Exploring another idea

Sorry, far too much supposition and not enough factual evidence.

We can all speculate until the cows come home, but facts and evidence is what is required to make such statements more plausible!

 

Yes, of course. I post my ideas under the premise that I have little knowledge of engineering, boat design and all that comes with it, so that those that do have this particular knowledge might make some constructive criticism in support of or against my idea. Key word "constructive".

 

In order to construct, you sometimes lay a foundation.

In big projects, preparing a foundation is often done with a lot of force.



You idea might work better if trying to reduce water contact, you used CAB technology .... 3 or 4 of those for your hulls might really reduce your water contact.

But, I think they have fallen out of favor as hulls.

 

Well the obvious one is, what is your objective?

I've read lots of words and thoughts/ideas....but nothing that really outlines what is your final objective to satisfy? Until you do that, you shall keep going around in circles and be presented with more questions than answers.

 

Point well taken.

Initially I was just curious about the feasibility of it. Would it work and how well would it work?

Otherwise I've begun to think it might be a good platform for an autonomous craft, like those proposed for oceanic surveillance. There seems to be a certain amount of inherent stability in this design. So, on a larger scale, an objective might be to cross oceans with a short handed crew.

I'd like to build a scale model of it just to learn more from the whole process It interests me, that all.

 

That is to be detremined.

Again, YOU are going to have to define what YOU mean by "inherent stability". One cannot simply make casual remarks about a concept and assume because it is said, it is so!

 

Of vey!

From what I've read about SWATH designs they "seem" stable.

Again, I don't have an engineering background. I couldn't provide you a treatise on the subject even if I wanted to. I can only speculate because speculation is all I have to go with for now. If its too vague for you, I'm sure sure there are other posts with more specific questions you could contribute to.

However, I will endeavor to have a more cleare objective in the future if this is what it takes to prompt a simple discussion.

I was born in Misawa by the way. Where are you?

 

With respect there in lies the problem. It is all too easy to make casual remarks of strength, stability whatever, all being boat related in some form or another. This website is littered with many such examples of misinformation or misunderstanding.

To fully appreciate a concept/idea or a simple observation, beyond ones understanding, takes time and patience. However, most who come on here just want a quick fix answer - usually just one that aligns with their "understanding", and if not, ends up in a bar room brawl affair.

Since every explanation simply leads to far more questions, only because your understanding is limited at best. If you really wish to understand more, then may i suggest you go to your nearest library and read several books on naval architecture, seakeeping and stability. Once you have read them, then come back as your questions, hopefully, will be more focused and you should understand the reply more fully.

You can get an idea of some "typical" books to read to gain a better understanding from here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/education/recomend-naval-architecture-textbook-29145.html

Kobe.

 

Also, with equal respect.

I had not read that these forums were restricted and limited to the amount of knowledge one has about yacht design and such. Are you saying that unless I gain greater knowledge of the subject I just shouldn't bother posting a question at all? After reading the books you suggest, how will I know if I'm knowledgeable enough? Is there I test I should take?

Many other forums are populated with professionals who are willing and interested to answer a question form other lowly members with lesser knowledge. I kind of thought that's what they were designed to do? To promote discussion. To get answers. I have been happy to offer an opinion on various subjects that I felt I had some knowledge of. But maybe you are right. Maybe ignoramuses have no business belonging to any forum.

Petty arguments are a waste of time, you're right.

 

They are not. The only restriction is ones own ability to understand a concept and then, how said person deals with the information.

The problem is that everyone has an idea or opinion about a boats, great. No issue there. But the technical issues which can be explained generally require far more understanding and background knowledge. And that's where the simple question goes pear shaped...often with the patience and belligerence of the poster not enjoying being told their 'dream' is not feasible.

Typical example here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/proa-questions-33138-2.html#post372968
and here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/proa-questions-33138-2.html#post373090

A poster wishing to understand some basics. But when shown and explained the mechanics behind their "question", it didn't seem to fit with their own preconceived ideas or hot air, thus was ignored. We can all speculate as to why...but the simple matter of fact is that boats, when you want to understand the hows and the why's...are very complex and not simple at all.

Just pick up one book....Principals of Naval Architecture...look at the seakeeping section, which is ostensibly your main line of questioning. Then tell me do you understand this with a simple cursory review?

Otherwise all I am doing and any other NA wishing to chime is, is simply wasting time teaching you the basics and the implications. These "basics" took me some 7 years of uni and 20+ years of applying such theory.

I know what a heart is...but it doesn't make me a cardiologist or a surgeon just because I am asking questions about its function or draw pretty pictures with the 4 ventricles!

Thus:

A single question is easy to answer..but, the whole mechanics and physics behind the answer, is a totally different proposition, and just leads to more questions which become ever more complex. Thus where do you sit...just wishing to know the answer and that is all?..or...the whole reasoning/logic behind it? The two are poles apart in the time required to satisfy the original Q.

 

Oh, the last word, eh?

I can understand your frustration. Few people have the gift to describe complex ideas in layman's terms.

I understand your point. Why contribute anything when someone is closed minded to the facts?

I have also read many topics that have degenerated in the way you describe, like this one just has.

There have been some sincere comments posted here whether for or against this discussion and I appreciate the honest answers. I never described this as a dream project and your analogy of a cardiologist is off base. Doesn't make any sense.

Really, I have no doubt you are a fine NA. Just tell me what you think, that's all. Or not. Surely you have better things to do with all that expertise.

 

Southern Cross: he told you some of your proposal are either wrong or that the questions themselves don't make sense. To be able to ask proper questions, you need to learn enough to have a framework of knowledge. Ad Hoc points out, correctly, that drawing a picture is not the same as designing a vessel. The drawing is the smallest and simplest part of the design process. Laymen usually feel insulted because they don't understand, even though they don't want to spend the time doing the math. Design has a lot of math. A lot of it is simple, like weights calculations, but very tedious. Are you willing to take the time to follow the steps necessary to learn to understand the answers?

 

It's easier to measure how a specific design fulfills specific requirements than speculate on an idea in isolation. You have an idea and no specific requirements to measure against.

Development for an application may restrict this in different ways.

For example, your idea has the draft of a keel and the docking issues of a multihull. Recreational boats are limited by slip cost, storage, trailering, waterway depth.

For a ROV, there is the danger of catching seaweed and debris.

One approach is to work on the simplest and smallest scale you can to prove the concept.

Build a working model to start.

 

The above is an example of constructive criticism of which I find absolutely no offense at all. It doesn't ask for my references or insinuate that I should become proficient in the subject before any answer is given. It's generous and I appreciate it.

I'm offended by the arrogance and the elitism of AdHoc' replies.

What if I had begun this post with "I have $5M US and I'm looking for someone to build my design"? Would an NA treat his client this way who proposed an absurd idea for his dream boat? I highly doubt it especially when a great deal of money is at stake. I highly doubt every client is as proficient in yacht design as his NA and I doubt that an NA really cares whether his client understands yacht design at all. It's snobbery and it's a trait I deplore in people.

Maybe I could understand a reluctance to respond to this discussion if I had professed to be something I wasn't or if I had been closed off to any criticism. I simply wanted to know if there was any merit to the idea from which I could begin to dig a little deeper. Instead, the whole thing has been reduced to pettiness. And the sketch.... It's just a sketch! Clearly. It's not a design. It's a sketch to help visualize what I had in mind.

Am I willing to learn more? Always. But if you are suggesting that everyone should read "Principles of Yacht Design" before proposing an idea then I think you will succeed in creating the elitist club you might have in mind for this forum.

 

Swath

I may have missed it by another poster but the statement of a SWATH being stable is true mostly because it only affected a small amount by changing waves passing by its thin struts. With almost no recovery from heeling, a cat or tri-hull arrangement would soon push the center-hull against the surface or flip.

Think about the dynamics acting on three submarines in a triangle, pushing one down does nothing to the others. If they were strutted together it would only change the heel of the other two.

A modified idea might be to have one long semi-sub hull with a dynamic keel to maintain a mast angle and counter heeling of sail. I conceived of such a craft but would be repetitive to show it again.