My Impossible mission

[D.I.M.1]

A natural powered boat wont destabilize the economy, in fact it will save us money that would be used to import oil, Also watch out for the land mines in my yard.
Anyway, seriously what are the key components of a boat?
How much power does the average commercial vessel need to run?
What are the max weight for power/fuel cells that can be put on a vessel before compromising its efficiency?
How much power does it take to operate a commercial vessel like a trawler, including its motor and other on-board systems? Needed Current? or horse power?

-D.I.M.

[gonzo]

An 80' trawler runs on about 350HP at 5Kt.
OOps, I divulged Top Secret information

[pamarine]

To answer your question DIM yes, there are Trawler Cats.

[BWD]

Anyway, seriously what are the key components of a boat?

1. hull.
2. idiot.
3. the rest is bullshit, basically.

[Petros]

Interesting design exercise, it has been done before without much commercial success. Someone floated across the pacific from Japan to the US with a boat powered by waves. It had some such arrangement where these floats in front and back linked to some large vane like rudders that as the boat pitched, it pushed it forward. It was slow, but it made the trip.

Sails also work pretty good, but they are slow as well.

The problem with either sail or wave power, and this would also hold true for solar panels, wind mills and other devices, is the operation and maintenance of the system would cost more than just burning diesel fuel.

I have thought of large supplemental sails for cargo ships and tankers, the idea i had was to link two super tankers together into a giant catamaran with retractable beams, and than deploy a retractable wing sail controlled by computers and automated trimming. It could save millions in fuel cost, and still allow docking and loading and unloading in the normal way. Even if it reduced fuel consumption by 5-10% it would save $millions. But the cost of operation and maintenance of such a massive sailing system would be MORE than the fuel saved. Hardly worth it, and why there are no wide spread use of such devices (even though the idea has been around since fuel powered vessels have been invented).

The investment of a cargo or tanker ship also means you have to make as many trips as possible to optimize return on investment. The faster you can make the crossing, the more trips you can take with the same crew and ship, than the more money stock holders make off the investment. Adding the cost of an alternative drive device would add more to the up-front investment and to maintenace, and would likely take longer for the crossing, meaning less revenue generating trips over the life of the vessel.

That is why sailing has become only for sport or recreation, there is no easy way to compete with fuel powered ships in transporting goods or passengers. It is just not economical to operate large sailing cargo vessels, it is cheaper to burn fuel. It it cost more to build and operate such a vessel, it means you wasted resourses. You are just trading off the cost of fuel for higher consumptions of other resources besides fuel.

How about a nuke powered cargo vessel? The navy has nuke powered ships, fuel it once every 50 years, no burning of fossil fuels, very little waste, and relatively low maintenance. Regs would likely make this not economic, but it is a proven technology.

[BWD]

relatively low maintenance

if you throw out the upkeep on several teams of nuclear engineers on the boat 24-7, sort of....

[pamarine]

Originally Posted by Petros

How about a nuke powered cargo vessel? The navy has nuke powered ships, fuel it once every 50 years, no burning of fossil fuels, very little waste, and relatively low maintenance. Regs would likely make this not economic, but it is a proven technology.

Forget the crew requirements, there is a reason the Navy doesn't use Nukes on anything short of an Aircraft carrier or Sub, and that is sea state. The USN had dreams of an all-nuke fleet, but soon realised at the Cruiser and Destroyer size-range, the platforms were physically too unstable to have the reactors on-board.

[D.I.M.1]

Yeah and I don't think people would feel safe when boats that could destroy half of a city is moored at their harbor, also, using nuclear power requires some knowledge of nuclear physics, and a nuclear reactor must be in a stable environment, and requires tedious supervision. It may be plausible if the average fisherman could afford a nuclear reactor, maintain it but i just don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe in the future when we got better technology for controlling nuclear power.

It's a solution yes it just isn't viable now.

I also thought about how to minimize maintenance of the energy collectors on the boat, but it's only just conceptual, nothing concrete or detailed at this time. Also, I hate to say it but I can't really put my ideas on the net when I have no claim to them aside from my own word its mine. I'm paranoid like that, but when I actually have a claim to my ideas I'll post them on the net.
Also, I'm looking for a nautical engineer to be my adviser in my project, it's something for school, and if anyone's interested send me a private message, and I get back to you.
-D.I.M.

[D.I.M.1]

BWD:
1. hull.
2. idiot.
3. the rest is bullshit, basically.

I don't mean the obvious parts, more like the individual systems in it, like propulsion, steering, or the mechanisms used to perform specific functions (radio, crane, lighting)
In other words everything a boat has and needs power to run.
It would be great if you could tell me how much power, but if not I'll just surf the net till I find out.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by D.I.M.1

It may be plausible if the average fisherman could afford a nuclear reactor, maintain it but i just don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe in the future when we got better technology for controlling nuclear power.

It's a solution yes it just isn't viable now.

We have the technology for this now, just not for small ships. ON larger commercial freighters or tankers it is perfectly suited for it. The real problem is not technical, it is political/legal and strategic. If the regs require you to have so many "QUALIFIED" personnel on board at all times, and security measures to prevent terrorists from using it to make "dirty bombs", it would not be economic. Reactors in ships can not destroy half a city, that is a myth. If intentionally sabotaged at most it would contaminate the bottom of the harbor (likely there is not much sea life that would be edible there anyway), or the fuel could be used to make a dirty bomb (conventional explosives used to spread radio active particles). That would be a security issue, not a technological one. And than there is the irrational fear mongering by anti-nuke activists, no good solution for than expcept to round them up and put them in the mental instutions (where many of them belong). They killed the nuke power industry in the US, despite much of the Europe and Asia using perfectly safe nuke power for many decades now.

[D.I.M.1]

Also, you have got to think of the consequences or possible problems that would arise from having commercial, nuclear freighters traveling the world.
I'm not trying to say it wouldn't work out on a practical level, but on a level when applying anything to the entire global society I think it's unwise at best. Worst case scenarios I thought of would be...
1. Freight hijacking
2. Nuclear technology espionage
3. Lack of nuclear oversight, we can't watch over every commercial vessel shipping goods everywhere.

Also, contaminating the sea front of an area will have negative affects on the environment, and the animals that live there. I don't think PETA or the EPA will be keen on allowing vessels like this to roam around.
I hate to put a sniper round into an idea that works on a practical level, but I don't think we can just dangle a nuclear reactor in front of countries, terrorists or just people in general that will see it as an opportunity to get power, and have safe trade with them. unless we send a full armed escort along with every shipment that won't mull over well for political relations with countries, they'll just say we don't trust them.
Aside from nuclear power any other ideas?

Also, if there is a nautical engineer that's interested in my work please send me a private message?
I really need an adviser.
-DIM

[catalyst]

Hi

What about using HHO technology? Basically the use of electrical energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The Hydrogen can then be used as fuel to power an engine which would produce only steam as its waste gas. Not new by any means, but in your case maybe a bank of solar cells and batteries for the power source, then plus a water tank and the actual HHO device and an engine.
Should be possible to marry this up to pretty much any hull, but a displacement cat with long slender hulls would take some beating for efficient use of your available power.
Would need prototyping etc but there may be mileage in it...

Actually not too far different from the farting cows idea, but maybe slightly more practical at sea?!

Regards
Bob.

[BWD]

Boat needs no power.
But the cheapest power is sucked out of the air with a rag, if you want it.
It's the idiot who needs the power.

If the idiot demands motors, for example a well shaped 25 foot boat can go 5knots on 5hp, 20knots on 70hp, etc, depending on design.
IF you want electric lights and aircon, add a few hp, according to your taste for indulgence. Likewise if you want a lot of room on board, or cargo...

Farting, nukes, and "Green" technology will not probably affect the basics!

[D.I.M.1]

HHO, does the process consume more energy than it produces?
If that's the case than wouldn't it be more effective to just use the electrical energy needed to breakdown water to power the boat itself?

If it produces more, than what's the ratio of power needed to the power produced by and HHO? Assuming the size is for a trawler or yacht.

[apex1]

[quote=Petros;305134]

We have the technology for this now, just not for small ships. ON larger commercial freighters or tankers it is perfectly suited for it.

Have you all forgotten (or did´nt ever know) the "Savannah" and "Otto Hahn" ? Small freighters by todays standards, very successful in terms of fuel economy. The absolute desaster in every other aspect.

The real problem is not technical, it is political/legal and strategic. If the regs require you to have so many "QUALIFIED" personnel on board at all times, and security measures to prevent terrorists from using it to make "dirty bombs", it would not be economic.

Thats not the point, you need qualified personnel anyway to operate these units safely!

Reactors in ships can not destroy half a city, that is a myth.

Thats right! They can destroy half a country! Tchernobyl is just 25 years ago. More than half of Europe was heavily polluted. All forgotten?

despite much of the Europe and Asia using perfectly safe nuke power for many decades now.

But not in ships any longer!