheetWise

05-17-2006, 10:52 PM

Ari -

There are positive externalities for the revenuers from all transportation -- the idea of a "derivative tax" is meaningless, since any form of consumption on any level will produce the same. Some groups simply have stronger lobbies ...

Ari

05-18-2006, 12:13 AM

Ari -

Some groups simply have stronger lobbies ...
:) :rolleyes: right on..!

Raggi_Thor

05-18-2006, 03:59 AM

Guillermo

05-18-2006, 10:05 AM

Back to the topic :-)
I am probably going to build a 7m long model, scale 1:10 of a 70m supply ship.
The model will be used to test a really new(?) propulsion system!
It's basically some "paddles" moving back and forth under the after body of the hull, same system as a (swimming, live) duck.
Anyone seen anything like that?
Yes, that's one of the propulsion sytems in 'Orcelle', Wallenius Willemsen's futuristic Zero Emissions Car Carrier. It has underbody fins moved by waves energy (Although here fins move up and down).
See:
http://www.2wglobal.com/expo2005/english/index.jsp

Raggi_Thor

05-18-2006, 03:57 PM

Very interesting. I hope oil prices will continue to be high so we can se some alternatives soon :-)

sharpii2

05-18-2006, 06:04 PM

"According to information from the Livermore National Laboratory (USA), actively participating in development of hybrids for cars, specific energy capacitance of graphite super flywheels can reach 545 Wt h/kg, that by far outperforms modern sodium and sulphur batteries..."

The additional delight of flywheels is their ability to accept energy (recharge) at prodigous rates. One of the biggest hassles with batterys is their inability to rapidly recharge.
Last dream sheet I saw was the vehicle would pull over a pad and the pad would energise the flywheel to max rpm using NO mechanical contacts. Just induction.

This would solve the problem of granny "refuling' her Corvette , with out even getting out of the car!

On a boat I'm not sure of the practicaliy of these setups , although the electronics might be usefull.
But then my goals are blue water not brown.

FAST FRED

I agree.

Flywheels are pretty cool. At least for short term energy storage.
I've been dreaming and scheming for a flywheel regenerative braking system for cars for years. I have just learned enough about physics to make a crude flywheel spread sheet. It automaticlly sets the maximum rpm based on the diameter and the strength of the matterial it is made of.

It is interesting some of the things I have learned about the flywheel game. Large diameter pays. And so does using a very strong but light matterial.
I can see why graphite fibers are being considered.

As much as I like Dr. Bitterly's work, I think flywheels would be best used for regenerative braking. The goal would be to get at least half the energy lost by stopping the car back (batteries, I hear, only get about a quarter) to get it going again once the light changes. This more modest goal would, I think, would be more in keeping with the concept of a car as an easily mass produced, relatively low cost vehical for mass consumption. Being able to make the flyheel out of readily available industrial matterials, such as Aluminum, would keep the cost down.

I can see such a flyhweel producing roughly half the acceleration energy for roughly 10 seconds. Long enough (I hope) to get back up to highway speed. Engine could then be made maybe one third smaller (in hp) and still have reasonable over all performance.

The system I envision would be electromechanical rather than electrochemical (batteries). There might be some weight savings by going that route rather than with batteries.

As for ships, pyrochemical energy storage with liquid fuels will probably always be king. It is most likely the cheapest effective option available. Next in line will probably be nuclear fissionables, but the high front end cost as well as the safety concerns will probably doom it eternally to no better than second choice. And only for very large ships.

I expect the sail assisted diesel ship to be the standard by the time I enter the nursing home. It is both cheap and reliable and substitutes are already waiting in the wings for when the (affordable) petro-deisel runs out.

Bob

brian eiland

05-19-2006, 11:27 AM

I agree. Flywheels are pretty cool. At least for short term energy storage.

As much as I like Dr. Bitterly's work, I think flywheels would be best used for regenerative braking. The goal would be to get at least half the energy lost by stopping the car back (batteries, I hear, only get about a quarter) to get it going again once the light changes.Engine could then be made maybe one third smaller (in hp) and still have reasonable over all performance.
Some city buses in Switzerland made use of such a flywheel regenerative system many years ago. But the additional point is they are just not a regenerative tool, but rather any energy storage tool

Being able to make the flyheel out of readily available industrial matterials, such as Aluminum, would keep the cost down.
Not a practical material for flywheel construction if I remember properly.

And so does using a very strong but light matterial. I can see why graphite fibers are being considered.
Some interesting excerpts from Composite Flywheel Structural Improvement (http://www.ideationtriz.com/paper_Composite_Flywheel.htm).....

Benign failure

Pioneered by Jack Bitterly at U.S. Flywheels, benign failure has proven successful in laboratory testing, our goal is to increase the safety margin to assure feasibility.

Current flywheel rotors are composed of resin soaked fibers wound around an axle. Failure occurs as the rotational force pulls the material to the outside rim and causes a separation in the winding. A separation is visible to computer aided structural monitoring systems before any damage to the containment occurs allowing for safe shutdown of the system. It has been proven that continued failure or a second failure will not occur at 80% of the speed at which the first failure occurred. Although when the system fails it still operates at 80% of its optimum potential, an improvement in the rotor strength will increase the safety margin.

In order to avoid catastrophic failure the method of filament winding is essential, however, the process does not allow for the most effective use of the fiber’s tensile strength. The forces on the rotor at are in a radial direction, while the wound fibers reside perpendicular to the radii. The point of failure occurs between the surface of the fiber and the resin. Any changes in the resin have yielded no improvement in overall rotor strength. The addition of reinforcement aggregate to the resin has proved to increase the distance between fibers such that the resin is reinforced but there is more of it. The strength of the rotor is optimized when the highest possible ratio of fiber to resin is achieved. TRIZ was employed to look at unresolved areas

New Collaborations

Researchers Scott Keeley and Steve Beletire at Southern Illinois University are working on a new product concept, partnered with Chief Scientist Jack Bitterly of U.S Flywheels Inc.. The goal of the research is to bring a successful satellite technology down to earth. The problem solving process led to an additional partnership with Dr. Dan Dyer of Polymer Chemistry at SIU.

Product benefit

Flywheel energy storage is a more efficient, pollution-free solution to chemical batteries. Total recharge can be accomplished in about 15 minutes at any rate of energy draw or frequency yielding a cycle life of over 100,000 charges, or 30 years, with no deterioration in performance. The intent of the research is to facilitate the integration of flywheel technology in products related to personal mobility. Fork lifts, golf carts, lawn tractors or power wheelchairs will benefit from this technology.

brian eiland

05-19-2006, 11:35 AM

RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL
(Source: Will Hively, DISCOVER MAGAZINE, 8/96)

Nobody questions Jack Bitterly's brilliance, but is this 77-year-old inventor on the verge of making the automobile's internal combustion engine obsolete? It all hinges on whether flywheel technology is up to the task.

Not familiar with flywheel technology? Here's a short primer:

-- Flywheels have been around since the Stone Age. Early steam engines utilized giant flywheels as big as 17 feet in diameter to damp out the shudder of the huge pistons. Bitterly's flywheel is 12 inches in diameter, three inches thick, weighs 50 pounds and spins at the incredible rate of 100,000 rpm (that's 1,700 times a second)! The flywheel is made of densely-packed carbon fibers similar to those used in golf clubs and Stealth bombers. It has to be made strong because the outside rim spins at 3,700 miles per hour. It makes no noise because it floats on magnetic bearings and is housed in an aluminum cannister from which all the air has been removed.

-- One flywheel assembly weighs 90 pounds and can generate 25 horse power. 12 to16 units would be needed to power a standard-size car 300 miles, about the same distance as a tank of gas would take it. It is estimated that the unit manufacturing cost would be around $800, making the total cost of the drive train about $10,000 to $13,000. This high cost compared to conventional engines or automotive lead-cell batteries would be offset by the fact that the power source would last the life of the car and the cost of energy equivalent to a tank of gas would be about $6.

-- The way flywheels work is that once they are up to speed (hooked up to a conventional power source, it takes about 10 to 20 minutes for a small electric motors to accomplish this act), their kinetic energy is converted into electrical energy by small generators which in turn powers electric motors on each wheel of the car.

-- A flywheel-powered car is, in fact, an electric car. The main difference is the energy source -- flywheels instead of batteries -- and vastly improved performance. The range of typical electric cars is 70 to 90 miles and their batteries have to be replaced every year or two at a cost of $1,800. Bitterly's flywheel car has a range of 300 miles, the system recharges in 20 minutes, contains no toxic materials, and is virtually maintenance free.

In a peculiar twist, research and development costs of Bitterly's company, U.S. FLYWHEEL SYSTEMS are being underwritten by Kevin Costner. The actor and director of the movie "Waterworld", was so moved by the image of a world destroyed by mankind's dependence on fossil fuels, that he created COSTNER INDUSTRIES, with the express purpose of investing in new technologies that promise to improve the environment. Dan Costner, Kevin's brother and manager of the investment company, states that U.S. FLYWHEEL SYSTEMS is "certainly the crown jewel of COSTNER INDUSTRIES."

A working prototype of the system was unveiled at a closed symposium on flywheels at OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE NATIONAL LABORATORY in August, 1995. Bitterly feels that they will start testing a flywheel-powered car by the end of the year.

So far no big auto manufacturer has picked up the option to incorporate Bitterly's design into their models. Meanwhile, there is considerable interest in Bitterly's flywheels powering satellites in space and trains in Germany. He also has a static model in the works that could be used as a back-up power generator. In the event of a power failure, it could assume the load within nanoseconds, thus preventing valuable computer data from being lost.

How long do Bitterly's flywheel systems last? He has designed the system to survive at least 10,000 run-and-recharge cycles. Under normal conditions, that would mean a life of 27 years -- and that's only a lower limit. flywheel systems last? He has designed the system to survive at least 10,000 run-and-recharge cycles. Under normal conditions, that would mean a life of 27 years -- and that's only a lower limit.

brian eiland

05-19-2006, 11:43 AM

Here are some interesting links on the subject

http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classroom/Technology/Machines/Flywheels.html (http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classroom/Technology/Machines/Flywheels.html)

brian eiland

05-19-2006, 12:13 PM

These fellows spent a considerable amount of their own money chasing this dream, and primarily quit as they foresaw the great difficulty with bucking up against the auto manufacturing gaints in the USA. This is why I sought to take some of this technology over to SE Asia where the 'young infrastructure' might have allowed it to grow much greater.

Exotic Auto Venture Is $24-Million Nonstarter
The Business: Rosen Motors

Founded: 1993

Closed: 1997

Cause of Death: Major car manufacturers' rejection of new, flywheel-based engine technology

In August 1996, brothers Benjamin and Harold Rosen summoned a throng of journalists and auto executives to the remote Mojave Desert, in California. The founders of Rosen Motors had spent three years developing a hybrid electric vehicle. Now they were ready to debut their version of the car of the future. As the road test began, the spectators craned their necks in anticipation.

The car refused to budge.

The moment was humbling for the Rosens, who had resolved to do nothing less than end the internal combustion engine's century-long reign under the hood. Yet the problems that would make Rosen Motors a nonstarter ultimately weren't technical but commercial.

If reinventing the automobile is an undeniable long shot, the Rosens nonetheless seemed a better bet than most to pull it off. Harold, 72, is a former Hughes Electronics engineer who pioneered the geostationary communications satellite. Ben, 65, is the chairman of Compaq Computer Corp. and a legend in the personal-computer industry. His venture-capital firm's early investments in Compaq and Lotus Development Corp. hiked the worth of his stock holdings to more than $100 million.

The brothers fueled their new venture with nearly $24 million of that money, soliciting no outside investment. ("I didn't want to take money without confidence there would be a customer," says Ben.) Their aim: to create a means of propulsion that would be cleaner and more fuel-efficient than the internal combustion engine yet more practicable than the batteries in electricity-powered cars, which require recharging after relatively short driving distances.

Their exotic design combined a small, gasoline-fed turbine with an energy-storing flywheel. The turbine provided electricity for propulsion. The flywheel, spinning as fast as 55,000 rotations per minute in the car's trunk, could store energy that's normally dissipated during braking and release it for sudden bursts of acceleration--acceleration that a turbine alone couldn't provide.

By all accounts, the company, based in Woodland Hills, Calif., solved some terrifically thorny engineering problems. And several months after its embarrassing failure, the test car redeemed itself with a successful performance.

The Rosens' business model, by contrast, never got on track. Rather than build an entire car, they had planned to produce its vital innards, the drivetrain, much the way Intel Corp. creates chips for computer makers. But tradition-bound Detroit is not disposed to contract out the guts of its cars to another manufacturer, and the Rosens say they never considered licensing out the technology. "The drivetrain is just so critical for the big manufacturers," says John Paul MacDuffie, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "It was a gamble to try to break into the industry that way."

The stumbling block, ironically, wasn't resistance to innovation but too much enthusiasm for it. The major automakers snubbed Rosen Motors' visionary drivetrain because they were already hard at work on their own environmentally friendly alternatives, and flywheel technology didn't figure into their plans. Glenn Mercer, director of automotive services at McKinsey & Co., explains, "The Rosens just got squeezed out."

With their company entering a costly crash-testing phase, and with automakers in Detroit and overseas unwilling to bankroll it, the Rosens decided to call it quits, putting their 70 employees out of work. Reinventing the automobile turns out to be as difficult as it sounds--even for Ben Rosen. --Jerry Useem

Guillermo

05-19-2006, 02:25 PM

Very nice posts, Brian.
So, I ask again, Why shouldn't we consider the posssibility of a flywheel powered boat for, let's say, weekend cruising, charging the flywheel at marina mains during the week?
Quoting you:
"One flywheel assembly weighs 90 pounds and can generate 25 horse power. 12 to16 units would be needed to power a standard-size car 300 miles, about the same distance as a tank of gas would take it. It is estimated that the unit manufacturing cost would be around $800, making the total cost of the drive train about $10,000 to $13,000. This high cost compared to conventional engines or automotive lead-cell batteries would be offset by the fact that the power source would last the life of the car and the cost of energy equivalent to a tank of gas would be about $6."

This doesn't seem so expensive for a boat's driving installation....

Being safety one of the major concerns, here is also an interesting page:
http://www.testdevices.com/flywheel_article.htm

FAST FRED

05-20-2006, 06:02 AM

I doubt the auto mfg resistance was to the new technology, ONLY to the possible results of a crash.

AS thousands of cars crash daily the concept of an unbraked runaway flywheel , (at 100,000 to 200,000rpm) with the energy content of 3 or 5 gallons of gas heading for the shopping mall or skool house probably scared the pants off them.

As one plotical party gets HUGE (beating out even the Skool "teachers" union)
contributions from Trial Lawiers , the liability issue is too great.

Much progeress is now completly stopped , by the TERROR the Liars For Hire create in EVERY productive enetrprise.

Since the far east has no "Life is a Lotterey" (if you can become a victum mentality, yet) most of our future tech progress will be from there.

Most Democracys died (before Fractional Reserve Banking)
when "the populace voted themselves into the treasury"

today it seems a corrupt partisan media , their junk science , and greedy Liars for Hire will speed the death of Western Civilazation.

We will not be "running out" of oil for 300+ years , but will there be anyone left to turn ON the lights?

FAST FRED

brian eiland

05-22-2006, 12:15 PM

Being safety one of the major concerns, here is also an interesting page:
http://www.testdevices.com/flywheel_article.htm
Interesting posting Guillermo. I can see we both have a real interest in this subject.

I doubt the auto mfg resistance was to the new technology, ONLY to the possible results of a crash.
I'm not so sure this alone hampered further development. Fuel cost in this country have been so low compared with the rest of the world there just has not been real economic reasoning for development of alternative methods, devices, technology. Maybe that will finally change with this new realization of world fuel prices. Hopefully we will see a whole host of new technologies get new research.

One of the problems I saw with the flywheel work was an 'over emphasis' on getting the whole technology optimized to its ultimate state prior to putting a product on the market. Yes, it is optimum that the chamber housing the flywheel maintain a near perfect vacuum so as to optimize the aero-frictional losses of the spinning wheel. But what's to prevent the allowance for a less than perfect vacuum and accepting some losses while we move towards a more optimum system. What's to prevent maintaining a safety limit on allowable revolutions now, until better wheels are developed? What's to prevent the use of these in underground (safe) installations at 'base line' power stations as 'peaking device' stowage, now??

Just as with the very early Swiss bus system usage, there are lower-tech practical uses for these devices right now. Lets get started now, then build upon the technology as we learn more. I think these higher fuel prices will promote such thoughts if we don't let ourselves slip back into the old modes of "fuel prices will come back down eventually"

Why not a lower-tech approach with a commuter car for now? Don't worry about an onboard charging source. Utilize a slightly lower tech, safety-limited spinning wheel, rechargable at night at your home, that would get you to work and back. And package it up in smart little 'cute' car like the BMW mini rather than some ugly aero-look. I'll bet you couldn't keep them on the sales lot right now. And you wouldn't be worrying about replacing those very expensive, heavy batteries in the current hybrids.

AS thousands of cars crash daily the concept of an unbraked runaway flywheel , (at 100,000 to 200,000rpm) with the energy content of 3 or 5 gallons of gas heading for the shopping mall or skool house probably scared the pants off them
Thats not how these super flywheels come apart. In the majority of situations the pure fiber wheels just sort of 'fuzz up' as they come apart. Don't try to mix in metal components at this early stage, or maybe never.

Kiteship

05-22-2006, 10:55 PM

I have several concerns about flywheels, for boats or autos: The safety issue isn't one of absolute safety, but rather relative safety. As with everything else, this relates to cost. A flywheel with a "bulletproof" safety housing is going to be more expensive than one without. How much more? Double? 10X? Similarly, a flywheel with computer monitoring for pre-failure cracks is going to include the cost of this monitoring equipment. How much will this cost?

Second, what is the cost of failure? If my battery leaks, I have to deal with acid in the bilge. If my flywheel fails, perhaps I have a big hole in the bottom of my boat? So, more cost in safety equipment, because the ramifications of failure are more grave. I hear someone complaining about disposal of batteries, versus "clean" flywheel power. How much petroleum-based resin is involved in the flywheel's manufacture? How much energy in the manufacture of the filiment? How much in the computer controls? How about pollution from eventual disposal of all the subsidiary parts of the flywheel? I already know precisely how much my lead acid battery pollutes, both to manufacture and to recycle. Before I (the royal "I"--I mean the public) will change, I want to know the whole story.

Third, in a boat, I am less concerned about energy storage versus weight, and more concerned about energy storage versus cost, and to a lesser extent, versus volume. Where do flywheels stand in these respects, compared to batteries?

Fourth, has anyone considered gyroscopic effects of flywheels, in boats? A flywheel will strongly resist motion about one axis, and boats rotate about all three in a seaway. Will this steal energy from the flywheel? Make the boat unmanageable? Sure, it could be helpful, if in a sailboat it is aligned to resist heeling, but from where will the resisting energy come from?

Sorry to sound like a doubter, but before a technology is acceptable, it should be clearly superior, not just "cool."

Dave.

Kiteship

05-22-2006, 11:03 PM

Thats not how these super flywheels come apart. In the majority of situations the pure fiber wheels just sort of 'fuzz up' as they come apart. Don't try to mix in metal components at this early stage, or maybe never.

Brian, are you considereing failure due to overspeed, or failure due to a destructive crash? If a flywheel absorbes all the considerable kinetic energy of a crashing automobiile (worst case), are you *sure* it's not going to come apart? Sure, I understand that gasoline can explode, too, but after a century of refinement, we have learned to minimize the actual occurrance of fire and explosion in car crashes(Pintos excluded!) Can we have this level of assurance about flywheels?

This would be less of an issue aboard boats, of course.

Last, are we sanguine about our governments burning coal to produce the electricity to power up our super flywheels? Is this better/worse than burning diesel?

Dave

FAST FRED

05-23-2006, 06:04 AM

What's to prevent the use of these in underground (safe) installations at 'base line' power stations as 'peaking device' stowage, now??

The inability to scale them UP.
While a wheel holding 5gallons of gasoline energy has been created , to spin a big one to hold 50,000gal of energy would require different materials.

In the Hudson river the Nuke plants pump water up a mountain to a resivoir (at low load times) , and draw down the water for the high peal loads.

Last, are we sanguine about our governments burning coal to produce the electricity to power up our super flywheels? Is this better/worse than burning diesel?

The US has an increadable quantity of coal , which with todays tech can be converted into Diesel fuel at about $35.00 a bbl.

If the universities will get off the decades of Subsidized Feed Wagon , most of our electric will come from small clean Fusion plants.

The ability do do it NOW with clean & safe Fission , but the Green nuts have legally blocked every new power plant , as long as they have blocked refinerys, 30YEARS!

The use of a flywheel on a boat would be limited to what batterys do now, just with the ability to do rapid charges or discharges , with out the harm that wet batts suffer.

FAST FRED

marshmat

05-23-2006, 08:54 AM

Last, are we sanguine about our governments burning coal to produce the electricity to power up our super flywheels? Is this better/worse than burning diesel?

The US has an increadable quantity of coal , which with todays tech can be converted into Diesel fuel at about $35.00 a bbl.

The US is a little behind the times on coal, which Ontario is phasing out. It is now well known that even FBC, CG and other 'clean coal' technologies still emit a lot of rather nasty materials into the air.
I would like to see any evidence to back up the diesel-from-coal claim. Everything I have seen on this topic indicates that you'd be burning almost as much extra coal as you'd be getting liquid fuel just to overcome the inefficiencies of the process.

If the universities will get off the decades of Subsidized Feed Wagon , most of our electric will come from small clean Fusion plants.

Believe me, we're trying as hard as we can. To the average citizen this sounds like a wonderful solution. To an engineer it's a nightmare that involves precisely controlling a spinning ring of plasma at temperatures that would instantly vapourize diamond, using only magnets. We're still several years and several cash infusions away from success.

The ability do do it NOW with clean & safe Fission , but the Green nuts have legally blocked every new power plant , as long as they have blocked refinerys, 30YEARS!

Not sure about the States, but in Canada our main issue with fission is cost. Ontario has had good and bad experiences with fission- for a while we had a nearly unlimited supply of cheap electricity, but now our generators have a huge debt from the construction of these incredibly complex machines. ACL has proven that fission can be safe (one of our plants was recently designated a provincial park and wildlife reserve), they just haven't proven it can be cheap. Given the US's tendency to put nuclear plants near population centres, I can understand why the 'Green nuts' referred to here might be less than enthusiastic about new ones. Especially since in the US, they'd probably be PWRs, an architecture that is not inherently stable as the ACR and CANDU architectures are.

brian eiland

05-23-2006, 01:07 PM

Brian, are you considereing failure due to overspeed, or failure due to a destructive crash? If a flywheel absorbes all the considerable kinetic energy of a crashing automobiile (worst case), are you *sure* it's not going to come apart? Sure, I understand that gasoline can explode, too, but after a century of refinement, we have learned to minimize the actual occurrance of fire and explosion in car crashes(Pintos excluded!) Can we have this level of assurance about flywheels?
I read over the article posted by Guillermo and found some interesting discussion;
"As flywheel failure modes are both design- and material dependent, accepted design rules have not yet been established for composite units, according to CEM researchers. A flywheel's energy-storage potential is proportional to its mass moment of inertia and the square of the rotational speed. For a specific rotor configuration, speed is limited by the material's strength-to-density ratio. For this reason, flywheel engineers selected high-strength, lightweight composite materials. CEM engineers observed that composite flywheels are operated at stresses near the material's ultimate strength to maximize energy storage.

"The range of current flywheel designs are in some sense bounded by mass-loaded types on one end and preloaded on the other," said Richard C. Thompson, CEM research associate. There are various kinds of intermediate types. Different rotor designs have a propensity for different types of failures. The nuances of operation and fabrication also has an effect. Despite the design differences, "at comparable tip speeds, their stress and strain states look generally the same," he said.

Mass-loaded flywheels have a radially increasing specific stiffness or modulus to generate radial compression with increasing speed, which creates a large force gradient across the weak direction of the composite. "You need the radial compression to hold it together," Thompson said. Generally, this design can be more susceptible to burst (a failure of the fiber/matrix material in the hoop direction), especially if the loss of the outer ring results in hoop failure of all the inner rings. Bursts can be catastrophic because they are accompanied by a significant energy release. Burst failure is considered the most extreme challenge to a containment system. Mass-loaded units are said to be easier to fabricate than preloaded wheels.

Preloaded designs, by contrast, are fabricated to exhibit constant or near-constant specific modulus (stiffness). They are characterized by a tendency to delaminate before experiencing a burst, especially when they incorporate lower-modulus graphite composites. De-lamination is a physical separation of a localized portion of the flywheel due to loss of radial compression, leading to a de-bond between hoop fiber layers. De-bonds can also be initiated by creep of the matrix or matrix degradation due to elevated temperature. It typically produces an imbalance caused by the shifting mass that can quickly overcome bearing load capacity, requiring flywheel shutdown. Polar-woven flywheel designs are resistant to de-laminations due to the inclusion of radially oriented fibers.

In preloaded designs, the flywheel typically contacts the shaft with no coupling component or hub, Thompson said; the flywheel is assembled from two or more wound fiber rings press- or shrink-fit together. "At assembly you put in enough radial pre-compression such that radial compression is maintained throughout the speed range."

And "Once the test data are in, engineers hope to come up with some innovative concepts that will lead to a feasible and reliable containment system, DARPA's Gully said. According to CEM research engineer Mark Pichot, there are several classes of containment schemes. "First is the brute-force approach using heavy-walled pressure vessels." The rigid structure will handle the high forces, but difficulties in limiting torque loads on the mounting systems and the high weight make them less than optimal for vehicles, he said.

Another concept is a rotatable ring that spins to soak up energy when impacting flywheel fragments transmit their high torque. "By spreading the torque over time, this approach limits the forces that must be contained," Hayes said. The other general containment design would rely on an energy-absorbing liner; "this is the soft-catch approach-something like a catcher's mitt," Pichot said.

According to Pichot, some sort of hybrid or combination approach may finally end up being used in commercial applications."

It does seem to show there is work being carried out. Hopefully the current fuel situation will spur on more intense research. I would love to see just a small part of the brain power and money we put into weapons development be put into this type of research. Problem I see is its being manged by DARPA, a defense industry entity (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va.). They certainly are bias to Mr Rumsfeld and the military industrial complex....not commercial ventures

Third, in a boat, I am less concerned about energy storage versus weight, and more concerned about energy storage versus cost, and to a lesser extent, versus volume. Where do flywheels stand in these respects, compared to batteries?
Energy stowage densities on the order of 10 to 20 times that of the very best batteries last time I checked....and that was some time ago.

Fourth, has anyone considered gyroscopic effects of flywheels, in boats? A flywheel will strongly resist motion about one axis...
Multiple pairs of smaller units could cancel out gyro effects

What's to prevent the use of these in underground (safe) installations at 'base line' power stations as 'peaking device' stowage, now??

The inability to scale them UP.
While a wheel holding 5gallons of gasoline energy has been created , to spin a big one to hold 50,000gal of energy would require different materials.

In the Hudson river the Nuke plants pump water up a mountain to a resivoir (at low load times) , and draw down the water for the high peal loads.
The reservoir stowage method is a very good simply technology. Its just not very applicable in a lot of locations.

The 'big' wheel idea is now passe' with the realization that the energy stowage capability is linked to the square of the speed, verses linearly to the mass of the wheel. So multiple smaller units appears to be the way to go.

Baseline power stations are a little different than many of the power stations you see locally. They truly are at their most efficent operation if they do not have to cycle up and down with the public's night and day demand. But what do you do with that excess energy at night?? Pump water up a hill so it can run down the next day is one solution. Charge up spinning wheels is another.
At this immediate time it's a question of burning the fuel (coal or diesel or gas) in the most efficent manner. Baseline stations are the most efficent of our current powerplants.

The real hope is the harnessing of nuclear power. But I would suggest that nuclear power could be that huge nuclear reaction in our SUN. It bombards us with a tremendous amount of energy every day. We just have to find better ways to collect it and STOW it until our needs arise.

Or if the nuclear energy comes from more traditional plants they also like to operate like a baseline plant, so we need Stowage.

I also think we haven't paid enough attention to that tremendous heat source in our earth's core. Look how deep we are drilling for oil. Imagine tapping into the edge of that molten core.

Power from the Sun and the Earth's core would be pretty pollution free as well. We just need to be able to store some of this energy we could collect.

Guillermo

05-28-2006, 03:47 AM

I've found this interesting information about the use of ferrofluids to generate energy from the ocean's waves. They are already working for buoys applications, but inventor is trying to go big scale.
http://fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_future&key=1143129673

From there:
"Oceanographers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, tested the design in the summer of 2004. "Just a few watts of power is all that's required to run most marine instruments and to transmit their data to a satellite," says Robert Pinkel, head of the buoy development team at Scripps. The team designed a float that amplifies its movement to deliver maximum acceleration to Cheung's device, and electronics to store the electricity it generates in a super-capacitor. The generator proved itself even in calm conditions: in a gentle sea with waves of around 60 centimetres it generated 0.3 watts. With further work to optimise the transfer of wave power to the generator, the team hopes it will be able to deliver on average 1 watt of electricity.

Cheung's latest design uses coils mounted at right angles to the direction of the magnet (see below). The challenge now is to increase the power output by tweaking the design of both the buoy and the generator. Cheung is planning to work with Malcolm Spaulding and Stephan Grilli from the University of Rhode Island in Kingston to model the most efficient designs and test them in a wave tank.

The aim is to generate not merely watts, but megawatts. "Our goal is to build an energy farm on the ocean," Cheung says. Stephen Salter, who heads the wave power group at the University of Edinburgh, UK, thinks that may be a step too far. Though the iron particles in the ferrofluid maximise the current induced in the coil - by increasing the flux density around it - Salter is sceptical about the technology's viability for large-scale generation. "I think this is one technology that's going to run out of puff as you scale it up." Nevertheless, Cheung says he could have a prototype of a wave power system ready within three years.
“Our goal is to build an energy farm on the ocean”

Even if Cheung doesn't manage to scale it up efficiently, he has dreamed up plenty of other applications for his invention. So many, in fact, that he has set up a company to commercialise them. They include self-powered tyre pressure monitors, computer mice and TV remote controls.

He has an idea for an executive toy, too. Put an even number of magnets coated in ferrofluid into a doughnut-shaped tubular ring - with their north and south poles facing each other - and they will shuttle around chaotically as they repel one-another. The result is somewhere between a stress ball and a pocket-sized lava lamp.

Cheung's first commercial product is going to be much more useful. In the coming months his company will launch a holster-style mobile phone charger. "The first goal is to have enough power to keep the phone on standby forever," he says. All you'll have to do is shake it."

Here info from the patent:
http://www.freshpatents.com/Magnetic-transducer-with-ferrofluid-end-bearings-dt20041216ptan20040251750.php

Maybe also useful to keep flywheels spinning, for boating applications...?

FAST FRED

05-30-2006, 06:07 AM

sharpii2

05-30-2006, 07:26 AM

"Problem I see is its being manged by DARPA, a defense industry entity (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va.). They certainly are bias to Mr Rumsfeld and the military industrial complex....not commercial ventures "

Darpa is the only usefull agency in the US government as far as science goes.
NASA is long dead in terems of research or advances , and is now just thousands of career burorats looking for career stability , and terrified of the real world.

The best thing NASA could do would be to cease operation , fire everyone , and start with a new name and staff.

DARPA is a whole different concept.

Instead of deciding what "progress" is desired and issuing multi million dollar thousands of page contracts,
DARPS sets a use goal , and allows the world to bid on its achievement.
TIME to completion is part of the DARPA requirement , not an open Forever wallet.

Most of the best worldwide research is done by DARPA , weather it has civilan use depends on the intelligence of the civilans in using new tech.

FAST FRED

Why not give us a few examples of their contributions?

It seems funny that you would accuse NASA of being a member of the 'open check book' club. It seems that the Pentegon is pretty good at that too. Have they ever had anything come anywhere near within (originally quoted) buget?

And aren't they the 'cost plus' guys? $500 hammers? $2000 toilet seats?

As far as NASA goes, If I were president, the first thing I would do is go down there and tell the big cheese down there that there will be no #$*& ups on my watch. Or I will go down there and personally and publicy fire him.

Imagine if that happened after Challenger? Columbia might never have happened.

The way I see it, the trouble starts in most big bureauocracies when the people running them start to see themselves as immune to any real accountability.

Bob

SheetWise

05-30-2006, 07:58 AM

Sharpii2--

"Why not give us a few examples of their contributions?"
Start with the Arpanet -- now known as the Internet. That's one I think you're familiar with.

"And aren't they the 'cost plus' guys? $500 hammers? $2000 toilet seats?"
No. And why is it that when a lie is repeated often enough, people believe it? The examples you're offering have been disproven so many times, you have to be avoiding the truth so as to not stumble into it.

"Imagine if (firings) happened after Challenger? Columbia might never have happened."
You mean if they would have fired all of the people who didn't understand O-rings, they would have learned all the secrets of heat tiles? How exactly does that work?

sharpii2

05-30-2006, 06:51 PM

Sharpii2--

Start with the Arpanet -- now known as the Internet. That's one I think you're familiar with.

No. And why is it that when a lie is repeated often enough, people believe it? The examples you're offering have been disproven so many times, you have to be avoiding the truth so as to not stumble into it.

You mean if they would have fired all of the people who didn't understand O-rings, they would have learned all the secrets of heat tiles? How exactly does that work?

Thanks for the example, StreetWise. I was hoping for more than one.

As for the $500 hammers, I well remember reading about that in the reputable press, but I'll admit that was twenty years ago. And that was not my point anyway. My point was that, while our good freind FF was apearing to dump holy water on the defense crowd, I wanted to point out that they too are not perfect. And they have the same problems as any other large bureacracy; mannagement inertia.

As to the bit about NASA, I meant that I would fire only the top guy. He/she made the ultimate decision to go in both cases. Though it is true that they got their engineers to go along with them. It is also true that they brow beat them mercilessly to get them to change their minds.

I would NOT try to reinvent NASA, but merely try to get their mannagement style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people. The guy (or gal) next in line would be promoted 'battlefield style' to the top spot just after seeing his/her boss go down publicly in flames.

Hopefully, the message would be clear: delay is ok and astronaut death (due to stupid decisions on mannagement's part) = career death.

I hope I've made myself more clear.

Bob

SheetWise

05-30-2006, 10:01 PM

You're more clear. We may have some disagreement about what constitutes the "reputable press" -- which I don't believe has ever been a part of the mainstream press -- but the mainstream press has certainly reported and repeated your statements for years (after they knew them to be false).

On your main (and more important) point I think it's important to recognize that NASA has become a PR tool for politicians -- to a large degree as a result of their successes. This puts the director in a position where the "bang" gets the "buck" -- that's a sad development that can only be tied to failures of American education. That people can be so ignorant of NASA's role in American tech that politicians feel comfortable browbeating them tells a lot.

We earmark a percentage of all federal expenditures for art -- yet science has to fight for funding and show results. That's dumb. We need to de-politicize science.

So, I agree with your statement "... merely try to get their management style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people". How will it get done? Educate the American people and quit electing ******.

Guillermo

05-30-2006, 10:19 PM

.... We need to de-politicize science....
Yes. And this thread. :)

SheetWise

05-30-2006, 10:54 PM

De-politicize propulsion for ships? I agree. But as far as energy and the science to make it viable goes -- impossible.
;)

FAST FRED

05-31-2006, 05:47 AM

De-politicize propulsion for ships? I agree

Hardly possible as the dead hand of governments sets the rules for almost everything that floats.

The latest "air polution" rules for ships (Tier 2) determines which engines mfg are "allowed" to produce.

On one end is vessel operators that want economy , the other side is pandering politicos that want "clean", but never are satisfied with "clean", .

With the introduction of the US 07 trucks the air leaving the exhaust is cleaner than that going in the intake , but MORE rules are on the horizon for "cleaner".

At a 15% fuel penalty on EVERY vehicle in the US, for "clean" ,the politicos have no problem destroying operators livings , and are ready to MANDATE , more "clean".

If only we elected politicos that have ever worked for a living , it would be a huge help!

FAST FRED

SeaSpark

05-31-2006, 06:15 AM

Guillermo,

Do you have any information about the Vigo conference for us?
After your announcement i became very curious about what professionals working in the fishing industry have to say about this subject.

Guillermo

05-31-2006, 06:32 AM

An interesting site showing several new engines, some of them exciting:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Engines/index.html

More about alternative energies for fishing fleets:
Last May 25 we held a conference on this subject at Vigo, organized by the NA & ME Association of Galicia. We discussed the several possible alternatives and what is already being done to test them. I've writen some conclusions (to be presented to the fishing authorities) I have to translate into english and then post them here, whenever I find time.

For the time being, just to inform about a Fishermen Association in Celeiro, a tiny fishing village in Galicia's north coast, who is leading a searching program for the best solutions aplicable to small fishing vessels. Their project is called "Peixe Verde" (Green fish) and they are using "Santiago Apóstolo", an old long-liner, as a test bench. They will try the following: LNG, LPG, H2, solar & eolic. More info at: http://www.peixeverde.org/peixe_org_eng/index.htm

A "Spanish Technological Sub-Platform for ENERGY AND FISHING" is being created in Spain at this moment, within the global "Maritime Technological Platform" (http://ptmaritima.org/index.htm). Let's hope something useful comes out of all this....

Guillermo

05-31-2006, 04:37 PM

I've found this one quite interesting
http://pesn.com/2005/08/02/9600142_IAUS_Solar/

SheetWise

05-31-2006, 05:24 PM

Guillermo --

Were you thinking extension cords or a transoceanic trolley?
;)

Kiteship

05-31-2006, 10:10 PM

I would NOT try to reinvent NASA, but merely try to get their mannagement style and substance more in line with the reasonable expectations of myself as well as those of the American people. The guy (or gal) next in line would be promoted 'battlefield style' to the top spot just after seeing his/her boss go down publicly in flames.

Hopefully, the message would be clear: delay is ok and astronaut death (due to stupid decisions on mannagement's part) = career death.

I hope I've made myself more clear.

Bob

Forgive me for disagreeing and of course this is getting far afield from the original thread, but this is a pet peeve of mine:

The US' current policy of "zero" deaths in its space program is so silly it's sublime. The history of flight is rife with bold heros losing their lives to advance the science and engineering of the subject. We wouldn't have modern airliners if earlier "politicians" had said, "Hey, those things are killing people. Stop in immediately or you're fired!"

Everything you do has danger associated with it. From taking your morning shower to driving to work to walking across the stree to your car after an after-work cocktail--let alone the cocktail itself--you take your life in your hands nearly every waking minute. It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store. Why then do we make silly statements like "dead astronaut = career death"? And we wonder why our best and brightest *don't* work at NASA?

Every fisherman who leaves the shore; every yachtsman who crosses an ocean; every soccer mom who belts her most precious possessions into the back of the family minivan, knows they may not come home tonight. Trust me, our astronauts are willing to take similar risks.

Attitudes such as those you state are strangling the US'--and the world's--ability to move science forward. (No personal offense meant, please. I decry the statements you make--which were likely originally promulgated by someone else--not you personally)

Dave

sharpii2

06-01-2006, 03:43 AM

Forgive me for disagreeing and of course this is getting far afield from the original thread, but this is a pet peeve of mine:

The US' current policy of "zero" deaths in its space program is so silly it's sublime. The history of flight is rife with bold heros losing their lives to advance the science and engineering of the subject. We wouldn't have modern airliners if earlier "politicians" had said, "Hey, those things are killing people. Stop in immediately or you're fired!"

Everything you do has danger associated with it. From taking your morning shower to driving to work to walking across the stree to your car after an after-work cocktail--let alone the cocktail itself--you take your life in your hands nearly every waking minute. It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store. Why then do we make silly statements like "dead astronaut = career death"? And we wonder why our best and brightest *don't* work at NASA?

Every fisherman who leaves the shore; every yachtsman who crosses an ocean; every soccer mom who belts her most precious possessions into the back of the family minivan, knows they may not come home tonight. Trust me, our astronauts are willing to take similar risks.

Attitudes such as those you state are strangling the US'--and the world's--ability to move science forward. (No personal offense meant, please. I decry the statements you make--which were likely originally promulgated by someone else--not you personally)

Dave

Dear Dave:

I do believe that there is a difference between calculated risks and blind stupidity. Don't you. If the pioneer aviators had acted as stupidly as some of these top NASA bureaucrats, we probably wouldn't have airplanes now either. There would be no one left to fly 'em or, more importantly, teach others how to fly them. I don't believe any of these guys or gals ever took off in an airplane knowing it was almost certainly going to have a fatal crash.
There may have been a high likely hood of that happening due to unforseen engineering short falls, but they were almost certainly confident that the risk was relatively small.

I don't think the same could be said about Challenger's launch and Columbia's reentry. In each case there was glaring evidence that there was something seriously wrong. And such evidence was most emphatically pointed out to the decision making bureaucrats at the time, but, still, said bureacrats, do to political expediency or God knows what else, decided to go ahead anyway.

In private pilot circles they have a saying:

"There are bold pilots and there are old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots."

To that I would add:

"...but there are plenty of stupid bureacrats to get even the old pilots killed...If doing so might get them a promotion."

Bob

Wellydeckhand

06-01-2006, 03:52 AM

Let get back to propulsion gentlement..... or else I will be building boats with these.........

marshmat

06-01-2006, 08:54 AM

It remains statistically far safer to fly in a Space Shuttle than it is to drive to the corner store.
I don't like seeing politics here but I think it's necessary to correct this statistic.
The probability of losing a shuttle orbiter with all crew is approximately 1.7 % on any given flight. (Two shuttles have been lost in ~114 flights.) This is in a total of ~1040 days of flying. So a loss of seven crew every 520 days of flight time, on average.
The probability of an incident in your car depends mostly on your driving skill. But driver error aside, the probability of a mechanical failure in your car causing seven deaths is a lot less than once in 520 days. Say you drive 2 hours a day, every day- the car-crash equivalent to the Shuttle's track record would thus be your car killing 7 people once in 17 years. Do the math.
Keep in mind that roughly 9 in 10 car crashes are due to a bad decision on the part of one or more drivers and not to failure of the vehicle itself. Driver error is not a factor in spaceflight as all spacecraft are fully automated, or very nearly so, during launch and reentry.

marshmat

06-01-2006, 09:02 AM

The latest "air polution" rules for ships (Tier 2) determines which engines mfg are "allowed" to produce.

On one end is vessel operators that want economy , the other side is pandering politicos that want "clean", but never are satisfied with "clean", .

With the introduction of the US 07 trucks the air leaving the exhaust is cleaner than that going in the intake , but MORE rules are on the horizon for "cleaner".

The best way to clean up the exhaust of an engine is to make it burn less fuel. Thus making it more economical to run as well.
Ask any trucker whether they prefer a 2006 CAT electronic diesel over the 1976 version. I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they much prefer the lower fuel costs, cleaner operation and good cold-and-idling ability of the new motor.
Yes, there are some very impressive clean-burning engines out there today. But should we let that stop us from making them even better? No! The transition to fully renewable energy is well underway- not fast enough to avoid all energy supply problems, but there is definitely a lot of progress being made. And history has shown that progress in such areas is fastest when there are nation- and world-wide incentives and targets for industry to strive towards.

Vega

06-03-2006, 07:55 PM

The transition to fully renewable energy is well underway- not fast enough to avoid all energy supply problems, but there is definitely a lot of progress being made. And history has shown that progress in such areas is fastest when there are nation- and world-wide incentives and targets for industry to strive towards.

I've found this interesting information about the use of ferrofluids to generate energy from the ocean's waves....

Here in Peniche, Portugal , in the local shipyard, they are finishing wave engines that will form the first energy park, producing energy from sea waves.

Corresponding to an investment of 8.4 millions of euros the wave energy park will be installed this summer in Póvoa do Varzim .

Peniche authorities are also interested in having one of those systems here.

The Finish have been here looking at it and have already showed interest in utilizing this technology in their country.

http://www.oceanpd.com/Anims/pelamis_V4.html
http://www.oceanpd.com/Links/videos.html
http://www.wave-energy-centre.org/pagesp/03_ENERSIS.ppt#14
http://www.wave-energy.net/index3.htm
http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html
http://dn.sapo.pt/2006/05/12/economia/enersis_instala_primeiro_parque_onda.html

Guillermo

06-04-2006, 05:27 AM

... the wave energy park will be installed this summer in Póvoa do Varzim ....
Thanks for the info Paulo. Although I'm not an expert in waves energy production I had the opportunity to have a closer look at it last year, as I was visited by an spanish company developing a new system looking for advise on anchoring and floatation problems. Searching for info I came to knew about the Pelamis and the Portuguese location. Most interesting. We could even think of 'snake ships' carrying bulk materials one continent to another just taking energy from waves...:idea:

Guillermo

06-12-2006, 10:08 AM

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

GREEN PAPER
Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas
"....European coastal waters posses many opportunities for offshore renewable energy installations. Offshore wind, ocean currents, waves and tidal movements carry a vast amount of energy. Commission projections are that wind power could generate 70,000 MW by 2010, including 14,000 MW offshore. Other emerging technologies include wave energy devices and tidal current turbines that can be deployed on the shoreline and offshore. In all these cases, competition with other users of coastal waters such as shipping or fisheries is possible, while the needs of the local population have to be respected. This will increase the need for spatial planning as called for in Chapter IV.
As easily accessible offshore oil and gas resources get depleted and producers start considering less accessible reserves, such as the deep sea, a number of questions arise: what could be done to facilitate exploitation of such resources without compromising environmental and economic concerns, what new technologies are necessary to reach such resources and what innovative business models and regulations would be appropriate in this context?
Energy consumption in the transport sector experiences the fastest growth in the EU, but there is potential for energy savings. First, a shift from road transport to shipping can contribute to these savings, because of the relatively low energy consumption of shipping per ton of goods transported. Secondly, shipping could contribute to energy efficiency gains, e.g. through the use of wind and solar energy and biofuels.
Another emerging area is methane hydrates. The present estimate of this resource is around 10,000 Gt carbon equivalent, which amounts to as much as all other fossil fuel resources combined. This form of energy could help diversify sources of supply and releases less CO2 into the atmosphere than oil or coal per unit of energy obtained. Its exploitation, however, presents major technical challenges in terms of collection, conditioning, transport and conversion to commercial methane gas.
Europe is leading the search for methane hydrates and research into the risks and consequences of their accidental release, which could seriously contribute to the greenhouse effect.The sea transport of energy, by pipelines or tankers, creates both economic opportunities and raises concerns from the perspective of safety and potential environmental impacts of accidents. These could be addressed in guidelines for a dedicated Trans-European Network (TEN) for hydrocarbons, covering all infrastructure elements...."

From the Waterborne Technical Platform:
"...Deep sea, short sea and inland waterway, the three areas of activities of waterborne transport cover a multitude of types of markets requiring dedicated ships, landside infrastructures, supporting operational services and systems, as well as maintenance of vehicles and equipment.
A non-exhaustive summary of types of ships and services includes: large volume dry bulk; liquid bulk and gas, conventional cargo, containerised cargo, specialised cargos (e.g. temperature controlled and heavy lift), passenger ro-ro ferry, ro-ro cargo ferries, passenger ferries and cruise ships, short sea shipping, sea river shipping, to-wage, icebreaking, dredging and infrastructure support, offshore supply and so on. The demand for quality ships and installations throughout their entire life cycle is involving designers, yards, equipment manufacturers and other suppliers."

More at: http://www.waterborne-tp.org/

Guillermo

06-12-2006, 11:42 AM

I have had not time, neither the patience, to translate the conclusions document on the Vigo conference on new propulsion systems for fishing vessels.

Just not to make the wait any longer, here some of the ideas I got:

- The energy problem in the fishing sector is particularly concerning, because it has more difficulties to transmit the increases in costs towards the customers.
- The fishing fleets are very different in size and fishing methods, this making energy and propulsion requirements very variable.
- Fishing fleets tipology and available solutions have to be well studied (is already being done) before going into the choosing and applying of such solutions.
- An horizon of at least 3 years is needed to the better understanding of the problem.
- Several entities and authorities are commited to this studies at this moment in Spain. A better coordination is needed not to duplicate efforts, although the process of getting EU fundings (R+D+i) stablishes by itself a filter to that end.
- In all investigation programs the fishing vessels' owners associations have to be (and are) deeply involved from the very beginning.
- The adoption of alternative energies and propulsion systems has not a simple or unique solution.
- There are not 'magical' recipes, able to globally solve the problem at this moment.
- Some alternative energies are already under study, as is the case of LPG and LNG in Puerto Celeiro.
- Future seems to be not so dark, because the high oil prices and enviromental concerns are bringing a very wide array of possible solutions developed the world around.
- But this same wide array brings complexity to the finding of the proper solutions, from the point of view of technical and economical feasibility.

Some actions:

- The adoption, in the short term, of heavy fuels to substitute diesel-oil (50% cheaper), may be only feasible for a very short number of the biggest fishing vessels, requires big investments, and seems not to be the way to go, due to the enviromental issues.
- Diesel-electric may already bring interesting fuel savings, depending on the types of vessels, and is specially interesting for fleets to which this system also brings the added values of less vibrations and noises and better propulsion control, relevant to more efficient fishing operations (tuna, etc). It seems also very desirable from the point of view of the crews' working conditions for all kind of vessels, reducing stress. Payback of the extra investment costs is around 4-5 years for a well supported decission.
- A program to develope more efficient propellers and improving the efficiency of actual old engines for existing fleets is under development, under the 'Superprop' project.
- Authomated Kites, with easy button control not only for sailing but also for the releasing-recovering maneouvres, seem to be a very interesting inmediate alternative for certain fisheries. Prototypes should be tested in operating conditions as soon as possible.
- More efficient hull forms have to be encouraged, abandoning the tendency to bulky forms actually used in some of the cramped coastal fishing boats. This has to be carefully evaluated, as length (the main parameter to consider) is the most expensive, from the point of view of construction.
- As said before, LPG and LNG are already being tested as alternative fuels for existing units.
- Bios do not seem to be a short term solution, due to the high price (yet) and low availability (low production).
- Fuel Cells and other systems seem to be too far away in the horizon.

FAST FRED

06-13-2006, 05:37 AM

"First, a shift from road transport to shipping can contribute to these savings, because of the relatively low energy consumption of shipping per ton of goods transported."

The problem here is the companys use of "just in time" supply chain.

As the tax extractors frequently tax inventory , the companys response is to have NONE.

So parts get unloaded from a truck , and get used almost instantly .The factorys output is shipped hourly , or at least daily.

A boat delivery system is usually 10X slower than a truck , many times 30X , so warehouses would need to be rebuilt , and the price of anything would go up as the TAX EXTRACTORS would get a shot at the inventory, as well as the added staff , and handeling.

Using the cheapest delivery system may not be the efficent way to compete .

FAST FRED

SeaSpark

06-13-2006, 06:10 AM

Guillermo

06-24-2006, 07:37 PM

One of the presentations in Vigo was the european project SUPERPROP for fishing and tug boats, aiming to reduce fuel compsumption in existing units by means of systematic updating of the propulsive (propeller and stern area) system to the new optimum working point.

More info at: http://canal.etsin.upm.es/superprop/projectdescription.htm

Guillermo

06-24-2006, 07:48 PM

Interesting paper on ducted propulsors with stereeable outflow using smart materials technology:
http://www.continuum-dynamics.com/research/topics/variable_geometry_ducted_prop/smartductpaper.pdf
Also usable for hydrofoils....

Kiteship

06-24-2006, 08:28 PM

I don't like seeing politics here but I think it's necessary to correct this statistic.
The probability of losing a shuttle orbiter with all crew is approximately 1.7 % on any given flight. (Two shuttles have been lost in ~114 flights.) This is in a total of ~1040 days of flying. So a loss of seven crew every 520 days of flight time, on average.
The probability of an incident in your car depends mostly on your driving skill. But driver error aside, the probability of a mechanical failure in your car causing seven deaths is a lot less than once in 520 days. Say you drive 2 hours a day, every day- the car-crash equivalent to the Shuttle's track record would thus be your car killing 7 people once in 17 years. Do the math.
Keep in mind that roughly 9 in 10 car crashes are due to a bad decision on the part of one or more drivers and not to failure of the vehicle itself. Driver error is not a factor in spaceflight as all spacecraft are fully automated, or very nearly so, during launch and reentry.

Ah then. You are playing Fun With Statistics. It's one of my favorite games, and is best played with tiny data sets. Re; the space shuttle, the first what, 80 flights were flawless, leading us to conclude that the loss probability is zero--always a good number, and far, far safer than driving. ;-)

Compare all the people killed in the US space program with all the people killed in the US Air Force program (exclude combat), adjust for time (no manned space flight <1949 or so) adjust again for total personnel involved in both industries. Adjust for total miles travelled if you wish. ;-) Be sure to include all training deaths, all test flight deaths, all deaths (and injuries) from civilian contractors supporting both industries.

Now, please tell me which is safer? And which gets the bad rap?

Dave

SeaSpark

06-24-2006, 08:30 PM

Kiteship

06-24-2006, 09:01 PM

Nice to hear the people in the Vigo conference consider kite power a serious alternative.

Kite power is one of the fields were huge improvements can be made on a relatively low budget. Thinking about automated kite systems the name Robosail popped up http://www.robosail.com/ . Many of the systems needed to build an automated kite are already present on the boat they have build. Software could be adapted to handle a kite instead of sails (or both perhaps on a yacht).

Seriously think people developing a automated kite should contact this firm.

We have followed Robosail for many years and think their expertrise is great. As with many new technologies, their plans outstrip their accomplishments, but they are very smart people and I wish them well. If they can develop systems appropriate, we will certainly employ their technology--or others much like it.

Flying kites under computer control does not require any new technological breakthroughs--it is more a matter of "industrializing" control systems already very advanced for modern UAVs, winching systems already far advanced for the fishing and cargo handling businesses, etc. The real challenges are in building such systems simple, robust, inexpensive--and completely safe.

In the meantime we have been developing statistics for kite power, compared to other forms of power generation--including land-based things like wind and solar, but more importantly, compared to shipboard power generation. We find that we can generate power--expressed as thrust over time applied to the ship (in other words, after all propeller and other efficiency losses in conventional ships, expressed as KwH), including all costs of purchase, maintenance, crew load and cost of money, at between 70-80% less than current fuel-fired solutions. We also see installation costs, on a per-kilowatt basis, often 90% lower than wind or solar on land, and 30-50% or more lower than marine diesels--who's cost of producing each kilowatt of thrust is simultaneously the highest of all--often more than $0.25/kw.

These savings are due to two things: Sailing's inherently higher efficiency over other forms of alternate energy (there is no efficiency robbing conversion of energy with sails--we apply the momentum of wind directly to the momentum of the ship), and to kite's extremely simple retrofit (and new build) capabilities. Taken together, they mean we can use smaller, simpler installs, with faster payback ratios--sometimes much faster. I don't need to point out, I suppose, that other forms of alternative energy production are largely unusable aboard ship--it's theoretically possible to mount a wind turbine on a ship--or a deckload of solar panels--but no one is seriously considering either of these. Wave power is certainly possible, but we have yet to even see projections for production costs aboard ship, let alone pilot systems.

This leaves aside, of course, all the environmental reasons to consider shutting down (or reducing revs) on marine engines wherever possible.

Regarding Fast Fred's comments on shipping costs and time-in-transit. I fully agree. And yet, shippers *are* shifting from trucks to ships, and the trend is expected to continue.

Cheers,

Dave
www.kiteship.com

SeaSpark

06-24-2006, 09:58 PM

Kiteship

06-24-2006, 11:50 PM

Dave,

Congaratulations with your new site. It really stands out, the clear graphic design has managed to display lots of information in one page. The marketing language may be a bit strong to European taste but think it will suit the American market.

The availability of a kiteship thong hopefully is a sign of short term market acceptance of kites for ship propulsion.

Robosail has lots of experience in developing software for controlling a yacht at sea. They have done much of their work in colaboration with universities. Perhaps they can help cutting the costs of developing software for kite specific use. Especially when universities from more than one country collaborate funding research in this area should not be a big problem.

All you say is true, Spark; I will speak with the Robosail guys. Thanks for the kudos. The thong has a story (don't these things always?): A yachting customer was bragging to his wife that our product worked so well, he'd like to advertise it. She said something to the effect, "Yeah, how are you going to do that? Buy a billboard? More like a thong, maybe." So, in all sincerity, they asked me to provide a thong with advertising on it--thinking such a thing impossible, of course. Well, I live in California, where *nothing* is impossible, so I sent one the next day.

Frankly, I forgot it is still on the Cafepress page... Should I leave it there? ;-)

Dave

Kiteship

06-24-2006, 11:55 PM

Great find Guillermo!

Have been thinking about smart or "morphing" material applications in boatbuilding for a long time. This is the first practical (if we can call it practical in this stage of development) application i have seen.

See my "morphing foil" concept thread:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11497&highlight=morphing

I know it was a kind of daft idea, posted it to make people think more about these materials.
Morphing wings are already becoming a reality in military aircraft. Plus, these are relatively easy to do, with inflated wings. For that matter, kites are beginning to use morphing wings, which change not only their AoA but also their profile, at various places along their span, under the pilot's control. By using sophisticated bridles, much is possible.

For that matter, wasn't the Wright Brothers' wing-warping scheme a form of wing morphing?

Kiteship

06-25-2006, 12:14 AM

- Authomated Kites, with easy button control not only for sailing but also for the releasing-recovering maneouvres, seem to be a very interesting inmediate alternative for certain fisheries. Prototypes should be tested in operating conditions as soon as possible.
- More efficient hull forms have to be encouraged, abandoning the tendency to bulky forms actually used in some of the cramped coastal fishing boats. This has to be carefully evaluated, as length (the main parameter to consider) is the most expensive, from the point of view of construction.

Very exciting to hear that kites are being seriously considered, Guillermo. Can you direct me to a URL where I can direct investors? What else can I offer to do? I would love to become involved in your operation. Please contact me or my CEO, Jeremy Walker about this: jeremy@kiteship.com

Many years ago I worked in the offshore albacore jigging fishery. We competed mainly against Japanese boats, in the mid-Pacific. These boats were 30-50% longer than ours, used smaller midship sections, very similar power and were 20-30% faster than we (which translates either as faster to market--or considerably better fuel mileage). They also were a bit heavier, meaning they could carry both more fuel and more fish than we could. We spoke to several skippers, and these boats were only a very little bit more expensive to build than ours--about the same proportion as their increased displacement. (Think about it; if they could use similar power, and were simuilar displacement, the difference is only a bit of steel)

So I guess I don't understand your statement about length being a major issue in construction? Length is expensive when paying for slip space, but if the boat is moored, or docked stern-to, this is not an issue. Even if it were more expensive, in this day and age, an increase in fuel mileage of 20-30% pays for a lot of dock space, methinks...

I have long wondered about American (and European) fishboat hull design. Hulls seem to be maximized for the shortest length possible. Good idea, 20-30 years ago. Today, fuel efficiency and engine size seem so much more important.

(And, yes, a "slipperier" hull is better for kites, too!)

Dave

Guillermo

06-25-2006, 06:36 PM

From the other thread:
The first application of morphing materials could be in the aft sections of a conventional hull....The hull shape could be optimized for upwind/downwind performance or for displacement/planing mode. The last could also work for power boats...
I think boating future will evolve this way, not only for propulsion purposes, but also for may others, as varying form stability when needed, etc. Exciting idea.

..I don't understand your statement about length being a major issue in construction..
It's a general statement which may be not true for some particular cases, but you know....Generally speaking, for an specific fishing ship project, increasing beam or draught uses to be less expensive than increasing length; first of all because increases in beam or draft use to be small compared with length increases. That's one of the reasons why certain fishing vessels became fuller and shorter these last decades. Power was cheap! But, as you say, with actual fuel prices, tendency may invert and slenderer hulls are becoming to be considered again.

...Very exciting to hear that kites are being seriously considered..
Guys from SkySails seem to be quite advanced in the solving of launch-recovery problems, as well as kite flight controlling. I've had the opportunity to see some most interesting info from their very last tests on a 50 m long vessel.
They even went already into commercial applications. See their News (http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=64&L=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=15&tx_ttnews[backPid]=6&cHash=cb61135633)

FAST FRED

06-27-2006, 06:09 AM

" Re; the space shuttle, the first what, 80 flights were flawless,"

This was because the during first flights the foam covering the cold liquid fuel tank was insulated with foam that used FREON,

When NASA was forced to become PC and abondon freon as a blowing agent the foam became a sponge for frozen condensate .

Foam seperation did not cause those deaths , PC hunks of ice crashing at speed did.

But at least they died "saving the world" from freon.

The "Greens" should ALL be so privleged,

FAST FRED

Kiteship

06-27-2006, 01:44 PM

You're showing your politics, Fast--but I still got a chuckle out of your post. Too right. NASA should be a military org, subject to military rights and requirements, and not a civilian entity, subject to that quite different set of metrics. IMHO. Right on, brother!

sigurd

07-04-2006, 11:00 AM

Guillermo

07-04-2006, 01:34 PM

Scifi
Would be nice to fill the tanks in the middle of the ocean from wavefarms?
Kite wind farms?
Is it probable we will see fleets of fast cargo ships, 30-40kt?
And surface effect planes?
When the wind is favorable it could become feasible to recharge a kite hybrid ship with water turbines - assuming that the kite was generating more than useful thrust at some times?
Interesting questions. Maybe not so Scifi, after all.

Here you have a floating wind farm idea that could work as a wandering 'gas station' for ships:
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=be4bdf1f-041b-44f5-bc4f-aa653124a093

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory has done a preliminary evaluation of floating platform wind farms, and concluded that they would be able to produce power for as little as $0.05/kWh:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34874.pdf

There's even a new concept of wind turbine, said to be more efficient than conventional ones:
http://opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=99b82ae5-287f-4bb4-868d-2a44417a564b
Could it be used as propulsion for an hybrid ship? Maybe Cousteau should try again with a new Alcyone?

Here's an interesting paper on Waves Offshore Farms:
http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Wave.pdf

And here Savitsky's report on fast monohull ships, where some considerations are made on a 50-knot displacement hull:
http://www.sname.org/newsletter/Savitskyreport.pdf

Finally, some surface (water) effect planes: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4346/S90.htm

Cheers

Kiteship

07-04-2006, 02:57 PM

Heh, heh! I was going to caution Sigurd on what he terms "scifi," but you have beaten me to the punch, Guillermo. Remember, things from nuclear power to putting men on the moon started out as scifi. As were sub-80 day circumnavigations!

(You must have a vast bookmarks folder, Guillermo! Would you consider sharing it?)

While I am bullish on wind power, it's been my observation that economics have yet to catch predictions; while it is possible for wind power to break the 'magic' nickel/Kw barrier, currrent commercial output isn't there yet--let alone after adding the additional steps of dissociating water, storing and transporting hydrogen, and converting it back into thrust on the ship. Closer to 30-40 cents/kw more closely reflects current capability--which, however, isn't all that far from commercial parity, compared with other forms of energy generated at sea.

(Need I point out that sailing--direct conversion of wind's momentum to ships' momentum--actually is capable of the magic nickel/Kw, now? The number is "magic" because it is the necessary threshold to attract investment capital)

As to WIGE craft; I hear--from aeronautical engineers--everything from it being a savior to a hoax; the best input I've heard is that a big WIGE plane might save half the fuel/hour a 747 uses--while travelling at 1/6 the velocity. 3 times more expensive than current airfreight, in other words. (think about it; a 747 flies in very thin air, at an indicated airspeed of about 350 kts--but an over-ground speed nearer 600 kts. A WIGE flies in very thick air--at circa-100 kt speeds.)

Last, fast ships are certainly possible (military vessels have had circa-50 kt capability for decades), but again the economic model is incomplete--a 50 kt ship requires 4-6 times the horsepower of a 25 kt cargo ship--and thus 4-6 times the operating costs (from fuel to amortization of equipment), and a whopping 10 times the horsepower of a 16 kt bulker/tanker. A market for this class of cost/delivery time has yet to be demonstrated. Such a ship is much slower than jets, yet much more expensive than current surface shipping.

We have investigated this at some length. It is--just--possible to envision large sailing craft capable of 50 kt speeds--with no fuel costs at all. Even with the huge power-generating budgets suggested, beyond the gee-whiz factor, we have yet to find an economic model which is viable.

sigh,

Dave

Guillermo

07-06-2006, 04:35 PM

More on fast cargo monohulls:
http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/innovativeshipdesign.html
(Referred by Stephen Ditmore in other thread)

Kiteship

07-06-2006, 06:51 PM

More on fast cargo monohulls:
http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/innovativeshipdesign.html
(Referred by Stephen Ditmore in other thread)
Thanks, Guillermo.

So, here we use 335,000 hp to move 10,000 net tons at "up to" 38 kts. This equals about 1000 tons/day of (in this case) $600/ton diesel fuel for her gas turbines (I'm assuming they can burn the cheaper diesel, rather than jet fuel)

They are suggesting a 100-hour crossing, meaning about 4000 tons of diesel or $2.4 million, one way, for each 10,000 ton trip, for fuel alone (that's 40% of the cargo's weight). By comparison, a 10,000 ton tanker, steaming at 18 kts, might need 8-9000 hp, burning about 24 tons of $300 HFO/day. Presuming this ship takes twice as long to cross (8 days instead of 4), she'll burn a total of 192 tons of fuel, or about $58,000, total, for fuel. That's a 40:1 differential, to reduce transit time from 8 days to 4. And that's just for the fuel. (Remember that a 747 makes the crossing in 5 *hours*; can thus make 5-8 round trips (10-16 flight segments) in 4 days.)

As you might imagine, the fuel is only a small part of such a vessel; imagine the cost differential between a single 8000 hp diesel engine and the 5 big gas turbines, each making 67,000 hp, and think about the amortization cost for each ship. Think about the construction cost, first of a 600' long, 18 kt cargo ship, and then of a 900' long 38 kt highly-stressed "giant speedboat". And remember they each carry the same amount of cargo--10,000 tons. FWIW, modern big container ships carry around 70,000-90,000 tons of cargo, and routinely steam at ~24 kts, on around 60-90,000 hp.

The most revolutionary thing I see on the Fastship website is the specialized cargo handling equipment and procedures they propose. IF this is possible (this company can't be the first who've ever tried specialized handling), the savings in trans-shipping and actual door-to-door delivery time could indeed be revolutionary. This part, though, has nothing to do with ships or ship technology.

Sorry to be a naysayer, but in these days of *reducing* petroleum usage, profligate increases in same seem to be contraindicated.

Dave

(I wonder why these several high speed ship concepts consider only monohulls. 38-40 kts is prime multihull territory, and 10,000 tones is certainly doable. A data point: The big G-class cats and tris do 40+ kts gathering on the order of 600-1000 hp from their rigs. They gross about 12-16 tons. Anybody want to run Luzakas' VPP on say, a 600' proa weighting 20,000 tons and see what horsepower is indicated at these speeds? I bet it's a much lower figure than 335,000)

D.

Stephen Ditmore

07-07-2006, 09:19 AM

I'm also not convinced the FastShip freighter is a good economic proposition. But I think the research into semi-displacement hull design could help motor yachts that routinely operate at semi-displacement speed/length ratios (a.k.a. Froude numbers) to do so more efficiently.

The freighter's lines are published in David Giles' patents. Since Giles only claims vessels over 200 feet in his patents, anyone designing a boat less than 200 feet is free to use the lines. I only caution that the beam for smaller scale versions should be checked against http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12440.

Guillermo: Are the European monohull fast ferries similar to the FastShip hull, or do you see differences?

[Note: this discussion is related to http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12512]

Guillermo

07-09-2006, 01:17 AM

I think main reason for the FastShip project is:
"....to meet the needs of high value, time-sensitive cargo, the fastest growing segment of the market."...."The stark choices between air and ocean freight create dilemma for global supply chain managers."

So It seems they do not want to compete with actual container ships, much more fuel efficient, economic to build and load-able for the same size, absolutely, but with air cargo.

Something has to make sense with this idea, when there are reputable organizations both sides of the Atlantic seeming to be available to throw $175+ millions into it, for a 3 ships program and two terminals....Let's wait and see.

Some years ago, here in Spain a fast monohull ferry concept was developed (The Alhambra series), within the EU "Marco Polo" program, but with road cargo competition in mind. See: http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/navalarchitect/izar_jan03.pdf
As far as I know, those were deep V hulls, not semiplanning.

Have a look at these interesting papers on the design of a Deep V hull form with a bulbous bow and a modified aft and transom stern, for operation at Froude numbers between 0.2 and 0.388:
http://www.friendship-systems.com/getDocument.php?file=Optimization/HPMV2005-KohEtAl.pdf
http://www.marsys.tu-berlin.de/getDocument.php?file=ParametrischerEntwurf/Compit/2003_FromRedesignToOptimalHullLines.pdf

Here more general info on the FANTASTIC European project:
http://www.ec-nantes.fr/sirehna/fantastic/PublicationsDocuments/Nav03_Fantastic.pdf

Here the MARCO POLO program:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm

Cheers