Capturing Wake Energy Without Drag ?

isn't the wake amplitude at any given point behind the boat constant and therefore will have zero energy with relation to the boat

seems to me the boat would have to be crossing already existing waves to extract energy


I could be wrong on this

 

I think you are totally correct.

 

Thats a crazy boat, but I was thinking more of BMWO.



In any case its obvious that designers are not too conservative work on any random crazy idea you might pick out of thin air. They just seem to still want to work within the known laws of physics.

 

Must we get serious again here?

 

Something that might be possible is generating electricity from wave action while at anchor, but not for propulsion.

 

My apologies I have just been reading the thread on oviparouswoolmilkpig. I wonder if questor was involved in that project too?

 

The guy who came up with that thing was an architect. Not the marine type, but one of the dirtbuster persuasion. He won a prize for it. By an extraordinary coincidence, almost all of the judging committee were also architects. He never did answer my email requesting details and specifications.

 

Working within the known laws of physics can be tricky business. The novice in the field would have basic knowledge of general laws whereas a better educated individual would know of instances in which general theory wouldn't work because of the influence of other lesser known laws of physics.

I've embarrassed some very well educated science people by asking when does 1 + 1 = 3 . One of the possible answers is 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 rounded to the nearest whole numbers . Orthodox thinkers usually don't figure it out because their minds won't allow them to entertain what they regard as such a stupid question. Some very bright alternative thinkers have asked for a day to think about it. I'm very cautious about bringing up that question because some guys get so mad they'll never speak to you again. I usually bring that one out if someone has really ticked me off with an unjustified attitude.

The wave pool experiment at the University that I mentioned earlier could have proven that the general math for wave behavior may not be universally applicable. The challenge was organised by my Astrophysicist buddy. The orthodox guys suspected he was setting them up for ridicule so they wouldn't allow him control over choice and preparation of a testing pool.

This reminds me of my attempts at grade 10 Chemistry.One day they teach a law and the next day they teach exceptions justified by the next law.The day after that they brought out the next law that violates the other laws. My brain couldn't deal with the concept of natural laws violating natural laws. One day I flew into a rage and yelled, " Whats the point of teaching a law that has more exceptions than applications ? " .

 

I read the whole thread. I can't believe they asked Apex to build it.

That is pretty cool and I have never heard of the 1+1=3 being put like that. But it reminds me of some religious fellow (on being questioned on the alleged ridiculousness of the concept of holy Trinity) that the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are just like water. Which can be liquid, Gas (steam), or Solid (ice). Its rather eloquent, but when you sit back and have real a think about it, its utter garbage regardless of your theism.

 

I came up with that one when people used to ridicule my time beliefs. Around here if someone wanted to insult your intelligence they would say, " That is as ridiculous as saying that 1+1 = 3 ". One day someone ticked me off severely by saying that for about the thousandth time so I decided to sit down and prove that under some circumstances 1 + 1 does equal 3 . It took me about an hour to figure it out because of my poor math skills.

The ice , water and steam thing does work for some people. Bad theology is as dangerous as bad physics. Both of them land too many sincere devotees in mental institutions. Without a sound philosophical foundation either world can destroy you.

 

It would not surprise me if he did the design of the propulsion systems........

And, yes I was asked to build it, on my own expenses of course, to be part of such "innovative team". My reply was not printable.

 

Hmmmm….well, your theory of hydrodynamics and conservation of energy are poor to begin with, and now your maths is just as questionable.

If ‘a’ and ‘b’ are integers and a=bc for some integer c, then b is called a factor or divisor of ‘a’. A prime number is an integer eg, P)>1 such that ‘p’ has no positive factors except 1 and p, for example, 2,3,5,7….

Thus ‘1.4’ is not a prime number. Ergo normal Euclid mathematics theory does not hold true in your false statement of 1 + 1 = 3.

Since every integer greater than 1 is either itself a prime or can be expressed as a product of primes.

Since 3 is a prime number, the number ‘1.4’ is not an integer and not a product of 3, ergo your statement is false.

All you’re doing is playing with decimal places as rounding errors. This is not mathematics in the sense of proving Euclid or Euler mathematics that all engineers are taught. Which forms the basis of simple maths taught at schools. All you're doing is well...im not sure

It is you that should be embarrassed at not knowing simple mathematic theory being as you’re an “engineer”, as you claim.

 

It looks like it might be viable as a rapid descent submarine. With appropriately affixed lift bags it may be able to return to the surface. I haven't had anything to do with the design so far but I'd gladly join the team for a $100,000 signing bonus plus $15.00 an hour for ongoing valuable contributions, whether in construction or propulsion management enhancement. One of the major difficulties of high tech team efforts is no one wants to do the dirty work. I love filling in the gaps that are vitally necessary to a team effort. I'll gladly make the coffee and haul out the garbage.

 

1 + 1 = 3 works with rabbits ...

 

I'd also like to ad to this post that wave equations are proven without exception. Questor: You didn't disprove any wave equation in the pool. You might have demonstrated heat transfer by peeing in the pool, but you didn't disprove the wave equations.

You should probably do less talking and more reading:

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

Would you kindly supply us with your mathematical proof that you have disproved wave equations? (I'm guessing you won't)