New propulsion sytems for ships

[Guillermo]

JONATHAN COLE:
You asume: "...24 watts per kilo is 24 watts per hour..." (?)
24 Watts (Power unit) is different from 24 Watts-hour (Work unit).
24 Watts/kilo (If power) bring us to the needing of a 2500 kilos batteries to develope 80 HP (roughly), so, Could we use them for 10years-refueling-free medium/heavy displacement monohulled motorsailers?

D'ARTOIS:
Thanks a lot. Any boat application?

TOM KANE:
I'm not able to find at http://www.diogenemarine.com/ info related to biodiesel propulsion.

ALL:
Have a look at this interesting info:
http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?...8-025641-4486r

[Grant Nelson]

Hi, I dont have much to input, but some time ago there was some hype around putting tall rotating tubes on ships, these presumably using somekind of aerodynamic lift to move the boat, or maybe it was someother type of power transfer to the props, I really dont remember, but I would like to know if someone else remembers this and can provide some information - I have searched far and wide on the internet but can not find it... I am sure it was not a dream...

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Grant Nelson

Hi, I dont have much to input, but some time ago there was some hype around putting tall rotating tubes on ships ... but I would like to know if someone else remembers this and can provide some information ....

Those sails are based on the Magnus Effect and a german engineeer, Anton Flettner, developed the idea of rotating cylinders to be used as sails. More info at:
http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/2002/may9.htm

Cousteau and otheres developed further this idea and they called them "Turbosails", mounting them on "Alcione" one of the Cousteau Society's vessels. More info at:
http://bluegreenpictures.com/perl/Cy...ew;inum=125790

[Grant Nelson]

oh wow, thanks!

[D'ARTOIS]

Guillermo: yes, there are small boat applications. I will post shortly a technical diagram what to do to get this working in your own diesel configuration. Don't put cornoil in a gas engine ( American warning)

[tom kane]

diogenemarine.com relates to a World record attempt to be the fastest boat to circumnavigate the globe.And using bidiesel.In a recent news bulletin a New Zealand business man has set up a pilot plant to demonstrate burning coal with Zero emissions,using a form of Carbon Di Oxide filter.He has invited sceptics to see it in operation,there are many who say that more energy would be used running the system than any useful output.

www.biodiesel.org/biodiesel
www.intertek-cb.com
www.Alababa.com
www.Biodiesel.LinkFishing.com
www.wisegeek.com

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

The Jirnov Vortex Engine:http://generalvortexenergy.net/

I had not read about this one before, so I looked it up on a Google image search.

This was the first image hit.


Jirnov Vortex Engine Supported by U.S. Navy
http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_J...ortex_Turbine/

25 kW prototype shown to have strong torque, using half the energy, with half the emissions. $1 million grant awarded General Vortex Energy by the Navy to build 125-kW prototype. Nine U.S. patents.

[kach22i]

I've seen this one before, but don't remember all the foils down below.

You should try the "simulator" if you get a chance - I don't have the hang of it yet but working on it.

Link:
http://www.2wglobal.com/expo2005/eng...urce/index.jsp

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Jirnov Vortex Engine Supported by U.S. Navy
http://pesn.com/2005/04/25/6900086_J...ortex_Turbine/

KACH22I:
Thanks a lot for the link and image on Jirnov's Turbine.

The Wallenius Wilhelmsen's futuristic ship, doesn't she looks pretty? Very Starwars Space Battleship looking.

[mattotoole]

The thing is, it's still incredibly cheap to send things by ship. Most of the cost is in handling the goods before and after, with fuel cost being a very small percentage of the goods' final value.

That said, kites are interesting.

I suppose we could build nuclear ships, but not cheaply enough in the near future. Today's geopolitical climate wouldn't encourage it either. Things could be different in 50 years though.

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by Grant Nelson

Hi, I dont have much to input, but some time ago there was some hype around putting tall rotating tubes on ships, these presumably using somekind of aerodynamic lift to move the boat, or maybe it was someother type of power transfer to the props, I really dont remember, but I would like to know if someone else remembers this and can provide some information - I have searched far and wide on the internet but can not find it... I am sure it was not a dream...

I think you are refering to the Fetner Rotor ship. It, IIRC, was a small tramp steamer fitted with two large rotating cylinders. The cylinders were rotated by modest engines of about 9hp each. It was to work on the principle of a curve ball in baseball. The spinning of the cylinders was supposed to create a low pressure area on one side as, the wind passed by, and thereby create lift.

It was built and it did work. Its speed, however, was modest. Maybe 5 or 6kts in a good wind. The project at that time (the '30's) was not competitive and was abandoned.

Bob

[mattotoole]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Tom,
Do you know about any experience, or study, about using biodiesel in vessels? If so, Is there a place where I can get the info?
I'm trying to investigate all possible propulsion alternatives available nowadays, even the weirdiest ones, so every contribution to that end will be most appreciated.

You might try www.biodiesel.org.

People in the field whose opinion I respect say that about 10% of US petroleum use could be replaced easily with biofuels. That's without major changes in our agricultural system, or available technologies. Beyond that would require more land for farming, water that has to come from somewhere, etc., not to mention the (unknown) environmental effects of all that. There are promising new technologies such as biodiesel from algae, but they're still unproven.

Ships in Los Angeles will soon be required to plug into grid power, to reduce pollution from their big diesels. This is a major source of pollution in the area, and one that can easily be prevented. Los Angeles has some leverage over the shipping industry, because it is where so many ships must go.

--

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by FAST FRED

"Go back to each country building its own products "

And you loose the efficency of specilazition.

Willing to pay $300 for a pair of shoes?

Willing to walk WORLDWIDE because your locals cant build a 747?

Globalization gives the entire world a far higher std of living , INCLUDING the $1.00 an hour labor ...
(that would be getting $1.00 a DAY as much of the world now does).
FAST FRED

Dear FF:

I beg to differ with you.

Where I sit, it does not work at all.

It is true, without cheap Chinese labor, I would probably be sitting in front of an old 386 instead of a Pentium (R) whatever. And I would probably be paying $100 a pair for walking shoes.

But I would also be doing better than $9.00hr with next to no benifits and living in terror that I might be laid off next.

Globalization is not about specialization. We had that (for at least 3,000 years) before GATT, NAFTA, and WTO. It is about about insane profits, cheap labor, and ludicris CEO saleries and benifits. Period.

The only country I see benifiting at all from all this is China. And that 1.) she is big enough to have decent bargaining power, and 2.) she is still an autocracy (a former communist one and now a fascist one) and can force her people to 'behave'.

As far as the good old U.S. of A goes, we are sinking. And, like the TITANIC, it is the steerage (people like me) who are first to notice. The water leaking into our cabins is pretty hard to ignore. On the original, I hear the crew had trouble getting the 1st and 2nd class passengers to get into the boats. These passengers refused to believe that there was a problem. That was, until they noticed the disturbingly forward tilt of the deck.

The main benificiaries of this system, as I see it, are:

1.) The multinational corporate leadership and their top stock holders,
2.) The leaders of autorcatic countries that get the best bribes,
3.) (temporarily) A tiny fraction of the people living in those countries, And
4.) Affluent American workers and retiries who have not yet been fired or who have not yet lost the generous retirement benefits that they have earned while working before WTO and all that.

I know that you are most likely a decent and reasonable man. You may have read books by Thomas L. Friedman and his fellow flat Earthers (I have too). And you have seen footage of the nut cases smashing store front windows (for what, I can't figure out).

But let me assure you. I have never smashed a store front window in my life (nore do I intend too). And I really do want the poorer people of this planet to do much better than $1.00 a day. I also want to survive. And maybe, some day, get to build one of those boats I keep drawing (the only way I keep my sanity).

I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals.

Bob

[FAST FRED]

"I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals."

No offense but $9.00 an hour is what very unskilled entry level labor gets paid.

As you can put together a sentance (however wrong) perhaps a change of employment will increase your take home.

I would suggest Skool teaching , it starts at $35 an hour and runs over $100. an hour in big cities , counting the 40% fringe package.

"I just don't see unleashing unfettered and unaccountable corporate greed as the likely way to either one of those goals".

You don't understans the modern world , where production & mfg are so competative that the usual large industrial MFG profit markup is about 3%.
Even the Chinese are loosing mfg to "low wage areas" , as the world gets MORE competative by the day.

The middleman always gets the lions share of most profits IKEA does far better than Shell, if you look at capital invested , rate of return ect.

So start a business , rather than be a wage slave.

I "profit" from the competition , even US autos are far better than they would be with out any competiton, better, cheaper , although still far from "World Class"

Sorry you have been sold a political bill of goods that doesn't relate to 2005 , and are not willing to educate yourself on the real world.

FAST FRED

[gonzo]

I have spent years of my life aquiring skills. This allows me to be competitive regardless of world changes. When engines went electronic, I took the factory training classes. The same with other technologies, like epoxy composites, new diesel controls, etc. I don't feel threatened by unskilled labor. Biodiesel and other sources may have advantages. However, they also have bad points. To blame multinationals for every ill in the world is plain idiocy and a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. We choose who to buy from. If alternate fuels are better and/or the market demands it, the multinationals will produce and sell it.