Everything Old is new again - Flettner Rotor Ship is launched

Not looking promising - E-Ship largely unused ...

...as reported by

http://barratry.blogs.lloydslist.com/2010/10/30/getting-into-a-windy-spin/

on

Published: OCTOBER 30, 2010


"The only problem is that Enercon is no linger talking publicly about its new toy."

and

"The speculation is that the vessel may not be performing as well as the company thought it would. The four flettner rotors are massive structures and maybe they are not as manageable to use as the company thought, with crews needing special training and the wind needing to blow in the right direction."


Came across this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYaIb6mtIWk&feature=related

The Mayflower - I wonder if it works any better ?

 

AFAIK that jack up barge is pretty conventionally propelled. What look a bit like rotors are the legs, poking upwards as she's in steaming mode (like other jack up barges they can be lowered to the sea bed and used to jack the hull up to form a stable lifting platform).

 

yes, very true, its not a rotor - I was more musing that they were both used in the offshore Wind Turbine installation business, though now I think of it, two totally different roles. As you say, they have a similar 'style', with big columns sticking up in the air, - a bit of a parody of the rotor ship I guess.

 

I find E-SHIP 1 is not really an ideal configuration of a rotor ship. Accommodation & free-fall lifeboat are long away from each other which is an obvious minus if you suddenly want to escape the ship but have to run 100 meters. I found a profile view of what seems to be an original planned configuration with 2 conventional lifeboats at sides of accommodation.



The wind has less effect on rotors at their bottom part due to obstructions caused be free-fall lifeboat at the stern, deck cargo, funnel & accommodation - unless the rotors will be raised above that which is impossible on this ship.
Also, rotors are of fixed height / not retractable, which not only limits the flexibility of their use in various weather conditions but also is something that restricts this ship from entering many ports unless you have a clear berth for her. A telescopic rotor with Thom fences would be a better solution in such case, thought it might cost a lot more $$$.


Also, take a look:

http://www.thiiink.com/history-of-windpower/

http://www.monorotor.com/

 

"The main objective behind the Monorotor concept is to provide a modular, self-contained system which can be easily customized to fit a wide variety of cargo vessels."

Who is Monorotor ? I wonder if they have more resources than a fancy website ?

Those folding rotors are a real winning concept.

 

Not sure how the crew will cope with drag from those huge "monorotors" when they're not in use.

 

It wont affect the crew - they dont have to peddle the things

If you go back through the statistics, you will find that rotors at rest have very little aerodynamic drag at rest, but they could be lowered like they can be at port if required.

 

Though there are 2 sites that I provided + 1 more I saw - all are offering rotors & promising fuel cuts, I haven't come across any other rotor ship than E-SHIP 1, small experimental boats & this thingy: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1675582

 

Flettners Buckeau and its sistership, the trawler Tracker were all full size working ships.

To finance a full size prototype, the economic benefits would need to be outstanding.

This relates not only to fuel costs, but operational costs as well. The collapsible or folding rotors may be an important part of the formulae.

 

Hello.

My Name is Spiros and I am undergoing my Naval Architecture MSc in Newcastle University.

After lots of research I decided to look more into Flettner rotors and bearing in mind my mechanical engineering background, I am looking into ways of using exhaust gas turbines to rotate the rotors. (like E Ship 1 does with steam turbine)

However, I have a problem calculating the power needed to rotate such cylinders.
I have decided on the dimensions and the material of the cylinders, but I am having a hard time when it comes to finding the right formulas to calculate the mechanic friction (e.g. bearings) and wind losses.

I would really need your expertise, any kind of help will be much appreciated.
I am not intending to get work done by other, I am really stuck at this point.

Thank you all in advance.
Spiros

 

Wind Drag per rotor is calculated in an attachment of Post 143

 

Dear rwatson,

Thank you for your reply. I don't see any attachemnt in post 143, are you sure it is in this thread?

Do you have any idea on a plain estimation of bearing friction?

I really need some figures to continue my research and then if I have time, I will focus on more detailed estimation.

Once again, thank you
Spiros

 

I expect the kite technology is much more advanced, and more efficient.

I cannot see the derived 'boost' from the wind to be more effective than the lift generated by the new kites.

 

Sorry, it should have been post #43. Also, check out post #105

I found heaps of stuff in google for calculating forces required to spin cylinders, using formulae - have you done the searching ?

 

Without being snide, I suggest you reread this thread in greater detail. It is far more efficient than kite technology, and a lot more controllable.

As a comparison, the conversion of the sailing ship Buckau saw an increase in power from wind by 1.5 times the power generated by the original sails, while reducing the windage to 1/7th of the original rig. Kite rigs cannot achieve anything like this contribution to propulsion, even if it were physically possible to deploy that much fabric.

At the same time, the control of the cylinders reduced the manpower required to manage the original rig from a crew of ten, to one person standing in a sheltered control room.

If wind power ever becomes economical again, this will be the first technology to be put onto cargo fleets. It is the only wind technology that has ever been applied to commercial work.

Check out post #20