Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors
  #136  
Old 09-08-2010, 06:55 AM
DennisRB's Avatar
DennisRB DennisRB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Rep: 228 Posts: 1,224
Location: Brisbane
Stephen has been so kind as to supply an article about is rotor boat that I linked a few pages ago. The small one with the tapered rotor. I hope this answers some of your questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Thorpe View Post
I have written this article to introduce my rotor boat, which has sailed a score of times over the last two summers off Seaford in Sussex. I hope you'll look at my very basic website, www.rotorboat.com , which is designed for the uninitiated reader but which will provide a more graphic sense of what follows.

I should point out three things immediately: one is that I cannot yet provide the scientific data that many readers will crave–graphs of lift against wind speed, L/D ratio at different rotor speeds, etc. I hope these will follow, of course, and I'm working on the means of providing them. Another thing is that the rotor uses an electric motor to spin it. Readers for whom such a revelation is anathema should fling the paper down right now. A third point to make right away is that a rotor boat is built for comfort not for speed. In other words, this project is not aimed towards developing fast boats, but bigger boats for unskilled, lazy and impecunious people like me.

I suspect most readers of this article will already be familiar with the Flettner rotor in theory. A spinning cylinder entrains air to create a vortex. If that air has a flow relative to the rotor, the vortex will interact with that flow to speed it up on one side of the rotor and decelerate it on the other. The faster-moving side experiences a lower static pressure, the slower side a higher static pressure. In cross-section, the theoretical points at the cylinder surface that separate low and high static pressure regions—points at which the pressure remains at its freestream value, are called stagnation points. The rotor and whatever is attached to it will move from the higher pressure towards the lower. The phenomenon is generally referred to as the Robins effect or the Magnus effect. Simple to grasp in essence, the fluid dynamics involved are in fact extremely complex, such that this is still a large area of study with new research appearing continually. I am no academic, and the selection of papers I set myself to read in an attempt to bolster my instinctive confidence in the idea were so involved, equivocal, tentative, and for want of a better term, 'virtual' (they nearly all rely on pre-existing fluid dynamics software to create computer simulations) that I rather gave up looking at them. Not that their subject matter is not pertinent: the thickness of the vortical layer with different Reynold's numbers; the reduction in vortex shedding at different rotational ratios; re-circulation in the vortex detaching the stagnation point: these subjects define the problem, but for me it was quicker (and more fun) to do the real world experiment than to grapple with the theory.

Flettner gave his name to the rotor after a ship converted to his design was a success. Since then various patents relating to the idea have been filed—mostly elaborations without much stress on practicality, and since lapsed.

I became interested in the idea in blissful ignorance of this history. I expect readers will be able to point out rotor trials and projects I'm unaware of. I came to it from the perspective of flying rather than sailing. I felt that my idea merited investigation—even after learning that I was not the first but about the ten-millionth person to have that particular eureka moment—because I thought it would be more efficient than the Flettner rotor, which was short relative to its diameter and spun slowly. I saw a very strong, cantilever, tapering, high aspect ratio rotor, of a length less than the hull length, that spun fast.

Before moving on let me argue the advantages of my form. I always saw my rotor as a glider's wing, which is long and thin because high aspect ratio means less induced drag. The longer span you've got, the less tip loss can erode the lift which that span delivers. This is equally true of the rotor. Then, the longer the rotor the more it projects into faster moving air higher in the atmosphere's boundary layer. The smaller the diameter the less deck space is used. For any given rotor surface area, a smaller diameter means a smaller moment of inertia, and this is critical in minimising the power needed to run the system. The inertia and the induced drag arguments reinforced each other and made me set on a high aspect ratio. In practice, my doubts as to whether I could build the thing in the first place led to my initial effort being just 2.4 metres long, and the current rotor, that I consider the true prototype, being 3 metres long.


The hull is a homemade and regrettably crude glassfibre sandwich, made using a vacuum-bagging technique I'm still rather coy about, which I dreamed up to suit the purpose. I think the technique could be practised to turn out fine and economic results, but you wouldn't think so looking at my boat. It's 3.6 metres long and weighs about 40kg without the rig. Due to the core density of 80kg per cubic metre, the dinghy wouldn't sink even if full of holes. It also has a large sealed bow compartment and a stern seat of large volume to make the thing determined to float even if full of holes and people. It features a very strong ply bulkhead to provide a rigid mounting for the rotor drive assembly. That's all you need to know about the dinghy, which after all is neither here nor there in regards to the rotor concept. Oh, except that I built the centreboard trunk to allow the board to be slid back and forth to establish the best CLR in relation to CLE. This point is important to the rotor concept as a whole, and will be revisited.

The rotor itself is 3 metres long, with a root diameter of 300mm and a tip diameter of 150mm, giving an aspect ratio of 13.3. In essence it's just a sheath: a single-skinned carbon fibre sheath connected to a drive shaft by two carbon/foam sandwich discs, the lower of which incorporates an aluminium brake disc. A couple of extra carbon tow stiffeners and a thin plastic cap complete the rotor. The drive shaft is carbon. Excluding the rotating bearing elements and rotor element of the motor, the whole rotating mass is about 3kg, and the all important peripheral mass—the rotor sheath itself—is 2kg. The upper half of the rotor is watertight.

To turn this 2kg weight, on average 112.5mm from the axis of rotation, at over 500rpm, with the drag that entails on a 2 square metre surface area, I use a 12 volt electric motor 72mm long, diameter 63mm—smaller than a tin of beans or a coffee mug. This if nothing else should illustrate why this rotor is something to consider. By the way, the motor's not having to work hard to do this. The system as I've built it has the motor encased very tightly, with no assisted cooling, and it starts to struggle with high temperatures somewhere above a continuous 1,000 rpm. The motor is coupled directly to the drive shaft, and the whole sits in a rigid 2024T alloy tube with two hugely overspecified bearings keeping the lot where it should be. There is a sadly ineffective brake at the head of this tube. An aluminium frame clamps the tube and allows the whole rig to be mounted or demounted very quickly to the dinghy. The weight of this drive system, less the battery, is less than 10kg.

From the motor's controller a tough, watertight cable assembly is connected to the bulkhead, where two leads go to a 10kg battery in the watertight bow compartment, and other signal leads are passed via a conduit to the stern seat, to which the control box can be connected. Thus, I sit at the tiller with a small buoyant and watertight box that allows me to brake the rotor, control its speed and direction of rotation, and monitor battery voltage. It should allow me to read the rotor rpm too but I've never yet managed to make the gizmo work.

Launching from Seaford beach is a struggle. My sailing experience was nil before I made this boat, and often I haven't launched when the braver and very experienced folk of the sailing club have. The shingle is like ultra-coarse-grit sandpaper to the fully loaded hull; the wind most often close to directly onshore. Often help is required, and the people at the sailing club are very helpful at all times, even though I think some see the rotor as the devil's work. An advantage the rotor has over conventional rigs in this situation is that you have the rotor running before you leap aboard, so you should sail out of the danger zone instantly if your alacrity in getting the board down, and the beach break, allows.

I started sailing, in July 2004, with the board almost directly under the rotor. This put it very well forward, damping the steering. I have since sailed with it significantly further aft and the boat feels better. Unlike a conventional rig, one can determine the centre of effort, CE, of this rig with absolute accuracy at all times. On the face of it, sailing with the board where I had it this summer places the centre of lateral resistance, CLR, aft of the CE. This is traditionally bad news, but all I can say is that it certainly doesn't feel that way. I suspect that more things determine the CLR, including influences above water, than geometric considerations allow for.

As the reader knows, one reason that tradition requires a CLR forward of CE is so that a boat will round into wind if set free. If it broaches when sheeted hard it could blow over. At this angle of attack the sails are producing pretty much no lift and huge drag. The rotor boat conversely may well benefit from a fixed trim that brings it off the wind if the tiller is freed, because the rotor produces the same lift to drag ratio regardless of the track of the hull underneath it: a rotor boat tending out of wind will simply heel less and speed up, as the lift vector comes home. The greater danger for the rotor boat is inadvertently rounding into wind under full power, when the rotor will try to capsize the boat. However, the relationship of CLR to CE can be more accurately determined than that of a conventional sailing boat, so the designer can ensure that the boat will tend to do the docile thing. You would end up with a boat needing lee helm not weather helm in this case, with a consequent penalty in trim drag, but again I invoke the predictability of trim that can be designed into the vessel in comparison to the conventional sailboat whose helm changes with each point of sail. The trim could conveniently approach neutral, minimising trim drag. More than one rotor on a ship would allow accurate aerodynamic trimming.

What of performance? As I said, I would like to present polar curves and performance figures, but can't yet. Young people examining the boat on the beach have almost invariably labelled it "cool", but I always have to answer the inevitable young person's question, "is it fast?" in the negative. There is a clear and strong relationship between rotor speed and boat speed in any given wind, but the subtler question of which rotor speed is most efficient in terms of speed for power consumption in any given wind, is beyond me as yet.

I run the rotor at about twenty five watts most of the time because that's a realistic figure for a reasonably sized solar panel to provide, and it seems to be a sweet spot in terms of system vibration (the rather badly-balanced, homemade rotor hums at certain frequencies, and generates just a hiss from the bearings at others. In general terms it's very quiet). Twenty five watts equates to about 800rpm, and intriguingly, I've measured the power required for any given rpm decreasing in wind as opposed to still air. If this effect is felt over a large wind range it could be important. An unpleasant truth to face though is that the power requirement rises enormously relative to rotor speed. 2 amps provide about 800 rpm in still air, but 7amps are needed to deliver 1400 rpm. If this is a consequence of electric motor behaviour or bearing friction it may be mitigated, but if it's due to aerodynamic drag it could signal an inherent limit to the efficiency of the system on any scale.

If there is just one useful statistic, I suppose it would be, 'what wind is required at x watts to get hull speed' or a variation of the same equation. I cannot even answer this as yet. At about 25 watts the boat will achieve hull speed in a wind I believe to be in the upper half of force 4. Clearly this is spectacularly unimpressive compared to the Lasers, Darts, etc which whizz around my little prototype: I can only reiterate that we're not after the same things.

Furthermore, at this point vagueness possibly serves, because remember that the rotor I've made is a very rough prototype, which I was able to construct by gift of what was possible, not what was best. Given resource, I feel that a somewhat longer, much stiffer and better-balanced rotor could be made, of the same weight. A better-matched motor could be found to operate at its peak efficiency around the pertinent speed range. Importantly, more suitable bearings could make a big difference to power consumption: I've learned that bearing drag is the greatest power drain of the system, at least in the speed range I adhere to, and the bearings I'm using could carry a truck. I envisage an optimal performance significantly better than I am able to show currently. Even then however, what about scale effects? Greater Reynold's numbers, thinner vortical regions, more angular difference in flow direction from root to tip, different bearing losses and motor efficiencies—these and twenty other issues make predictions of a yacht's performance based on a dinghy's, less than clear to put it mildly.

A couple of final points to address are those of gyroscopic forces and windage. People often asked me before the boat sailed, 'won't the boat spin round the rotor?' Well it does, of course, but bearing in mind that the rotating mass is some 3kg, 0.113m from the axis, and this is opposed by a couple of hundred kilos maybe 2m from the axis, then you can see that the answer is "not much". Interestingly, what gyroscopic force there is on the hull (believe me, it's far too small to detect on the sea, even in no wind) acts towards the wind—in other words if it exists at any meaningful level it would reduce the lee helm required to keep the boat true if CLR is behind CE. Windage is a more serious concern., but my feeling is that the problem is not as bad as people tend to think. It sometimes seems to me that the rotor has hardly greater cross-sectional area than the aerofoil masts that modern racing yachts use: more importantly, it has nothing else. No boom, trees, stays etc that make up the average rig and must contribute plenty of windage. If the rotor is stationary a von Karman vortex street may develop in its lee. Although the device should at minimum be strong enough to laugh off any shaking this implies, it certainly wouldn't make for a comfortable motion at harbour. A couple of studies I've scanned seem to suggest that spinning the rotor at a speed too low to generate problematic lift would give enough energy to the boundary layer to reduce the wake significantly, and disrupt formation of organised vortex shedding. I look forward to being able to test this. If it's true, a band of flapping plates slung round the rotor to make it a kind of surrogate Savonius may suffice to create this low-rpm spin for free, and perhaps generate a trickle of charge current too—but then the windage increases and. . . . The initial design thoughts I've given to a yacht or workboat-sized project assume a rotor that can be lowered in extreme circumstances and for maintenance (although once you've solved the problem of reliable bearing lubrication the system's virtually maintenance free). This feature would be much harder to incorporate at the scale of commercial shipping though.

I hope this brief introduction does not lead too many readers with a long perspective on alternative sail types to cry "oh no, not that again." Having said this, any comment would please me, and I'll do my best to answer any enquiries, via mail@rotorboat.com
Thanks Stephen.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-08-2010, 09:33 AM
rwatson's Avatar
rwatson rwatson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Rep: 1753 Posts: 4,913
Location: Tasmania,Australia
Thanks Steve, and for my personal copy too. I would love to see some piccies of the parts and assembly sometime when convenient.

I am hoping to put a working prototype together in the near future, as, like you, I am intrigued by the concept.

I think that data indicates a big performance gain using Thom Fences, and that mention you made of self starting vanes is someting I have been considering for a long time.

Thanks again, and I will be in touch personally very soon.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-08-2010, 04:19 PM
Clarkey Clarkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Rep: 10 Posts: 63
Location: UK
From memory (because I can't find the link) Flettner was inspired to investigate rotors at least in part because of the work of Mr. Savonius.

Savonius built a boat powered by his well known turbines which also develop some lift from the Magnus effect (no propellor was involved by the way). There is a picture floating about somewhere on the net, I know not where. Anyway, there were two problems with this, apparently:

Firstly, Savonius rotors struggle to reach a circumferential rotation speed of 1.5 x windspeed. This allows them to get towards optimum l/d but not to develop the large lift coefficients that Flettner rotors are generally known for.

Secondly, a Savonius rotor cannot reverse direction without some complex mechanism for swapping the 'buckets'.

So a Savonius rotor can be mounted on a Flettner rotor to some effect (some people have postulated that a difference in diameters may give a more efficient setup) but I think on balance Flettner had the right idea - it is better to invest a small amount of motor power to extract more wind power from a simpler rotor. I think he would be extremely happy with the modern development of decent solar panels.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-08-2010, 06:52 PM
apex1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkey View Post
From memory (because I can't find the link) Flettner was inspired to investigate rotors at least in part because of the work of Mr. Savonius.

Savonius built a boat powered by his well known turbines which also develop some lift from the Magnus effect (no propellor was involved by the way). There is a picture floating about somewhere on the net, I know not where. Anyway, there were two problems with this, apparently:

Firstly, Savonius rotors struggle to reach a circumferential rotation speed of 1.5 x windspeed. This allows them to get towards optimum l/d but not to develop the large lift coefficients that Flettner rotors are generally known for.

Secondly, a Savonius rotor cannot reverse direction without some complex mechanism for swapping the 'buckets'.

So a Savonius rotor can be mounted on a Flettner rotor to some effect (some people have postulated that a difference in diameters may give a more efficient setup) but I think on balance Flettner had the right idea - it is better to invest a small amount of motor power to extract more wind power from a simpler rotor. I think he would be extremely happy with the modern development of decent solar panels.
Ahh, now we are convinced?
That did sound quite different a few pages back!

And what makes you think that Flettner was inspired by Savonius?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-09-2010, 12:32 AM
Clarkey Clarkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Rep: 10 Posts: 63
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by apex1 View Post
Ahh, now we are convinced?
That did sound quite different a few pages back!

And what makes you think that Flettner was inspired by Savonius?
Convinced of what? I don't understand your coment.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 09-09-2010, 06:53 AM
rwatson's Avatar
rwatson rwatson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Rep: 1753 Posts: 4,913
Location: Tasmania,Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkey View Post
From memory (because I can't find the link) Flettner was inspired to investigate rotors at least in part because of the work of Mr. Savonius.....

Secondly, a Savonius rotor cannot reverse direction without some complex mechanism for swapping the 'buckets'.
.... .
To be candid, I wasnt thinking of anything so esoteric as a Savonius rotor, It could be as simple as fabric "buckets" in flaps under the horizontal gates.

Think of those flaps in the top of tents to scoop up a cooling breeze - held open by a string, then think of the operation of those "wind cups" on meteorological weather stations.

I picture a set of these hanging under one or more of the "fences", that can be deployed automatically to provide the starting impetus. As the rotor starts spinning, forward momentum of the boat imparts power to underwater propellor driven (or is that turbine driven) electrical generators, which can then re-charge flat battery storage.

Maybe they would only get used in rare emergency situations, but it would be great to have the capacity to have "self starting" rotors.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-14-2010, 04:32 AM
julianne2010 julianne2010 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Rep: 10 Posts: 1
Location: india
Bergeson is demonstrating the Tracker to fishing-boat owners, talking to large shipping companies, and presenting scientific papers at maritime conferences. And interest is growing. He now has a Navy contract to study the conversion of a military sea-lift ship to rotor-assisted propulsion. He is also conducting similar studies for a number of independent shipping companies, including major oil and cruise-ship companies.


SeaDream Yacht Club
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-14-2010, 07:48 AM
cthippo's Avatar
cthippo cthippo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Rep: 465 Posts: 736
Location: Bellingham WA
I absolutely love stuff like this. Obviously there is no violation of conservation of energy here, but if you didn't know better looking at one of these things, you could certainly get the impression that there was. Little motor spins tube, wind blows, tube produces more energy than little motor puts in. Looks like free energy until you understand it.

RE: Commercial applications. It's not a matter of whether it works or not, it's really a matter of how expensive does fuel have to get to make it worthwhile. I'm sure some of you NAs out there have an idea of what it costs to add a bulbous bow to a ship and it took a while for those to catch on as well. This seems particularly well suited to tankers and bulkers where there isn't much movement over the deck during loading and unloading. Probably not as practical for container ships where speed is more of a factor and where access to the deck is critical. I can see these working well for vessels on say the Valdez - Puget Sound run.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-14-2010, 08:02 AM
wardd wardd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Rep: 442 Posts: 899
Location: usa
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthippo View Post
I absolutely love stuff like this. Obviously there is no violation of conservation of energy here, but if you didn't know better looking at one of these things, you could certainly get the impression that there was. Little motor spins tube, wind blows, tube produces more energy than little motor puts in. Looks like free energy until you understand it.

RE: Commercial applications. It's not a matter of whether it works or not, it's really a matter of how expensive does fuel have to get to make it worthwhile. I'm sure some of you NAs out there have an idea of what it costs to add a bulbous bow to a ship and it took a while for those to catch on as well. This seems particularly well suited to tankers and bulkers where there isn't much movement over the deck during loading and unloading. Probably not as practical for container ships where speed is more of a factor and where access to the deck is critical. I can see these working well for vessels on say the Valdez - Puget Sound run.

seems to me a matter of a small signal controlling a larger signal
__________________
liberty ships were beautiful
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 10-17-2010, 06:10 PM
rwatson's Avatar
rwatson rwatson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Rep: 1753 Posts: 4,913
Location: Tasmania,Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianne2010 View Post
Bergeson is demonstrating the Tracker to fishing-boat owners, talking to large shipping companies, and presenting scientific papers at maritime conferences. And interest is growing. He now has a Navy contract to study the conversion of a military sea-lift ship to rotor-assisted propulsion. He is also conducting similar studies for a number of independent shipping companies, including major oil and cruise-ship companies.


SeaDream Yacht Club
Thats a quote from an old article over 15 years old (from the Practical Mechanics article I submitted) - Mr Begenson has sinced passed away.

Last edited by rwatson : 10-17-2010 at 06:12 PM. Reason: speeeling
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 02-23-2011, 10:17 AM
Msf Msf is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rep: 10 Posts: 1
Location: Copenhagen
Hello everyone

I'm studying maritime transportation and ship management (deck officer & engineer, Denmark).

I'm working on a study project about the Flettner-rotor, how to utilize it on tankers or bulk ships on routes crossing the North Atlantic. Method at this point will amongst others be constructing vector diagrams and calculating force with basic equations like F = 0,5 x C x rho x A x v^2.

The question:

What Lift and Drag coefficients can be expected at ship speeds around 13-15 knots?

or can I assume or expect a lift around 10 and drag of 2 (L/D ratio = 5) that some sources states?

Rgrds
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 02-23-2011, 11:27 AM
EuroCanal EuroCanal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Rep: 82 Posts: 76
Location: Luxembourg
Check post #105. L/D is not fixed - it depends on wind speed. L is proportional to wind speed, the drag of the rotor is proportional to V^2.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 02-23-2011, 02:26 PM
Squidly-Diddly Squidly-Diddly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Rep: 304 Posts: 1,174
Location: SF bay
how about more of a ring, instead of a stack?

Maybe on a multi-hull of some sort?

Maybe a 1 to 5 height to width ratio, where the superstructure WOULD be the rotor, or at least be inside it.

Sure, I guess you would need to have a ladder to get in and out over the top.

Just trying to "think outside the stack".

Maybe go for the Flying Saucer look.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 02-23-2011, 03:30 PM
rwatson's Avatar
rwatson rwatson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Rep: 1753 Posts: 4,913
Location: Tasmania,Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidly-Diddly View Post
.... Maybe a 1 to 5 height to width ratio,
....
Maybe go for the Flying Saucer look.
Hmmm - interesting look. It would 'work', but maybe not efficiently, as the length of the cylinder provides a great lift ratio. Think of glider wings versus ... not glider wings.

The closest thing to that concept I can think of is the 'spinning ball airship'

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...rships&f=false

... a big circumference ball
Attached Thumbnails
Everything Old is new again - Flettner Rotor Ship is launched-ballship.jpg  
Reply With Quote


  #150  
Old 02-25-2011, 06:14 PM
masrapido masrapido is offline
Junior forever
 
Join Date: May 2005
Rep: 330 Posts: 261
Location: Chile
Since the wind is harnessed for motive power, could it not be also captured to power the rotor? In a suitable configuration of a windmill. Combined with a desired number of solar panels it might provide power for the rotor 24/7.
__________________
My signature is bigger than yours...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spirit Of Balto Launched alaskatrawler Metal Boat Building 9 10-15-2010
02:33 AM 
Ship with 2 screw mkovac67 Boat Design 0 04-06-2007
08:09 AM 
Free ship alpamis34 Boat Design 3 02-02-2007
08:48 AM 
Armand Rousso launched X3D Technologies Corporation. eager Education 1 04-03-2005
07:11 AM 
Better Freedom Ship Dook Boat Design 5 03-13-2005
06:00 PM 

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2017 Boat Design Net