Froude and planing

Plowing on top due to light weight.

 

sandhammaren

If you so 100% convinced by your own theory and what you consider to be easily observable to support such, then why do you not write a paper to be submitted to a peer reviewed Journal?
Then you can see whether your claims/assertions etc are valid and are supported by the institutions that promote and teach science and technology.

To put your claims on a forum website after 26 pages of endless back and forth doesn't give your assertions much credence as it appears you have not convinced anyone yet. If you wish to be taken seriously, publish and let it be peer reviewed. Otherwise, you will become (some would say already) and come across as any other poster with an axe to grind and refutes any criticism because they do not like having their long held beliefs ripped apart. If any of your claims can be supported and gain acceptance from the wider global technical community, such as Journal of Marine Science and Technology, to name one of many fine publications, then great. Then you can shout about it...but if it is knocked back.....aaah....then it becomes somewhat more tricky you for. Since subject matter experts from across the field and global reject your claims as lacking in evidence or substance.

Or is that your MO...not to publish for fear of rejections, thus coming on this website to peddle endlessly your claims/theory...simply because you can? If the later, just paints a very unflattering image of you.

 

What is the difference between "plowing on top due to light weight" and "planing", in naval architecture or physics?

What is your definition of "light weight"? Is it total mass or displacement to length ratio?

How does something "plow on top" when it is in fact entirely UNDER water as in the photos and videos?

At what stage does a windsurfer that is "plowing on top" become a windsurfer that is planing? Is it at 6 knots? 16 knots? 22 knots? 32 knots?

 

AdHoc: this is someone who claims to be a physicist, but does not think models and simulations are valid. Physics is only models and simulations, since we cannot see or measure atoms or subatomic particles directly. He claims that a scientific method is to hang out the transom of a boat and look at the water.

 

Consider the case of the bouncing bomb. That ain't buoyant (and early prototypes didn't have back spin, but still bounced).

 

Although with regard to this thread it is possible (only possible) that you have a bit of reason, you should not forget that a great part of the great scientific discoveries have been produced by the simple observation of nature. So do not neglect the method of "looking at...".

 

All scientific theory is based upon observation and then a theory to explain it.

But observation alone is insufficient as highlighted by the inattentional blindness experiments with the Gorilla.

But having noted something, in an observation, if one cannot produce a theorem based upon such events to explain quantitatively, it is nothing other than...i saw something. If you don't see it, i don't care. That is not scientific nor quantitative.
I saw a mermaid, so what. Just because i saw it, doesn't make anything based upon this real., if I am the only one who saw it or believes in it.

If someone is so convinced by an observation, then it is easy, to quantify thus and produce a theorem which can be critiqued to establish its validity. Otherwise, it is just opines.

 

Good point. I know that my work is correct. I've published over a hundred papers in statistical physics, superfluids, nonlinear dynamics, a few in turbulence, and many also in economics and finance. I learned from the latter that it is very hard for a person working outside a field to enter and publish without repeating the standard accepted dogma of the field. In this case, marine hydrodynamics, I sent a paper on surface piercing propellers and scaling laws in bpat-propeller performance, to SNAME, a referee didn't read it (he understood nothing), instead took a crap on it ad hoc. I have therefore decided instead to put out a book. The ms is complete. I have five academic books published with Cambridge Univ. Press, but the new hydrodynamics guy is from the British military industrial complex and is not in tune. I do not suffer from fear of rejection and am not bashful about trying. Nearly all of the papers I submitted were published. In marine hydrodynamics, I would need someone from inside the field to recommend the paper.

 

Apparently some scientists have proceeded in reverse of what you say. As I understand it, Einstein formulated some theory mathematically (that is, he expounded an opinion that, by the way, was not "easy to quantify"), which was later proved by practical experiments.
The observation of reality can give rise to opinions (as you like to call them), some of which, subsequently, are proven to be true.

 

'All scientific theory' goes too far, that;s not correct. This is not a theorem either. I have a lift coefficient for v-bottoms ans it works. I.e., it works for different boats. You have made an attempt to make me look like a fool, but the fool is elsewhere.

This is not about mermaids. Amazing how much nonsense is posted as response to a good flow picture. Funny that my colleagues in theoretical physics find it interesting but it gets crapped on on this website.

 

What did your colleagues find interesting in your pictures? For huge majority of readers of this forum there is nothing in those pictures they haven't seen before. It is well known, that planing boats with transom stern are typically wet at low speeds and get dry at some speed. There are even known models for the speed when they get dry.

What is not at all known is that this has something to do with onset of lift. You still haven't read the paper about flat plate lift during start and stop?

 

An old and good friend sold his propeller co. to a non-U.S. outboard motor firm. Every year the engineers come from afar with their computer-designed props and visit the test site. The successor of my friend meets them there. They test, he beats on them with a hammer, and there's a speed gain. So much for simulations in naval architecture.

Clarification: he beats on the props, not the engineers, with a hammer. The engineers scratch their heads. Knowledge trumps simulations most of the time.

 

If they saw it before then why did they fail to draw conclusions? Brain dead? I seriously doubt that either you or any of your colleagues saw anything before other than the results of some simulation. In any case, there's no evidence for your remarks.

 

If you are referring to general relativity, there was an unsolved problem between known models and measurements before the theory was released. So it was already known that a new model is needed.

What is the novelty of the model presented here? Except it is false regarding the new concept "onset of lift", which has not been seen in any measurements done for more than a century for both airplane wings and planing boats. And false use of Kutta condition is related to this. Later on more false claims like pointy stern can't provide lift has been made.

Savitsky already presented a model for calculating drag, lift and trim of a planing boat many decades ago. Other models existed well before his one. It can be used to predict the speed of planing boats. For raceboats details like drive drag, aerodynamic drag and lift, whisker spray drag etc. become very important. These have been added later to the original Savitsky model, but need to be carefully tweaked for the actual case for high speed applications.

 

But you theory doesn't explain how bouncing bombs bounce...