Most Efficient Boat Propulsion

TANSL: ease up on your lies. Saying stupid things as usual is your privilege, libel is not. How are you going to run a propeller shaft without a thrust bearing and u-joints at the pivot point? Are you guys so intent on insulting me that your stupidity prevents you from coherent thinking?

 

Most Efficient Boat Propulsion depends on the geometry of the boat.

 

They claim to have a Universal solution. However, they are not telling any details.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXH-TilPP4A
This is one of several design coupling been around for some time, I may add to one of my all-purpose Myark water crafts that has a Toms pivotal propulsion system adapted.

 

also the coupling shaft drive absorbs power and you pay in terms of efficiency

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEvaOg7glKk
Have another look

 

yes i see,
but the loss of power there is always;
gimbal has sense for surface propellers as it tries to compensate for the loss of power by eliminating the rudders.
Then the question is always the same: tell me which boat you have, and then Is possible to know what the propulsion is most efficently.

 

Myark: are you saying that the u-joint is absorbing the thrust?

 

TCVJ lose next to no power so that issue is not one to compare with a pivotal propulsions system,
So far no one has produced any competition about a propulsion system better than Toms pivotal drive which is suited for all purpose boating such as shallow water, simplicity, reliability and can compete with jet units and actually turn weed into thrust and most of all the over cost and reliability such as DIY maintenance and a lot more.

 

Can you explain how it can "actually turn weed into thrust ".

 

I think every one can understand the simple mechanics of the system you are trying to peddle. I wonder why it is not very popular, having been around for so many years with previous versions, such as the Dis-Pro?



Maybe it is because they don't serve much purpose in "all purpose boating"?

Who in the general population really desires to boat in weed infested shallow water muck? If they do, there are the mud motors with long tails



or short tails



The short tails stick out the back no more than yours does and will fit any boat without modifications having to be made, such as a tunnel for the shaft to disappear into and the probable nuisance of electronic sensors and the ''ski rider steering'' system you propose. Of course they might be most efficient at getting through shallow muck, but probably not most efficient at gas milage or being nice to the motor etc.

How can a propeller designed to work fully submerged and in S/P mode be anything but a compromise, and how can a boat with a compromised prop, electronic sensors with accompanying shaft lift motors and linkage etc, plus added steering sponson skis with it's own set of linkages and supports be more "efficient" than a basic outboard?

I think what you are proposing might work well in some limited situations, but it doesn't seem practical or that it would really be more "effecient" than most other systems.

If you are so positive about the efficiencies of your system over others, why can't you more positively define the efficiencies you are alluding to and give data with direct comparisons to other systems?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqGpeJ1-bnE
Hi Sam
It’s not just weed Toms boat can overcome, its sand banks or logs and shallow water that the pivotal drive design has no problems, plus has the benefits of all round boating in deep water and rough seas, what I like the most it becomes a boat that is simple to manufacture from scratch with little moving parts that are low cost and can be DIY maintained.
Its works like a jet boat crossed with gator boat but does not have the problems attached and the loss of HP and cost.
Toms not a multi-millionaire and he is one man, and of course it’s $ needed to develop its full benefit, the designs you matched are no match as they are not all purpose boating like Toms especially the long tail boat which is not all purpose at all.
Can you be more realistic and show something that can compete to be fair.

 

I can't really show something to compete because it seems like an unfinished product, only a rudimentary idea is proposed, only a rudimentary prototype is shown, and unproven results of efficiency of some sort are extrapolated from them with no real data to back up the claims.

The ski sponson steering system would be a bit complex and fragile with modification required on any boat the drive was fitted to, plus create it's own problems of docking and damage to itself hitting any obstacles.

The proposed electronic sensor system that pulls the shaft up at speed to avoid obstacles is a tricky problem in itself. I wonder about it's abilities to perform it's duty and it's reliability in use.

There is no way to get a useful patent on it, and even if it might be simple to manufacture from scratch with little moving parts that are low cost and can be DIY maintained (and built), those very properties make manufacturing it something that would be very competitive and therefore low profit. Plus, once more, if it's so cheap and easy to build and maintain, works so well and it's been around for 100 years, why aren't there any being used?

 

Hi gonzo, I have put you on my Ignore list and it looks like I will have to add a lot more that are just creating what is termed "on line bullying" and playing at silly beggars spoiling a
good forum website just to amuse themselves.

 

Maybe an outboard with jack up rig would be the most versatile. Lower units with pump drives or shrouds for rock/mud climbing, or SP props. All available off the shelf, bolt on additions at low incremental cost.

Dino