Incredible design, the oviparouswoolmilkpig ?

I belive that but what Thunderbird Mike meant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YyTfxeJxvQ&feature=related

 

Thanks for that Teddydiver.....
Truth is, I generally leave these threads when it becomes apparent that the majority of contributors start pushing a negative agenda. Tearing down the concept rather than looking at the positive elements. Generally, this is due to a bunch of armchair designers who have nothing to show in the form of creativity, and everything to show in the form of negative crap.

Its relatively easy to cut off someone's legs to make you feel taller, its quite another thing to contribute a positive comment to push a concept to a more realistic outcome.

As a designer, and someone who has had his fair share of success in sailcraft deign (three world records for A,B&C class speed), I find it a bit idiotic to simply discount a basic concept due to details that are most likely beyond the scope of most bystanders.

If you want to contribute, how about looking beyond your ego's, and talk about the positive points. Only then, will you be pushing the technology. Otherwise, you're just trying to cover your own inadequacies.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

kjmdes, - - Pray tell, even this dummy can see inspiration from Xwing? starwars - what advances for marine design at its current level of technology does this offering present that is new and worthy? - SHOW AND TELL time.......

 

I can tell that too.. The upper Xwings, sail alike, are solarpanels. Spreaded out when used, "folded" when not needed.. It's not anything new or the most efficient way to do that, but that's the obvious function.. Something was allready said of the "pod drive" wings..

 

I'm short on time tonight but, yeah, lets look at the wings first.
If we just look at the area in square meters, its not hard to imagine that they do indeed have enough to constitute a fair sail area for drive. The fact that they can be oriented to optimize angle is key to their effective use. This is an important point, as one major problem with sail drives is that they are fixed, and that the environment is not. Airflow is 3 dimensional. Conventional sails are always gyrating with the motion of the the hull, wave action, etc. A computer, linked to an inertial navigation system and local sensors would constantly update the position, angle of attack (incidence), and optimize the effective lift generated by the wings.

He has rendered the concept with flat panels, but that is not realistic, nor desirable. Flexible solar panels will be available widespread within the next few years, so we can optimize the wings with symetrical curves, and induce an angle of attack that will increase lift.

Another advantage of this, say, Y-wing, is that the lift will not only provide drive, it can also be oriented to provide lift. This will effectively lower the wetted surface of the hull by lifting the entire structure a bit. And working in concert with the electric drive system, which may also have a slight lifting component, may reduce the effective displacement further.

Gotta go,

Cheers,
Kevin

 

The "wings" relative to the size and weight of the vessel - like **** on a bull and with the expense of solar panels on both sides? why - what for? The wings have a capacity to flap but NOT rotate to vary angle of attack - even so the energy in controlling the surfaces would consume all the energy harvested and current technology cloth sales would probably be more effective and simpler to control... Why the pod engines mounted on a swinging device - to what advantage? why a keel of such depth - 90% of harbours unavailable for entry even Monaco.... More effective lift from foils below but will be lost to floating debris like containers, logs and general trash....

 

Well, I feel it´s time to step in here again.
As mentioned in my opening post I seriously was asked to build that crap (by another Turk).
As a innovative boatbuilder (although my production lines seem to show the contrary) and open for any new technology I would have liked the idea to make something "outstanding new" and could have robbed the customer out.
But this "design" has nothing in common with a seagoing boat! Just NOTHING....
But I have the obligation to make a product that keeps the sailors alive in even severe sea conditions. Moreover I have to fullfill some basic proposals in terms of performance. Both cannot be done with such a unmature conceptual (wich concept?) sketch. It is´nt a design. The only point that I could guarantee would be that it may stay afloat regardless of the 200 tonnes of lead ballast. But not which side up.

It is what it is: a futuristic sketch of a dreaming layman who has never before seen a boat. And the prospective client was just a braggart who wanted something to show up at the local marina. (and so I told him in my lovely frank manner).

 

This reminds me of the mother of an 8 year old girl who entered the girls typical childish school artwork as her own in a significant Scottish competition, the judges waxed lyrical about the supposed merits of the piece, its symbolism and hidden metaphors so cleverly incorporated and it won against the many more accomplished entries. The mother came clean, the media had a field day and the damage control from the judges compounded the farce that 'art' so often is. The judges used reasoning similar to your quote above except the subject was art not technology.

This design is art though, it's blatantly ill conceived as a practical vehicle and I cannot see any radical concepts that are worthy of praise as leading edge. In fact I'd say he copied his ideas from a variety of sources and that the "effort" is not in producing a practical design but in producing a glossy impressive computer mode. It's a great model it has some attractive concepts but you'd have kangaroos in your top paddock if you really thought this worthy of a proper engineering design review with regard to building it.

If you have ever designed anything as part of an engineering team you would quickly become aware that in brainstorming sessions ideas stand or fall on their merit and negative comment is what you are actually looking for from your peers.
You don't praise something to make it better you pull it apart and expose the inadequacies and errors to the clear light of day.

This design is clearly a concept sketch from an artist who has little exposure to alternative energy, hydo or aerodynamics let alone the practicalities of boat handling powering and hull design. If he had consulted any professional on this design or even read a basic hull or appendage design guide I'd be surprised.

The design spiral for a vessel of this size is truly a massive task for a multidisciplinary team I suspect that some real, hard data on this vessel does not exist and that the design is just style with wished for functionality.

 

He's an architect.

Kevin, this is not an ego situation, this forum has a well-earned reputation for helping beginners as I for one can vouch. Credit is given for good ideas, help offered with problems, suggestions made for improvement, and valuable time is donated without demand for recompense.

Yes, it was a pretty picture, very artistic and all that. Art is fine in its place, but the prize was for transport. That's one of the most important aspects of human endeavour and purpose. Lives depend on it, fortunes made and lost through it. It offends knowledgeable people to see valuable and prestigious prizes awarded for such rubbish. An important aspect of design is composition, which is the way a thing goes together. This cannot be made to go together. I have tried very hard to make sense of the "design" and have repeatedly made an effort to see what needed to be changed for it to be made to work, but each time I come to the conclusion that it is a lost cause, that it should be tossed away and a fresh start made.

 

I agree completely with most points brought by Apex1 and MikeJohns. Rational critiques are the positive elements I spoke of. My arguement is with the agressively negative tones some have voiced.

I would add that we all have very unique perspectives on development efforts. Some of us are used to having far-fetched concepts dropped on us. Others might come from a very practical perspective, and look at a concept from the standpoint of safety and limits.

Personally, I see a concept like this, and am immediately drawn to the possibilities. Even though, as I said, it is a mix of existing elements. Some practical, some fantasy. Still, in my mind, even though every aspect needs seroius work, I would not mind being involved in an effort to morph it into a practical test-bed. But then, I am looking at it as a pure experimental project, and again, as I said before, it would evolve to something that would surely detract from the model as rendered.

I totally respect all of you who look at it as impractical for say, cruising. My background is mainly R&D, so I see it as a starting point for proof-of-concept work. I guess I have been spoiled in some ways. Both NASA and DARPA have had me work on projects that few would consider practical, but they were a step in a considered direction. We learn from each success and failure, whether the concept seemed practical, marginal, or in some cases, nuts.

I for one do not think the award panel was right to pick the concept, but then again, I don't know what the competition was. Still, I think that the guy, with no background in the sciences, did make a noble effort.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

Kevin: what could be done to morph this into practicality? I've identified a few things based on my own and other peoples' observations.

The wingsails/solar panels would have to be many times larger even with greatly increased conversion efficiency than is available today, and it might be better if these functions were separated since they have mutually exclusive positioning requirements.

The deployable thrusters are an unnecessary complexity that would be better replaced by power pods providing more manouverability in port.

The radar mast must be moved to eliminate aerodynamic interference with the wingsails.

All that glass needs different treatment to reduce it's vulnerability. I would keep the searchlight but it needs to be in a position where it can be used for both sides of the hull, and those concave portholes have to be either flat or convex to withstand a serious blow.

Given the number of keels being lost to collisions with floating containers these days those batteries are shockingly vulnerable, and they cannot be accessed through tha narrow keel without hauling the whole thing out of the water. That would be quite an undertaking for a vessel that looks to be about 40m/130 ft long and 250 tonnes, but becaue of the draft the size of dry dock needed to get access from the outside may render that approach uneconomic.

The draft would need to be reduced for other reasons, which would mean finding a better way of providing stability, those stabilisers are going to be overworked at sea but it has too much draft for estuary/lake/river use. The designer's sketches showed an earlier multihull concept which I think he should have kept.

Is there anything left apart from the hull shape which may be more appropriate to a submarine?

 

Kevin: what could be done to morph this into practicality? I've identified a few things based on my own and other peoples' observations.

The general opinion here seems to be based on offshore cruising as the specific application. So based on that, taking it to a practical end would be quite different from the mindset I am used to. However, regardless of the desired result, whether it were for cruising, test-bed, or a one-off custom, all that would remain of the concept when I sat down to start, would be a couple of printed renderings sitting next to my computer. In other words, I doubt anything in the data files would be much use to me.
If we start with the basic concept as rendered, the first thing I would do is toss all stated displacement, LOA and proportional assumptions. I think a good LWL for a cruising craft with these features might be about 20 meters. So starting there…

The wingsails/solar panels would have to be many times larger even with greatly increased conversion efficiency than is available today, and it might be better if these functions were separated since they have mutually exclusive positioning requirements.

A decent hull-form at 20 meters LWL will drive well with between 160 and 200 square meters of sail. Symmetrical-foil rigid wings have a distinct power disadvantage here, and I would have to admit that together with current structural limitations in composites and positioning schemes, it would not be practical to build a system with proportional power to a conventional rig. I guess without doing the work, a 20 meter span with a 3 meter mean-cord would be about the best you could do. With a limit of 120 sq/M, and the lose of efficiency, I would view the concept as a dual-drive system.

As such, lets just assume that we have a hybrid drive boat. The wings with flexible solar panels will charge a set of Lithium batteries, which in turn drive the pods. Due to, as you say, the conflicting angles the rig will exhibit to solar capture and aerodynamic drive, some compromise may always be dialed-in as part of the software. On a sunny, windy day, the compromise might work well in concert. Either side of those conditions would be a lose of one or the other. But if we throw away the environmental requirement, and add a small combustion engine to demand charge the batteries, then we have a true hybrid drive for the pods, with a solar array that also gives us some aerodynamic drive.


The deployable thrusters are an unnecessary complexity that would be better replaced by power pods providing more manouverability in port.

Yeah, I would look closely at the pods. I could see them on a deployable system, but just far enough away from the hull to catch clean water, and fold close to the hull in such a way as to not increase the draft for tighter quarters. A single axis pivoting scheme could be worked out to allow them to be a maneuvering drive system. The arms could be designed as lifting surfaces also. The hydro-foils mentioned earlier in the thread.

The radar mast must be moved to eliminate aerodynamic interference with the wingsails.

Sure

All that glass needs different treatment to reduce it's vulnerability. I would keep the searchlight but it needs to be in a position where it can be used for both sides of the hull, and those concave portholes have to be either flat or convex to withstand a serious blow.

I'm tossing all the architectural features in my treatment

Given the number of keels being lost to collisions with floating containers these days those batteries are shockingly vulnerable, and they cannot be accessed through tha narrow keel without hauling the whole thing out of the water. That would be quite an undertaking for a vessel that looks to be about 40m/130 ft long and 250 tonnes, but becaue of the draft the size of dry dock needed to get access from the outside may render that approach uneconomic.

The draft would need to be reduced for other reasons, which would mean finding a better way of providing stability, those stabilisers are going to be overworked at sea but it has too much draft for estuary/lake/river use. The designer's sketches showed an earlier multihull concept which I think he should have kept.

I'm sure I will get a few laughs out of this, but I don't see much use for a fin-keel here. As I stated before, I see this as a hybrid drive, which means the pods are full-time. A single axis pivot would mean that they would pivot port and starboard when tucked in, and pitch when extend. Software would control the pitch, and that would dampen the roll to some extent while under way. The wings would also be positioned to optimize stability. So the hull-form might be designed to incorporate enough keel to exclude the need for a deep-draft fin. Battery access would be maybe a few meters under the cabin sole.

As far as overworked pods, I am assuming in this treatment that the technology is reliable. We are getting pretty good with these on commercial boats, so for the sake of argument, lets say that the pods and pivots are appropriate.

Is there anything left apart from the hull shape which may be more appropriate to a submarine?

Not much

Cheers,
Kevin

 

So, at the end, you also recognize this design as very fancy but non-realistic?
I'm asking because few messages ago you have nearly insulted all the people who have expressed their negative opinions about it...

 

If I insulted anyone, it was those who ditz an idea with no view to a creative solution. Its one thing to call something crap. Thats easy and does not require any real knowledge or subsequent input. Its quite another thing to pick apart a concept and try to work a solution. There are ways to present the negative side of a problem that does not involve closing the door.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

By the way, how is Brescia these days? Still having problems at the stazione del treno?
Bella citt'a. Me piace molto