Have you seen this?

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Meanz Beanz, May 25, 2008.

  1. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    Oh, people had plenty of questions - strength for instance.
  2. safewalrus
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 4,742
    Likes: 78, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 659
    Location: Cornwall, England

    safewalrus Ancient Marriner

    At least the guy has the bottle to answer back -you gotta give him credit for that!! We have a couple of these wierd SWATH things down home used by the Navy as fast crew boats! OK they have their uses (most things do, somewhere!) But you get the feeling they were conned a bit into buying them, mind you you the crews like them!! Highly specialised, like these lance things! But without being tooooo nasty (why not I usually am) they look to me like a motor bike - you know nice looking bit of kit until you stop, then it falls over!
  3. masalai
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 6,823
    Likes: 120, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1882
    Location: cruising, Australia

    masalai masalai

    There was a thread looking at similar hullforms as used in the Caribbean? - some conjecture rose as to motion and ride inducing severe seasickness (motion sickness) - my concern is the length of the bow beyond the accommodation sections and in a loaded condition the behaviour in heavy seas... (the ability to lift and rise on a head-on wave...?
  4. Hydro Lance
    Joined: May 2008
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: California

    Hydro Lance Junior Member

    Masalai said: my concern is the length of the bow beyond the accommodation sections and in a loaded condition the behaviour in heavy seas... (the ability to lift and rise on a head-on wave...?

    HL - I would suggest that you might visit our website, pages 8,12 and 31 (access from the site directory). The bow or the hull never rise or fall in elevated sea-state. These are difficult concepts to grasp, but hulls and geometry average these forces to approximate zero. There is no hog or sag, no roll, pitch, heave, yaw or sway. This is true in a either a following, heading, quartering or beam sea conditions. Actually most all SWATH, SES, TriMarans, lifting bodies, hydrofoils and catamarans (the conventional) are an 'accident waiting to happen' in even modestly elevated sea-states.

    The most stressful condition for a Hydro Lance is standing still with prime power off in an elevated beam sea. In this situation only, roll could approximate five degrees and with power on that would disappear. There would not be heave or pitch. These are stable-table platforms at sea.

    Each ship class (yacht, container ship, MSAC aircraft carrier, etc.) is designed for use up to and through a customer specifies sea state, Beaufort, as defined by the Navy. The ship's speed is such that any class can out-run or circumvent any known storm, anywhere in the world. If a vessel class is rated for a force 7 sea-state, then the Skipper is responsible to skirt a condition of sea-state 8. Larger HARTH ships are design for passage through much higher sea state conditions.

    HL ship design cruising speeds are rated through 80% of the maximum sea state rating of that vessel class. Design speeds can range from 60 Knots to well over 100 Knots. Having a greater-than 80% reduction in hull drag also translates to significant fuel economies.

    Safewalrus: refers to SWATH ... High speed for a SWATH vessel 'with a huge compliment of horse power', might be 28 Knots. SWATH suffers seriously in a quartering sea and is dangerous in even a modest Force 6 sea-state (waste of taxpayer's money).

    HL - Mono-hulls, SWATH, SES, TriMarans, lifting bodies, planing hulls, hydrofoils and catamarans are calm, fair-weather vessels. All of their cruising speeds are rated only in calm water.

    DanishBagger questioned strength. Finite analyses accomplished is one part of the answer. The technology is sensitive, and some details are withheld accordingly. The HARTH discipline of formulations is precise and controlled through license. Building and operating one or more vessels, of this technology, is by and through a license from the Hydro Lance Corporation.

    Always feel free to contact any of our senior staff directly, and do please identify yourself when making contact.

    Thank you for your interests, and I hope this is helpful.

    Hydro Lance Engineering, Inc.
  5. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    Was that an answer? "the technology is sensitive, and some details are withheld accordingly"? That is not "withhelding some details", that is not giving any information at all.

    "The HARTH discipline of formulations is precise and controlled through license." Yet again, no information, but merely an advertising claim "Precise" doesn't give any information, plus I'm a bit worried when someone is stating "my calculations are precise, but you cannot see them". Besides, whether it's "controlled through licence" or not, doesn't have influence whether those longs javelins are strong enough or not.

    Seriously, I can't be bothered going through the rest of this fluff, as I have just been given a lot of flack on this site for standing fast on demanding people should at least stick to facts and be able to provide a bit more than marketing fluff. Suffice to say, that the rest of your post doesn't really hold any more information than the stuff I just quoted.
    1 person likes this.
  6. rwatson
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 5,852
    Likes: 290, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1749
    Location: Tasmania,Australia

    rwatson Senior Member

    Sure - there are none of these craft operating in the high seas - they all are confined to lakes and estuaries....

    Thats a lot of claims for cartoons with about 4 different hull shapes that dont look much different (and a lot more primitive) than current production craft currently used for OCEAN crossings.

    Big lack of information here!
  7. marshmat
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 4,127
    Likes: 148, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2043
    Location: Ontario

    marshmat Senior Member


    A relatively simple calculation using several pieces of code well known to many forum members suggests that several of the claims on the Hydro Lance site push the limits of the laws of physics, in many cases by approximately an order of magnitude. The "Nirvana Class" Hydro Lance (as described on http://www.hydrolance.net/page9.htm )is claimed to do 82 knots on a pair of 5400 hp turbines at, apparently, 175 t displacement. An estimate based on the Grigson line puts skin friction drag alone from a very well optimized craft of this size being at least 300 kN at that speed, and an astounding 750 kN for a 100-metre, ultra-slim, negligible-wave-drag shape like the Hydro Lance. (Skin friction quickly trumps wave drag at high Froude numbers for virtually all forms capable of achieving such speeds.) That translates to 31.5 MW, or somewhere around quadruple the claimed 10,800 hp, and this just to overcome skin friction- not yet considering waves, or any of the other factors involved (shaft and gear losses, propeller/jet efficiency, etc). By the time all of that is considered, it looks to me like we are talking more like 70,000 hp. We are now chugging back the kerosene at almost seven pounds a second. Care to scientifically back up the claim of 175 tonnes doing 82 knots on 10,800 hp?

    As another example, let's put the entire weight of the 175 tonne ship on the strut in the middle of that pontoon. We'll say each end of the pontoon is buried in a wave crest and the centre is in the trough. Since no dimensions are given, let's guess its length as 100 m (as above). No FEA required- it's a point load on a simply supported beam. How wide are those hulls? I doubt they're more than two, maybe three metres at the thickest point. The stress on the junction is literally off the charts- I checked, and it doesn't work. (Unless your hulls are, say, solid titanium, in which case they only warp a bit, but are on the seabed anyway.) It may float, it may even move, but a hundred metre craft of this style seems liable to break up under its own weight in the exact conditions where it is claimed to outrun my Hyundai.

    Claims of fantasy are often well received on here and greeted with interesting speculation. Claims of engineering superiority and scientific merit are also often well received on here, but must have the proof ready- or else they won't survive the onslaught of dozens of qualified engineers, designers and builders.
  8. Hydro Lance
    Joined: May 2008
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: California

    Hydro Lance Junior Member

    HARTH Technology

    Marshmat said: An estimate based on the Grigson line puts skin friction drag alone from a very well optimized craft of this size being at least 300 kN at that speed, and an astounding 750 kN for a 100-metre, ultra-slim, negligible-wave-drag shape like the Hydro Lance. (Skin friction quickly trumps wave drag at high Froude numbers for virtually all forms capable of achieving such speeds.)

    Well, "a breath of fresh air" - someone who thinks. All HARTH vessel incorporate a low energy and very effective surface wet-ted drag reduction system. Accordingly, your assumptions of skin friction drag are incorrect. Additionally, there being no bow wake (insignificant until hull speed is pushed to well over any speeds we are talking about), any froude calculations become significantly complex-ed. Digesting the content that is on the web site, would take most about 4 hours to even start to digest and understand. It's all to easy to be stuck in the traditional and conventional design concepts ... take time to break out of that mold.

    House weight is geometrically prestressed and distributed across the length of rail. Even then, the rail does undulate when the vessel is at rest in even modest wave forms. Once underway, the hulls stiffen due to the hydrostatic pressures. Try doing a time/vector analyses - assume only a modest speed of say, 55 feet per second. Just try assuming a 83% reduction in overall hull drag - also tested and confirmed.

    Now keep in mind, these results are effective through elevated sea-state without yaw, sway, pitch, heave, roll or the consequential hog and sag of structure. Welcome to a New World of thought.

    Other: Hyundai to my knowledge, has never built a HARTH vessel. However, Hitachi has spent huge amounts on SWATH and has had terrible problems with it (understandably).

    Entities serious about this new capability, and who are capital and technically capable of a project, can secure license and targeted exclusive market, etc. and blah, blah. These individuals have had, and do get, enlightened on proprietary and Patent sensitive aspects ... 'But not on this or any blog. That's just the way it is.
  9. marshmat
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 4,127
    Likes: 148, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2043
    Location: Ontario

    marshmat Senior Member

    Time-vector analysis is best known as a mathematical tool for evaluating the in-flight stability modes of an aircraft. Have you come up with some new math, or a new application thereof? That would be worthy of some academic scrutiny. More likely, from what I can see, the terminology being used here is not the same terminology that is in general use in the engineering world.

    There is virtually no engineering data on the Hydro Lance site, nor is there much evidence that such data exists. We don't even know the LOA of these concepts, other than one that appears to be of comparable length to a Boeing 727.

    Getting the respect of those who deal mainly with money is not hard- tell them they can make more dollars, and you have a few ears. On BDNet, though, it's about getting the respect of engineers, designers and builders. That takes proof.

    Any prototype tests to back this up, or are those proprietary and classified too? (Not that that means anything. If anybody wanted to copy it, they could simply go to the lake where you test and take photos.)

    This is starting to get tiring. I'll let a few of the other guys have a turn now.
  10. Hydro Lance
    Joined: May 2008
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: California

    Hydro Lance Junior Member

    Time Vector Analyses

    Matt, I'm a bit surprised of your math comment. The math is the same as for aircraft (sigh), but just applied to one plane traveling on the ocean surface (nearly 800 times more dense than air). Such an exercise is not a 3-axis aircraft flight in air. What are you thinking?

    The length of the rails vary by design according to the client specified cruising speed, economy and required displacement. At this elementary point, you can simply choose for this exercise, hulls that are three or four or five times the length of the house. Start with something you can grasp, such as a power boat. You will establish a high aspect ratio of perhaps 40 or 50 or 60:1. That's fine for this exercise. Now you should be able to do your homework. Oh yes, earlier I forgot to mention that the water plane area is significantly greater than even a mono-hull ship or boat. Remember that this is not a catamaran. Once again, I am restricted from providing a specific math formula for you follow, you'll just have to back into it.

    Just so you know now, there is no violation of conservation, physics, fluid dynamics or any other convention.

    As a student, you could probably have your University commission a funded study for some appropriate objective, gaining an specialized HL License to study and explore your questions. Just perhaps, this may lead to a knowledge contribution - or even an original idea.

    Choosing to just observe and comment is fine and waiting, you will see some obvious news in early 2010.

    Matt, your comment on 'Capital vs. Engineering', you couldn't be more wrong. That comment is either a reflection of limited world experience, a lack of respect for capital, or else from the view of a 'comfort zone' beaurucrat - or a student of entitlements. We have an plurality of engineering interest trying to fund various aspects and applications of the HARTH Technology for their projects. Capital interests at most every level, are historians, only considering the traditional 'proven' systems, even if inefficient. That's their 'conservative' comfort zone

    Our presence is not a 'Do-It-Yourself home build-it set of instructions. Accordingly, engineering data other than ops graphs and capabilities are not, and will not be, on a website. My personal 'free-time' will soon again be consumed making any visits to these blog comments more restricted.

    However, we will always consider any sincere inquiry from our 'contact page' on the website.

    At any and all levels, I do want thank you, and others on this thread, for taking your time for interest in Hydro Lance Corporation and the HARTH Technology.

  11. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    "Assumption"? You're somehow capable of circumventing the laws of physics and by making your hulls longer than most, reduce wetted surface friction? All this without disclosing anything as to how you conclude that? This is fast beginning to look like a scam like all the rest out there.

    Ah, yes, it's quantum physics. What a load of bollocks.

    It doesn't take four hours to notice that there aren't any real contents on your website, that it's all marketing fluff.

    Speaking of religious circular argumentation in another thread, this certainly is yet another of te kind. You just have to believe, and if you want some kind of proof, you're simply not "thinking", but if you just believe, you too will see the truth. Oh, and "while you're at it, please buy a license for our unproved marketing fluff project, only that way can you become enlightened". Reminds me of scientology.

    Ah, yes. You guys have found a way to circumvent the laws of physics, I forgot. You somehow have found a way that will not stress a long javelin by point pressure, unlike what's everyone else in the world have to deal with. Did I mention this is looking like a scam?

    And thus you DID NOT get rid of the point load where the javelins are attached. I know, I know, if I just bought meself a "license" for this thing, you guys will "enlighten" me as to how this is achieved.
    You continue down this road that things are tested and confirmed. But that is just marketing fluff. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Show us how you circumvent the laws of physics on those javelins, and I'm sure people will start to believe. You might even get the nobel prize, while we're at it. Bollocks. You have what looks to be an old video on your website, showing a somewhat long-javelined prototype. Even that thing, in the very modest waves tips and bobs. Even if you made it 100,000 times as long, you would still have to deal with the same things as the small ones, plus a huge variety of introduced ones related to strength and weight and limits of modern materials. Oh, that's right, if I just buy a license, you will "enlighten" me.

    "Join Scientology! All you have to do is pay up, and we will enlighten you. We will tell you about the big spaghetti monster, that science is evil, and how we "prove" that the earth is flat. All you have to do is pay at register one". Since you haven't done any public tests, no bigger prototypes, and I'm not surprised, apparently don't hold any patents or anything of the like, I have to put this down to yet another attempt at scamming people into buying a "license" to be enlightened - and this without you guys having a customer. Excellent scam. "Buy a licence to get to know how this thing work. You see, we're not actually interested in building these things [and why would you be, frankly, ed.], but like any other good scam it's painfully necessary to make people "believers". One way we can do this is screen them in an easy way. You see, we will only "reveal" "stuff" to people that are willing to pay for "enlightenment", and thus they have effectively screened themselves and put them into the category "gullible"."

    See above. If you truly had a product that would work in the real world, it would be a better project to get investors to join. All you had to do is prove your concepts. Mathematically and prototype-wise. You have done neither of this. Rather you choose to "enlighten" those willing to buy a "license" for a product that from all aspects looks like nothing but marketing fluff.

    Read what he wrote instead.

    Yes, we know you claim they can be build to _any_ requirement the "client" wishes. The problem is, you haven't even provided believable examples. Like your ridiculous example further up, where you somehow circumvent wetted surface friction so it merely needs a third of the horsepower of anything else out there. Oh, that's right. Buy a license, and you to will be made an enlightened believer.

    There's nothing like the ignorant arrogance of religious people whenever their pseudoarguments are tested. If only we'd become believers and pay for the process, we too could believe this nonsense (i.e. a circular argument akin to what religious people use).

    Ah, that's right. I keep forgetting you're not willing to disclose how you overcome the laws of physics unless we pay you for a "license" - whatever use that may be.

    We know. That's the problem with your marketing fluff: Everone here knows that you too have to adhere to the laws of physics, hence we question how you overcome the problems these laws will introduce to your "projects" and how they will affect them. You dismiss any and all problems that are laid before you, all claiming that you have come up with a way that will overcome these things, yet if we're not paying for "enlightenment", you will reveal nothing. Circular argumentation? Much.

    Now you're simply being an ignorant prick. Do you even know what forum you're at? Many on these forums are real engineers and boat builders, and have been for many a year. You really don't think you can play the knowledgeable one on these forums, when all you have is unfounded claims and marketing fluff, do you?

    Yes, I wouldn't be surprised to learn in 2010 that some scam artist disappeared with millions of dollars they scammed from people buying a "licence".

    Wow, Ha ha! That paragraph says quite a bit more about you, than it does about Matt. Someone obviously felt stepped on his toes.

    What? All three of you? Oh, that's right, you're the only "engineer" there, so perhaps it would be better to ask: You?

    Don't make me laugh, will you.

    Now, it really doesn't work when you try to put others down for not knowing what capital is, when someone obviously haven't heard the terms "risk capital" and "venture capital". Now, go do your homework. And please stop trying making people buy into your scam.

    Funny, there are many huge projects that aren't exactly DIY, yet they somehow manage to convey at the least the basics of their ideas and how they work, what principle they work on and so forth. Especially if they want to get hold of that venture capital to get going with a real-world project. Oh, I forget: That's not your intention at all. You skip all that real-world nonsense, and instead make people pay for "licenses" to be "enlightened". Neat.

    Yes, we know. You only came here to do damage control, ending (as usual with scammers) with resorting to calling people stupid if they did not "believe" in the unfounded claims from your hand. Because, frankly, people must be stupid, if they just don't take your word for it, right?

    How swell of you. You forget to mention they had to pay for a license for that "enlightenment".

    Speaking of your signature. "Walter Reed". Now, I spend a little time doing a little research. Now what are your credentials? I cannot find any of your work anywhere, nor can I figure out where you went to school? Is your "engineering" title just as home grown as the marketing fluff on your web site?
    Speaking of credentials. With all those claims, surely you must have patented something, both as an engineer and as a company, yet it doesn't seem anything of the kind is out there. I wonder why?
    Again, this reminds me of all the "Docs" of the creationists/ID'ists out there.
  12. kach22i
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 2,398
    Likes: 106, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1222
    Location: Michigan

    kach22i Architect

    The only credit I want to give Hydro-Lance is that from my perspective as a web-surfing Google crazy guy is that his proposals have been on the Internet for quite a while. In fact until I saw some recently built projects which look very similar I was worried that there was nothing at all to it (claims are still too unrealistic).

    Somehow, others with more engineering experience and real clients with real money beat him to the punch. Hydro-Lance was good cheap entertainment (for me), if not for the dreamers where would we all be?
  13. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    This has been on the internet for quite a few years too - and what's worse, they're serious:


    (don't worry, it's not ****).
  14. Manie B
    Joined: Sep 2006
    Posts: 2,041
    Likes: 116, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1818
    Location: Cape Town South Africa

    Manie B Senior Member


    man that is funny

    i thought you were joking;)

  15. Knut Sand
    Joined: Apr 2003
    Posts: 471
    Likes: 30, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 451
    Location: Kristiansand, Norway

    Knut Sand Senior Member

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.