Capturing Wake Energy Without Drag ?

Why don´t you take your concept design and put that into a working prototype and give me 100k for this advice and make 10 million your selfe?

No seriously, I will not make fun of your idea since I like some of the goofy stuff that comes up here but I think that you have been caught by the beauty of your own mind. Your wood will travel allot faster across the pond if you just throw your pebbles straight at them.

Look it from the other end. These are the specs for a couple of wave pool machines and (per installed meter of width) means the wave length/width: These are the numbers you need to work with if you seriously like to "move" water from a stand still against something (int this case a beach) that is able to absorb their energy.

And yes, I understand some power is lost but even with transition losses at 50% it´s still quite many pebbles

1.
Wave Height:
4 feet (1.2 M)

Rated power (per installed meter of width):
72 HP (55 Kw)

Consumed power (per installed meter of width):
24 HP (18 Kw)

Rides/Hour:
277

2
Wave Height:
5 feet (1.5 M)

Rated power (per installed meter of width):
72 HP (55 Kw)

Consumed power (per installed meter of width):
38 HP (28 Kw)

Rides/Hour:
240

3
Wave Height:
6 feet (1.8 M)

Rated power (per installed meter of width):
72 HP (55 Kw)

Consumed power (per installed meter of width):
54 HP (41 Kw)

Rides/Hour:
180

 

I've been giving a bit of thought to marketting my concept.I only need one investor with $200,000 to spend. I've been thinking of approaching the Sierra Club as a potential sponsor. A well publicized campaign to inform the public of a top secret lab that is producing dramatic results that simultaneously produce electricity, reduce fuel consumption , reduce wave erosion and protects bathers from careless motorboat operators could inspire manufacturers to spend more time and money applying themselves to those goals.

Any major boat manufacturer could also generate a lot of good will by picking up this research project.$ 200,000 is a small amount to spend to appease the environmentalists that are demanding that manufacturers do something to reduce the erosion caused by motorboats. By investing in this project they can prove their heartfelt intent to address the issue. Over the years I've seen a lot of children that have been nominally injured by wave action from careless powerboaters that are stunting to close to bathers. I don't doubt that some parents have launched lawsuits against manufacturers, alleging careless indifference and negligence in design as a factor in the consequence of wave induced injury or death. Having proof of money spent upon wave reduction technology research could help defense attorneys quell the wrath of jurors.

 

I took a look at his site.It appears that he may be on to something. He would have a better chance of raising some money if he cleaned up the presentation a bit.

There are a lot of great and conscientious minds here. I appreciate the labour and insight you contribute to many of the threads here. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

I never could keep a secret.My concept involves spring loaded wings mounted on the back of the boat on each side. When the boat is at rest the wings are at rest above the water. When the boat digs in and starts to generate waves, the waves will deflect off the rear of the wing tips.The resulting effects will be to produce nominal lift while shaving off some of the waves peak. The leading edge of the wing is designed to rise above the water if the wave contacts the full lengrh of the wave arrestor. This effect is included so that the wing doesn't overpower the handling characteristics of the boat. Micro generators are built into the section of wing that is intended to be pressed against the wave at all times. The generators allow a portion of the wave pressing against the wing tip to pass through. Tension on the wings is is adapted to each boat depending on its operating speed. Lower speed boats have higher tension whereas high speed boats have lower tension so that the wings won't overpower the boat or tear away.

 

This would perfectly fit here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/boat-jokes-we-need-few-laughs-14472.html

 

The site does need a bit more humor once in a while and no design alternative would be credible if it had no hecklers or naysayers.

Without the creative input of imaginative fools from outside of the marine design industry I don't think any innovative design evolution would ever occur.I don't intend to be insulting here but I find the marine world to be the most ultra orthodox , unwavering realm I have encountered. I don't think I've seen anything new in over twenty years. If I went to a boat show tomorrow I don't believe I'd see anything that wasn't around in 1980.

 

You should go with open eyes, that would help!

 

As soon as I find a contributor with $200,000 to spend I'll make it work at 1/8 scale.As an oilfield power engineer I have adapted to the requirement to concieve and implement design modification by myself at 40 below with 40 mile per hour winds during blinding blizzards in the dark of night. In that oilfield realm you only fail to meet critical objectives once and then you are laughed out of the industry.

 

Chuckle. I was just enjoying reading through this thread and laughed out loud when I saw this..because I was thinking the same thing.

 

If you want to "prove" your concept, start by showing calculations that demonstrate that the power required to overcome the added drag of your "wings" will be less than the power generated by them.

Can you do that?

 

Oh holy Moses, that explains a lot. BTW, did you work for the BP oil company lately?

As to your example with the pond and the frozen sewer, a few calc's might clear that! Just to get an idea of what powers are involved, and to rub away the "magic"!

Lets study a car wheel rolling into a 4 inch deep pond with a speed of 50 km/h (~13.9 m/s, or ~30 mph). The load on the wheel is high enough to stop it from "aquaplaning", and its width is 155 mm. The frontal area pushing water aside is then 0.155 * 0.1 = 0.0155 m2. The flow is area times speed: Q = 0.0155 * 13.9; ie 0.215 m3/s.

The pressure caused by a moving object equals the dynamic pressure; pdyn = v^2 * density/2. In this case pdyn = 13.9^2 * 1000/2; ie 96605 Pa. This corresponds to a pumping head of 9.9 m water column, or ~32 feet.

The fluid power is flow * pressure; here 0.215 * 96605, which makes 20.77 kW, for each wheel (we don't enter into details of rear wheels rolling in the wake of the front ones aso).

So, the car, with its four wheels acts as a huge pump with a flow capacity of ~0.86 m3/s, throwing away the water with nearly 14 m/s, which vertically comes up to 32 feet. When thrown sideways, its trajectory lies under the corresponding ballistic parabola.

In order to get a similar result from a water pump with its hydromechanical efficiency ~70 % and motor efficiency ~85 %, you have to install something like 140 kw. Compare this to your 1.5 kW pump, and you should understand why there was no visible result; the environmental inflow was probably in the same range.

 

Spoil sport.

 

If you ever want to study a problem to death without ever achieving any tangible results then go hire a a conservative minded intellectual with a PHD. By the end of the day he will give you a thousand and one well qualified reasons why you can't achieve your objective. If however you want to get the job done you'll have to turn to a hungry junk yard dog like myself. With cash in your hand and a pile of scrap at my feet tell me I have until the end of the day to achieve the necessary goal and by the end of the day the job will be done.

 

uh...maybe I'm just a bit too old and conservative myself, but..

Questor, you claimed to be a 'power engineer'. If you are indeed an engineer, then you would have to know how to execute simple power calculations and easily show yourself - and others therefore - that your particular version of perpetual motion magic can not work. If you were indeed an engineer, you would know, in fact, that any perpetual motion scheme is an impossiblity.

Had you not made the claim that you were an engineer, you could easily be excused for being just another non-engineer with an idea that you are not equipped to analyze further. But you did make the claim....

Either way, layperson, hobbyist or PHD engineer, nothing beats a feasibility demonstration. I'll be looking forward to the videos and a report.

 

The ever so common approach.......

When our visionary newbies are confronted with facts and data and there is no applause, they turn bold, barefaced and insulting.

Every week another one of them...