Crossbow fl

The latest boats I see on the DSS site are the Infinity 36s. 36 foot, fixed keel and they appear to work well. Remember they are handicap rated. That means they have loads of races available to compete in.

Your power trap seems to be a very complicated means to achieve what is commonly done with body weight. Moving your body from rail to rail would provide more righting (scaled) than moving a full crew on the Infinity 36.

You say power trap is proven on RC, then maybe you have a product you could sell on a crowd fund site. The idea of you taking other peoples money to fund your mash up boat of your concepts and others patents with nothing provided to supporters makes me cringe. Power trap is yours (as far as I know). If you have a product (RC system) I could see trying crowd funding, but leave out DSS.

I still think that based on your DSS obsession you should make the smallest DSS keel boat, then you can use it as a platform to develop power trap later.

 

================
That's a trully obnoxious, presumptuous and uninformed statement-just amazing!
================
I already have 4 US Letters patents and have made the deliberate choice not to patent the Trapeze Power Ballast System(which was patentable). To the extent it turns out like I want it to, it is public property for use by anyone-a small way for me to say thanks to so many for the help I have had.
---------
Is this a deliberate mispelling of the name of my system? Why?
--------
You suggest moving my body weight from rail to rail. That means you have not understood(or read?) the whole purpose of the Crossbow fl and Trapeze Power Ballast System which is to make it possible for those with physical restrictions or disabilities to sail a planing sailboat without having to physically exert themselves. Thats why it represents a whole new way to sail-one that has never been done in this way before. No system ever used for movable ballast uses buoyancy in the way that this system does and that and the speed of the system is why it represents a completely new way to enjoy small, fast monohull sailing for a group of people who otherwise would have no chance to.
-------------

 

Doug your 4 patents all have expired - they weren't useful enough for the assignees to pay the periodic maintenance fees. That you have made a choice not to patent this one doesn't make it any more credible.

Nor do I suspect is Skyak "deliberately misspelling the name of [your] system". Doug you have changed the name of this system more than once. the description is adequate for discussion.

its true that no system is looking to combine ballast and floatation - unless you count every single multi-hull out there. Essentially what you are trying to do is to build a multi-hull that has a shuttling ama.

there is a reason why folks don't do this. the loads on the aka joints are pretty great.

But I think you are misreading what Skyak is saying about moving your body. What he is saying is that your system requires power and speeds that are rather high and that if you mix DSS with the trapwing you have too much moving stuff happening at once. And its just bad engineering

 

Doug, I have not read the entire thread. I was just trying to use a short name for your beam ballast -is TPBS ok?

So TPBS purpose is to offer high performance sailing to the disabled. The performance and quality standards for active systems involving safety are extremely high. No knock on your abilities but I don't see you having the resources to get this proven safe enough. Do you know what a DFMEA is? And I keep coming back to the point, is it not possible to achieve the same performance with a passive system? Multihull or DSS keel boat?

This shines a different light on the crowd funding. Are you now or will you be so disabled in the future? Disabled sailors are a very specific group. You could contact all of them on the continent to get their opinions and requirements. They race keel boats now. Do they want more speed? Crowd funding is far more likely for a noble cause than 'white male wants a new boat' but getting TPBS to the point it can be offered to the public is seven figures at least. The best advice I could give would be to lift the entire motor and control system from a current product with the right performance specs because you can not afford to do the validation testing needed for liability.

 

And all the active elements need to be evaluated for safety. The cost of proving safety ...you just can't comprehend.

And if you did manage to develop and prove the system safe, is it what the users want? My experience with disability is that they don't want more automatic safe performance. They don't want any advantage. They want the absolute minimum assistance with the least complication and highest reliability to do the most common things.

 

Well Doug has had the safety concerns raised about this "design" previously as well. Its not new information.

 

-------------------
You should know that there are disabled systems that allow steering, sheeting and even a movable ballast system that electro-hydraulically tilts a cockpit seat to allow the crew CG to move to weather on the Skud 18. Several disabled sailors and one manufacturer of boats used for disabled sailing have already expressed interest in this system.
----
The Crossbow fl is self-righting(in the same way an IMOCA 60 is-crew may have to move the ballast) but there are a number of boats used for disabled sailing that are not self-righting. The Weta and Challenger Trimarans being two of several. So what constitutes the ultimate in safety is generally left up to the sailor-so far. Some small keelboats used for disabled sailing can be knocked down and will sink-not possible with Crossbow fl. The emphasis on safety with the Crossbow fl project started with the design-no way would I consider using a singlehander for disabled sailing if the boat wasn't self-righting/rightable by the crew with no body movement. The design elements of this boat make it safe as well as the most exciting singlehander yet designed(to my knowledge) for disabled / physically restricted sailing.

 

Yes Doug and such systems are not shifting weight at the rate of 5 linear Feet per second. That someone has expressed interest is a long way from saying that it is viable and safe. Their interest is necessarily predicated on safety. Something you have not yet shown.

I don't know why you are so resistant to a safety analysis. I sure would not want a drowning on my consciences.

 

Crossbow fl--Bethwaite

Julian Bethwaite was among the first to encourage me on this concept. He had worked on an on-deck movable ballast system with Paul Cayard and Russel Coutts. It was his suggestion on the size of the wingtips that resulted in the change from the original wing to the Crossbow wing with one cubic foot of buoyancy in the tip as well as a design to enhance dynamic lift when there is incidental contact at high speed.

Here is the original post where I quote Julians PM to me:

LEFT: The Crossbow type wing tip was devised as a direct result of the PM above-the red hulled boat used much smaller wing tips, RIGHT and BELOW-Bethwaites Pterodactyl:

 

Hopefully by someone with more gravitas.

DFMEA comparison? Stability capsized? Testing to confidence levels?

I am just giving my opinion and the benefit of my experience -the most relevant would be the development of the first mass production airbag systems -my first patent was for the connection system that would warn the user if it was not connected.

Doug, there doesn't seem to be anything I can contribute here. You are not answering any of my questions, just arguing against my opinion as if I don't want success. My opinion is that you should build your small DSS boat and that would be the best candidate for the disabled sailor. Sort of a DSS mini12 match racer. The SCUD system could be used for moving ballast.

I also think you have another product for (but not limited to) the disabled sailor -your RC models. Done Ready Go.

I am sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for. I don't care if the entire lollipop guild says "follow the yellow brick road!" I say "click those Ruby slippers!".

 

-------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the Skud system would not provide enough RM in this boat. I even considered a non-electro-hydraulic tilting seat earlier. The Trapwing system(Trapeze Power Ballast System) fits the boat and the concept perfectly-thats why it was chosen-it compliments the use of DSS, the fact that the boat is a singlehander, and the desired level of performance.
These elements compliment each other in a way that provides a unique, powerful and safe singlehander that uses proven technology as well as technology that hasn't been seen on the planet before.
You used the words "mash up" to describe the Crossbow fl earlier-that couldn't be farther from the reality-every element of this boat has been carefully designed and engineered to work together to provide a first class sailing experience in a fast singlehander that can be used by a wide range of people from the physically restricted and disabled to able-bodied sailors of almost all ages and weights.
=========
Skyak, sounds like you've done some pretty interesting stuff-congratulations on your patents. Just out of curiosity,have you designed, built and manufactured small sailboats?
The airbag development must have been a very interesting project. I developed and patented a video piloted helicopter back in 1985-was one of the most fun projects I ever worked on. Flying the thing was just a fantastic experience.

 

I do not post here much but do follow this thread.

Due to the a number of reasons, I understand why sometimes Doug gets defensive when responding to "negative tone" postings. Sometimes there are points that he might should consider, but they get lost in the fussing. Other times, I think his position is really reasonable, but the other side just does not get it (or possibly does not want to get it).

Trapwing:

The Trapwing concept was proven at the RC level. It can generate a lot of RM, and has significant layout/structural advantages. It originally had a big liability but this was eliminated by the Julian Bethwaite suggestion to make the tips of the crossbeam buoyant. As a mechanical engineer, doing the weight sliding by electric should be no big deal.

I even thought up a way of using a bungy cord system that could pre-charge by electric or even a manual pilot system with a crank. With the system "pre-charged" the weight swap would be fast based on a simple release.

Note that loss of the sliding the weight function should not impact boat safety. Have the weight to the wrong side and the tip wallows along on the surface. Sliding it to the wrong side at speed would be a dumb mistake. Probably less likely than many other mistakes that will put a mast into the water with a boat at a good speed.
​

DSS:

This is an interesting technology that has some advantages, but adds more than a little complexity. I think Doug expects more of a general performance boost than he should. However, it does allow more sail area in the light stuff, gives a better gust response and does not hurt top end speed. For an all electric system, I could see pre-programmed settings that auto swap the DSS foil and the Trapwing ballast first to center and then to the correct side based on boom position. In this sense Doug has a point that they could be complimentary. ​

Overall:

DSS is proven to do what it does. The ballast system has potential but needs development for a full scale boat. I would hazard a guess that a longer beam Trapwing only boat would come close enough in performance to the combo to beat the combo in a cost vs performance assessment.

If Doug were ever to get around to it (doubtful to be honest, but I hope otherwise) a prototype could easily be planned as a staged effort. Build it DSS only at first and then add the Trapwing on after the first version has reached a reasonable level of function. This would allow for focused development work on one item at a time and eventual comparison of the relative merit.

That way the extra cost / effort of a fancy control system would be put off and only implemented if a manual control combo proves worth it.
​

At this point this is just a concept. There is a reasonable development path for the concept. Doug's health, limited "shop" capabilities and limited funds are all challenges. Blasting at the concept in general before any development is probably less useful than providing constructive suggestions such as "take it one step at a time".

 

Thanks for the post, Paul. Just a few things:
1) the DSS foils on the Crossbow fl plug into separate trunks and do not move.
------
2) not sure I understand "limited shop capabilities" but I don't have a viable shop and my back is a real problem for boat building.
------
3) there seems to be a misconception that because the boat is designed to make use of new technologies that the initial development would be with DSS and the Trapeze Power Ballast System used together from the get go. But thats not how it will work. The components and what is required to mount them and use them will be completed but:
a. testing will begin with sailing the boat with no DSS and no Trapwing. The wind range will be limited or the rig will be reefed since the boat will be sailing with less than it's designed RM. The rotating seat,if used, would be sorted during this phase,
b. the Trapwing system(Trapeze Power Ballast System) will be the next system introduced in testing because it is required to allow the full effectiveness of the plug-in DSS foils so it must be sorted first,
c. next full bore testing with DSS added.....
------
4)There is a lot of potential with this design but there is a lot against me ever getting it done. However, I hope I will not give up no matter what.

 

Your shop situation is obviously a real limitation for you as it is for many others. The "limited shop capabilities" phrase was a polite way of saying "it looks like he uses his dining room table for a shop".

I am a little better off. I have a crowded garage with a few not so high tech tools such as a cheap table saw, electric hand planer, drill press and router.

I could afford a lot better, but choose not to. I like the idea of stuff made using techniques that are not out of reach for people with no shop and very limited tool inventories.

 

===============================
Ha! Not only the dining room table, the breakfast room, the living room, one bedroom(of two) and the screen porch was my shop for building the model-and it was just about adequate. No chance of building a boat in this "shop" however........ Boy, would I love one.....

Picture- The Dining Room Table: