Should Power Assited Systems be Allowed?

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by D'ARTOIS

Your wording is better than mine, yes along that line my thoughts were running.

In such a case I do not see any objection. Than it is an advance rather than a ship driven by an auxiliary engine.....

Hi USA2 and D'Artois - thanks for your contributions to this thread - learned a lot from both of you.

However ...

Using hydrodynamic forces to lift the keel might be logically flawed.

If you generate enough righting moment to lift the keel you have overcome the righting moment from the keel so it has no contribution to boat stability during the lifting process.

Boat would lie over and lose its speed thus lose the hydrodynamic force.

A counter argument and extension would be to say that if you can develop lift from a flap on the keel sufficient to equal the RM (righting moment) from the keel itself ... why not get rid of the keel if you can develop equal RM hydrodynamically.

Just develop stability through the hydrodynamics and remove the problem of having to lift several tons of lead. And no lead to slow you downwind.

By the way I am not going to patent this - it is for everyone to use free of charge!

Keel canting to leeward will mean that development of RM will also reduce the effective displacement of the boat.

Finally a truly fast mono that will fall over when it stops. Better whack some outriggers on it so that won't happen and slim down that main hull while we are at it.

I feel truly embarrassed - every improvement forces the monos always seem to morph into multis.

The world is sooooo confusing

Michael the Luddite monohull sailor and designer

Michael, CBTFco already owns the above patent entitled:"Heel Control System For Sailing Yachts and Sailing Yacht Hull" Idea is to reduce ballast required using what amounts to a form of trimtab on a canting strut + "normal" CBTF.
The idea of the Maxi Skiff as I understand it is to provide a very fast platform that could possibly( thru the use of a bi foil hydrofoil system if necessary) more or less equal multihull speed while retaining the self-righting capability of a monohull. A truly worthy goal for an entirely new kind of "hybrid" sailboat-power assisted ballast or not.

[usa2]

Michael

What you have outlined above is essentially the catch in such a concept. Using the keel "aileron" to develop RM would allow you to lessen the amount of ballast, but then the boat would flop over if it wasnt up to speed.
Perhaps you could put a hollow bulb made out of carbon fibre on the end of the keel strut and cant it to leeward to keep the boat upright, and then when you are going fast enough let the aileron take over.

I suppose if you wanted to you could do away completely with the keel, and use two highly angled daggerboards with the "aileron" section to develop the neccasary forces.

I think CBTF's idea could work well; they do too. I always thought that it was the perfect canting keel system for actualy getting a keelboat on foils.
I was wrong: a two foil SDB has that concept beaten hands down....

[usa2]

Doug, exactly how much stuff has CBTFco patented?

Look up "MSHIP"-Here ya go:
M Ship Co. | Specializing in Next Generation Hull Technology
Address:http://www.mshipco.com/
For a connection see:
CBTFCo.com | Inventors of Canting Ballast Twin Foil™ Technology
Address:http://www.cbtfco.com/Company/company.php (bottom of front page)

[usa2]

doug did you know that the info on the CBTFco page regarding Morning Glory and Pyewacket is inaccurate, and if they had bothered to read what they were copying and pasting from R/P's website, they would have probably realized that?

2, what are you talking about? What does it matter? Why are you telling me and the forum instead of CBTFco?

[usa2]

i did tell them, 2 months ago, but they havent done anything about it.
You seem to be in good spirited correspondence with them occasionally so perhaps you could pass word along.

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Michael, CBTFco already owns the above patent entitled:"Heel Control System For Sailing Yachts and Sailing Yacht Hull" Idea is to reduce ballast required using what amounts to a form of trimtab on a canting strut + "normal" CBTF..

Haven't looked at this thread for AAAAAGES

CTBFco have probably wasted their money in this case.

Back when I used to subscribe to the AeroHydro newsletter it had some a mention and a drawing from someone using their CAD system to use that principle.

That would have been around 1990.

A patnt on an idea that is already in the public domain is useless.

Patents are only the registration to show that you are the first to register the idea. But if someone can demonstrate that the they or someone else thought of the idea first - whether by newspaper clipping or article in a magazine or a photo from their Auntie then the patent is voided.

MIK

Countless individuals from Steve Clark to what's his name have said that either one or both of the CBTF patents are no good. So far they've been 100% wrong as I hear it. Wouldn't bet against those guys - nor would I focus too narrowly on what you might think the patent covers.
Patents are NOT granted for ideas- the patent covers a demonstratable princible or method of actually doing something.
Personally(and after spending some time talking to the CBTF guys) I think their inventions are novel and very cool-I hope they fight like hell to hold onto to them.

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Countless individuals from Steve Clark to what's his name have said that either one or both of the CBTF patents are no good. So far they've been 100% wrong as I hear it. Wouldn't bet against those guys - nor would I focus too narrowly on what you might think the patent covers.
Patents are NOT granted for ideas- the patent covers a demonstratable princible or method of actually doing something.
Personally(and after spending some time talking to the CBTF guys) I think their inventions are novel and very cool-I hope they fight like hell to hold onto to them.

In the end it is impossible for an individual to hold an opinion about validity of patents at all. There's no way that within our limited experience that we can know what has happened in the past in any of these areas.

For example if you look through the archives of the AYRS there is heaps of material there that may match some aspects of the CTBFco patents. If a court decides it does then the patents can be handed over to the person who thought of the aspect earlier (the most dramatic possible outcome) or that aspect is dropped out of the patent - restricting its orbit.

That's why they have to be tested in court - and then anyone can still come along after and with adequate proof the patent can become their property.
______________________________

eg from Wikopedia regarding the original windsurfing patents. Note how Schweizer held the patent for some time before someone was able to show "prior art" - in this case Mistral using the Darby material.

(Below is Quoted from wikopedia)
History

Peter Chilvers as a 12 year old English boy on Hayling Island off the south coast of Britain, was the first person to conceive and produce a board with a sail. This board formed the basis for modern windsurfers. Peter Chilvers has been a successful engineer and has founded a sailing and windsurfing centre in London, where he lives today.

Chilvers is currently heading the bid for a £40 million sailing and windsurfing centre on Hayling Island to regenerate the area and recognise it as the home of windsurfing.

Chilvers has successfully won the patent for the windsurfer in the UK, Europe, Canada and America. Other worldwide patents are still being contested. The history of windsurfing, and it's ultimate inventor are a source of much conjecture in the windsurfing community. Most people (including the courts) recognise Chilvers as the father of windsurfing.

In this interview with Jim Drake Drake recognises Chilvers' invention in 1958.

Chilvers' invention has been incorrectly attributed and patented by 3 other inventors, Drake, Darby and Schweitzer. As mentioned this patent has successfully been challenged and it was proven that all 3 could have had prior knowledge of Chilvers' invention and that Darby was in fact on Hayling Island in the late 1950's.

Newman Darby is often incorrectly credited as the first man who had conceived the idea of connecting a hand-held sail rig fastened with a universal joint to a floating platform for recreational use in the early sixties. Darby had organized Darby Industries, Inc. in 1964 to build what they called sailboards. However, Darby's boards were inefficient and did not enjoy significant popularity [1].

The fathers of windsurfing as we know it today were Peter Chilvers as a 12 year old boy, a Californian aeronautical engineer Jim Drake and his friend Hoyle Schweitzer. Drake has designed a surfboard-like board with a triangular sail and wishbone booms, connected to the board via a universal joint, and Schweizter popularized the new sport. The details of the original designs are available in Drake's whitepaper on windsurfing. Also, the history of invention is discussed in this interview with Jim Drake.

Drake and Schweitzer patented the invention in 1968. Schweitzer incorporated Windsurfing International for promoting the sport and managing the patent, and bought the rights from Drake in 1973. Windsurfing caught on in Europe, and local companies started manufacturing windsurfing equipment. In 1983 Schweitzer sued a Swiss board manufacturer Mistral for infringing on his patent, however Mistral won the case by bringing up prior art by Darby. Schweitzer had to reapply for a patent under severely limited terms, and finally it expired in 1987.
(end of quote)

______________________________________

A more technical explanation is at
http://www.ipfrontline.com/downloads...rfer_paper.pdf
based on the findings in British law only - particularly whether the British Patent held by Schweizer could have been changed to a stronger form.

______________________________________

Cheers
Boatmik

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Patents are NOT granted for ideas- the patent covers a demonstratable princible or method of actually doing something.

Patents are granted for absolutely useless ideas. The theory and test results that support the claims in the patent are not verified. Patents get issued for things that don't work and will never work. Patents only get checked to see if the idea has been patented before.

There is a whole thread on absurd patents.