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

    Ha ha, yeah. I figured I'd warn people about it not being ****, otherwise they might get too disappointed.

    "kortlink.dk" is the same type of site as "shortlink.co.uk", if anyone is wondering.

    Edit:

    Oh, ha ha! That's bloody excellent. Dark sucker!! That means that the natural state of the universe is light, which is "veiled" by this force called "darkness". That's simply bloody excellent!
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. kach22i
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 2,398
    Likes: 106, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1222
    Location: Michigan

    kach22i Architect

    I see your guys point, and it's funny.

    My point was not that it was or has been on the Internet a long time. Rather that the Hydo-Lance's ideas or the thing which moves him has been done similarly by others.

    This does not make him by default the inventor.

    Many people dreamed of power flight before the Wright Brothers, but their wing bending/warping technology made it possible (safe/controllable) and due credit was given to them in the history books.
     
  3. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    Yes, yes, Kach, I wasn't trying to put you down. I just thought, that he might be using your post to further his agenda, so I thought I'd take that part and make a point of it. No worries :)
     
  4. kach22i
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 2,398
    Likes: 106, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1222
    Location: Michigan

    kach22i Architect

    No worries, I never took it that way.

    I guess I feel the need to encourage people to take that crazy idea and fly with it. Too many people with opinions have talked or tried to talk me out of trying things - I'd hate to be part of that in any way.

    I'd like to see Hydro-Lance take part of his energy and time out of putting together the website and into building a RC model - large scale, five feet wide and at least ten feet long, maybe 20 feet.

    Then all the half-baked ideas and theories will be given up or matured into something closer to reality.

    I will be cheering him on if he chooses this path, but might giggle a little in private.
     
  5. charmc
    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posts: 2,391
    Likes: 78, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 840
    Location: FL, USA

    charmc Senior Member

    Busy in the real world, just dropping in for a bit ...

    Wasn't there a guy posting here a few months ago who claimed a device that would eliminate wave drag entirely? If I remember correctly, he had a similar tone when addressing specific engineering questions, claiming that they were inappropriate or irrelevant because his invention was based on concepts all the conventional ship designers couldn't possibly understand. He said one would get access to the calculations and evidence by paying a licensing fee. He claimed validation by tests at some naval tank testing facility, but said the results were never published for peer review because the "peers" were mired in old thinking and would never give it a fair review. This guy hijacked multiple threads for a while with comments like "These traditional fishing boats ... luxury yachts ... OSVs ... racing sailboats ... etc, would perform better if they had my invention."

    Some impressions of the Hydro Lance website:

    Illustrations are cartoonish, exaggerating the hull length and extreme narrowness rather than attempting to illustrate engineering concepts. Rather like the Art Deco era advertising posters for Normandie. Ad agency fluff.

    Serious designers and serious business people rarely put down the competition, focusing instead on the benefits of their design. Statements claiming "all other" designs are inferior, followed by a long list ending with "etc" are more typical of a high school science project than a serious engineering development. Similarly, the claim that speeds in excess of 150 knots in stormy seas are a given, rather than a tantalizing possibility suggested by preliminary test data, are suggestive of a lack of professionalism and business acumen.

    The email addresses for the staff are all personal accounts with AOL and Earthlink. There is no email account associated with the website domain name.

    To illustrate my points, compare this website with those of Ulstein and of Damen, developers of the x-bow and axe bow concepts (Damen is actually a partner with Delft University, which developed the concept).

    As some others have said, dreaming and engineering breakthroughs are essential and desirable for progress, and every design deserves to be evaluated. Getting others to risk their money on the chance your idea is valid, however, takes professionalism and a grasp of business fundamentals. I met a man recently who claims he has a breakthrough design for a hovercraft. He readily discusses details of his concept, and has recruited as partners people with backgrounds in small ship fleet management, manufacturing operations, and logistics/supply management. I suspect that it was the evidence of those skills as much as the radical design concept that enabled him to attract enough capital to begin construction of a prototype.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    He he, indeed! I think he ought to do as both you and Charlie suggests: Get out there and do some real work and prototyping, then, just maybe, we might begin to believe.

    While giggling silently, of course :p
     
  7. marshmat
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 4,127
    Likes: 148, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2043
    Location: Ontario

    marshmat Senior Member

    Interesting. You seem to know a lot about me, yet are wrong on all counts. I do have real world experience, I have lots of respect for venture capital, I am not a bureaucrat, and I have no sense of entitlement.

    I never said venture capital was stupid. I said it's easy to get venture capital folks interested, and to get a bit of respect from them, by promising fantastic cost savings and profits. Investment bankers rarely evaluate the technical side of these claims on their own, they call in technical experts to help. The engineers don't give a damn about the financial or marketing claims, they just dive into the technology itself to see if there's anything there. Then the VCs decide, from a combination of technical and business analysis perspectives, whether it's worth putting money into. That is smart strategy, and that is how big VC firms get big and stay big.

    No technical proof = no significant VC in virtually all cases.
     
  8. charmc
    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posts: 2,391
    Likes: 78, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 840
    Location: FL, USA

    charmc Senior Member

    Matt,

    You're right, of course. Here's someone else claiming design and technological innovations that will eliminate many of the drawbacks of, in this case, hovercraft. The difference is that these guys have practical experience in engineering, manufacturing, and purchasing/logistics, and are building a prototype to test and demonstrate their claims.

    http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=205361#post205361
     
  9. kerosene
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 1,064
    Likes: 67, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 358
    Location: finland

    kerosene Senior Member

    yep - same exact chrasterics as these days popular free energy devices. Same with the brown gas and water car nonsense. Wording is made to appeal to people with little knowledge of the applications. Any refuting of claims is because of narrow minded people being brainwashed by the powers to be, lack of financial success or true prototypes is because big oil or any other power is suppressing them etc.

    Then comes the "untraditional" financing structure of the company, lots of big names, CEO, president, Research Director etc. And no real proofs. Crappy illustrations of the concepts, outlandish claims - instead of having a solution to 1 problem the new invention is better in every possible way. Like the HARTH guys - why even joke about mixing aircraft fuselages with boats - even a non naval person can understand that aircraft structures are built for totally different loads compared to boats/ships.

    Check these guys out:
    http://www.perendev-power.com/products.htm

    If they can create free energy wouldn't it make sense to start a powerplant and get capital from the profits of that powerplant to grow the operation.
     
  10. Hydro Lance
    Joined: May 2008
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 4
    Location: California

    Hydro Lance Junior Member

    It’s Friday evening, the end of the month, and I’m wishing to catch up on your informed dialogs. There seem to be many to work through … ‘could take some time.

    Kerosene wrote: Like the HARTH guys - why even joke about mixing aircraft fuselages with boats - even a non naval person can understand that aircraft structures are built for totally different loads compared to boats/ships.

    Actually many aircraft are well suited for structural mounting with a HARTH structure - they are load focused to the landing gear and the aircraft is essentially adjoined in ship structure far above the water. Many catamarans are also structurally suited for conversion, but most mono-hulls are not.

    koch221 said, and DanishBagger said; I'd like to see Hydro-Lance take part of his energy and time out of putting together the website and into building a RC model - large scale, five feet wide and at least ten feet long, maybe 20 feet.

    You can
    watch a video on the website on an early 27 foot model. Others smaller models were used for testing and data collection - most run to destruction for tests, data and refinements.

    [COLOR= Charmc wrote: [I]"Wasn't there a guy posting here a few months ago who claimed a device that would eliminate wave drag entirely? If I remember correctly, he had a similar tone when addressing specific engineering questions, claiming that they were inappropriate or irrelevant because his invention was based on concepts all the conventional ship designers couldn't possibly understand. He said one would get access to the calculations and evidence by paying a licensing fee. He claimed validation by tests at some naval tank testing facility, but said the results were never published for peer review because the "peers" were mired in old thinking and would never give it a fair review. This guy hijacked multiple threads for a while with comments like "These traditional fishing boats ... luxury yachts ... Uovs ... racing sailboats ... etc, would perform better if they had my invention."[/I]That wasn't any of us!

    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.)

    Yes, you are quite correct. The difference is an integrated low-energy and very effective surface wetted drag reduction interface system.

    DanishBagger wrote: "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 … I wouldn't be surprised to learn in 2010 that some scam artist disappeared with millions of dollars they scammed from people buying a "license".

    Cynical assertions can not assist, nor be constructive for anyone. Without surface wetted surfaced drag reduction, his initial assumptions and subsequent calculations would be in the ball park depending on the size and hull shape that he used. The Navy spent huge amounts of money and time attempting to master surface wetted drag reduction, even aside from a few the newer chemical coatings and water injections. They were up against a fundamental issue where the gases or air utilized, would float to surface before gaining and sustaining a proper interface with the length and depth of the hull. None the less, there were some notable innovative designs and thinking. The HARTH hull, inclusive of a system and surface design for wetted gaseous hull interface, can reach a certain higher speed without that system operating - and before the knee of wetted surface drag is reached. Here with speed, the dwell time of such gas passes beyond the stern before ever reaching the surface. Conventional hulls plowing through water, have never been able to initially pass that point, nor are likely to do so in the future, though a few specialty hulls have. However, those designs are not friendly to such systems.

    DanishBagger wrote: “Ah, yes, it's quantum physics. What a load of bollocks”

    No one said or implied quantum physics – combative behavior. However, I choose to believe that it’s only part of posturing.

    DanishBagger wrote: “Join Scientology .. religeon, the believers …Did I mention this is looking like a scam? 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 …”

    Antagonistic for sure, but makes for a good forum laugh. ‘Perhaps just Cynic humor. Back in the early 1950’s the cynics assured that Lockheed’s F-104, with those stubby little wings, would never fly – waste of taxpayer money. They flew remarkably well for a very long time, serving even our allies into the 1990’s. As an engineering cynic, you may even still be insisting that a ‘bumble bee’ cannot fly, but they do fly just fine, and have for many centuries, and have more recently been understood.

    A. Hydro Lance is a privately owned, tightly held company with all spent monies having been generated from within. Initial vessels and operations are to occur in the same manner. Accordingly, the technology is wholly owned by the company.
    B. License is Royalty based, and accordingly, not designed for early retirement. Those companies sincere to solve some real oceanic transport problems, are welcomed to participate through License. ‘Not retired little old grandmothers.
    C. We don’t even invite or allow advertising, pop-ups or other nonsense on the website.
    D. We don’t know who YOU are, or what company or potential competitor that you work for. This technology is sensitive and controlled. Accordingly, you can’t have, and don’t have access to the formulas and detail of the technology in this or any public forum. There are protocols available to sincere and capable entities for engagement with the Company’s technical developments and commercial interests.
    E. HARTH design and formulas have been shared through ‘company-paid contract’ with a nationally recognized Naval Architecture and Engineering firm for outside-of- company-analyses, having confirmation of viability. A major shipyard has run the formulated designs with viability - Etc. This is a viable company with a viable solution for many world maritime problems in need of answers. The cynics will always be there. This type of technical information is available only a ‘need to know’ basis at this time. Perhaps in a couple years, you may buy a ticket for passage on such a vessel, owned and operated by a Licensee and review presented papers.


    DanishBagger wrote: “All three of you? Oh, that's right, you're the only "engineer" here, so perhaps it would be better to ask: You?”

    Company assigned key contacts for fielding outside interest is who you see. One reason is the consuming requirement that can be generated by cynics. Our staff cannot be taking up time with this. But in time, you may see presented papers at conferences, and perhaps tour such a vessel.

    DanishBagger said; "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?"

    I am not the inventor of HARTH, though I have authored other patents, which have been assigned to other companies over the years, which are operational in industry to this day.


    DanishBagger wrote: “ 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… you're simply being an ignorant prick"

    Please do not confuse your demeanor with the maritime community of talented designers, engineers, Captains and operators. We know many of them in which we hold in the highest regard. The derogatory and slanderous comments are yours and yours only, no one else. This is quite different than expressing a different view point. Your above comments speak for themselves.

    DanishBagger wrote: “people must be stupid, if they just don't take your word for it, right?"

    Absolutely not. However, not all have 'the need to know', or have an economic problem to solve, where this technology might be helpful to them. When someone does, there is a protocol to gain additional information and to pursue some answers. License is royalty based - not a front end retirement loaded scam - you seem to speak boldly about what you don't know? Why?


    I initially checked in to this forum to see a notable pool of visitors to our website, and what was being discussed. Discovering a feeding of flash assumptions and conclusions, I responded with the limits of clarification allowable to me in a public forum. When and as time permits, I'm still here to answer within the limits of authorization.

    The Hydro Lance website has been up, search-able and interrupted since the middle of 1998. I first met the HARTH inventor in 1994, and shared many of these forum questions – which had then had to be resolved. By 1987 we had an early half ton, 27 foot remote controlled model in open water, powered by one model airplane engine. It was remarkable of performance, this initiated significant ongoing research and work of many. By 2000, we had sufficient data to know that these vessels could have been built 10 years earlier. Of course refinements continue. All this said, it is noteworthy that it’s been on our dime, not yours.

    I trust that this helpful and puts a conclusion on any further derogatory dialog. Constructive interest is always welcome, and soon enough you will see such a vessel with subsequent published papers.

    Good sailing - you folks have good night.

    Sincerely,
    WR
    HLE
     
  11. masalai
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 6,823
    Likes: 120, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1882
    Location: cruising, Australia

    masalai masalai

    The "rabid" has entered from the dungeons,

    Hydro Lance,
    I think it is about time to either "put up, or shut-up"

    It seems to me that everyone has been seeking some understanding of your "technical secrets", well, in this place, my experience has been that KNOWLEDGE IS SHARED, as this is a learning environment.

    If you have nothing further to SHARE in a technical and substantive way, then I suggest that you find another forum...

    Good day Sir......
     
  12. Butch .H
    Joined: Apr 2008
    Posts: 619
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 205
    Location: South Africa

    Butch .H Senior Member

    Good on you mate
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. safewalrus
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 4,742
    Likes: 78, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 659
    Location: Cornwall, England

    safewalrus Ancient Marriner

    Well don't we know a lot of big words and can pontificate for hours on absolutly nothing! But hey if that's what you want to do great! Just remember a couple of minor points!

    All these fantastic claims say that the vessel is unsinkable! Yeah so was the TITANIC!

    Dabish's link to the 'Flatearth society' may have been friviolious but at least they are based on historical believes! Fairly solid ones at that! If the whole world believes there's a good chance it's true!! It was once!

    Now to get the whole world to believe in your 'tubes' you got to tell them the truth, not sell them some rubbish! Nobody will believe that!!

    Just one question - how long you worked for Marvel Comics?
     
  14. DanishBagger
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 1,540
    Likes: 46, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 523
    Location: Denmark

    DanishBagger Never Again

    Ah, I see. They're point loaded? Didn't you just claim the other day, that you that the javelins weren't being point loaded? I know you're not talking about the javelins here, but you cannot have one of them point loaded yet the other "engineered so it's not point loaded". You have to make up your mind.

    Actually, if you were better at reading, you'd have noticed I mentioned your old video of your prototype, being driven rather slowly in benign conditions, yet it bobs and yaws. It's from the post, where I make the point, that you will encounter all the same problems as that small one, no matter if it's 100.000 times as big, plus you will introduce a whole slew of other problems because of material limits and so on.


    No, it propably wasn't. The point is, that your claims and tone are more or less the same.

    Oh, haha, you apparently don't even get sarcasm.

    Poor lad. You can call my sarcasm (about how trustworthy your "project" is) cynical all you want and use any rhetorics to build upon your notion of why cynicism doesn't work. But the reality remains: If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck …

    That is what I call "Setting the scene" in poor journalism and novels, as it has naught to do with your real argument, but is merely used to lend your argument some weight (albeit indirectly):


    Ah, yes, and all this with this technology of yours that noone knows what is, and people have to buy a "license" to be "enlightened" about.

    No. It's sarcasm - a concept you obviously have problems understanding. But let me explain (it's obviously necessary):
    Your argument is that your technology is so hard to understand, that noone around will "get it". Quantum physics, on the other hand, is notoriously know to be hard to fathom, even to the scientists working with it. Are you beginning to see the point of that sarcastic comment? If you need further explanations, feel free to ask for it.

    No, I'm not insisting that a bumble bee cannot fly. The old wife's tale that science says a bumble bee can not fly, has naught to do with reality.
    But my comment wasn't antagonistic, nor there for a forum laugh. It was an analogy put there to show you, that your "argumentation" is the exact same.
    Edit to add: As I said, it's an old-wife's tale, that has no bearing on reality. Also, you might want to check again, about it being "recently understood". Go here, if you feel like it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Bumblebee_myths
    End of add



    So? It doesn't change your argument's form, nor does it make your technology proven in any way, form or fashion. And how come there's no patents? Come now, you have to better than that.


    That's ridiculously ignorant as an argument. You're saing you won't give out any information _unless_ people pay for a license. That means people will have to pay you to get "enlightened". Prove your project, instead of that "pay to get enlightened".

    Why would (someone posing as) a serious engineering company do any of those things to begin with!?
    Get real, will you! The fact that you do neither of those things proves absolutely zilch.

    Ah, yes, and I guess that's also the reason as to why there's no patents of your glorious engineering and freethinking.
    Your technology must really be "special", since you're not even able to "reveal" basic engineering principles. I wonder what the "pay for enlightenment" will reveal to someone buying into that.

    What a load of bollocks.
    "protocols available" and on and on. Yet nothing but salesspeek [sic], marketing-fluff language. And you wonder why your arguments are compared to those of scientology?
    We have a saying in journalism: "Show it, don't tell it". Now, you go figure out why that is a principle to go by.

    What's funny, is that since I'm not the one to make all of these claims, the burden of proof doesn't lie on my. "Accordingly", it doesn't matter who I am. You're hiding behind all of this, trying to make believe it's absolutely plausible you guys are just acting like you should, because you don't know who we/I are/am. And that it's perfectly valid as an argument, to validate your claims by way of explaining principles, all because you're a "private company". Get real, will you.


    So you claim. But just like all your other claims wrapped in marketing-fluff, you still have said absolutely nothing more than up until now. It's like your claims of your javelins not being prone to point pressure, yet your airoplane fuselages are build for this. Funny how the pattern seems to become even clearer.

    "Etc."? What's that now? And viability? In what sense of the word? Frankly, it doesn't matter, as it still just an utterly unfounded claim from you - just like all the rest of your pseudoargumentation.



    Yes, so you claim. Have you contacted A.P. Møller-Mærsk yet?

    Remember we likened your arguments to scientology's ditto and how your argumentation is religious, in that you call people "cynics" and all we have to do is to "believe", then we wouldn't be so "cynical". Remember the term "circular argumentation"?

    Yes, and perhaps in couple of years, I might be sailing a boat driven by a perpetuum mobile.


    Actually, I'm asking for a lot more, than "papers presented at a conference". In fact, if your technology is "all that", I'd assume you guys would already hold patents, and with all the new technology and engineering principles you claim (yet don't show), I am asking for true peer review, none of which you're willing to be exposed to. And since all the contact info found on your website is to the three of you, were only you pose as an engineer, and the email is an earthlink-address, I seriously doubt there's more than you in that "engineering department". Call me crazy, but as a journalist, that site and the way you pose holding everything back, yet claiming your technology is everything, will put you into the category "untrustworthy source". You see, without anything other than a number of unbelievable - utterly unfounded - claims, you really have nothing.

    Ah, yes, if we remember that the burden of proof is on you, let's see some of those patents, let's hear what companies you worked for and on and on. You still just claim all sorts of things. It's amazing a web search doesn't reveal anything, isn't it? What was the name of that university you went to again?



    Oh, I'm not confusing my "demeanor" with anything. I am making a point of you telling designers, engineers and so forth on this site, that your technology and the prinicples you guys apply is above their head. I am in no way saying I am either of those. So stop your rhetorics, and stop being so daft.

    Yes, they do. It's called being critical of unfounded claims and religious argumentation. I'm satisfied that your posts speak for themselves as well (as do most posts, btw), proving that when people keep coming at you with the demand that you begin to validate your unfounded claims, you resort to rhetorics, strawman argumentation and personal attacks.

    What a load of crock. Yet another rhetoric attempt to avoid needing to explain your principles and make your unfounded claims founded.

    It doesn't matter how you wrap it: You have nothing but unbelievable unfounded claims. Not even the basics are explained. Those claims will only be "explained" to people that pay for a "license". Further, your "company" (of which I can only find your website), have email-addies from earthlink and the like, all filled with empty salesspeek. That, Walter, is the hallmark of a scam. Or a joke, if it were not for the fact, that you're here, oing what you do, all the while wanting to make people pay to be "enlightened".


    Funny you should mention that, just after you asked why I think your "company" is a scam.

    You see, you pose as an engineer, a lead engineer for an engineering department, trying to make it look like your company is a big one. Yet it's the "lead engineer" that discovers a pool of visitors from this site, the lead engineer that comes here and doesn't answer any engineering questions, yet is quite capable of vomitting salesspeek?
    Ah, yes, if we needed confirmation that your company is likely up to aboslute no good, I think we have it.

    Actually, that's not noteworthy at all. Of course it's on your dime, as you're the one making these claims. Now, if I were founding your games, THAT would be noteworthy.
    Btw, that model you speak of, I assume that's the one that bobs and yaws in very benign conditions, proving abosolutely nothing. The video proves you guys build a sharp-edged catamaran.

    Yes, and from what I can gather from how you come across, anyone that doesn't eat your marketing fluff is not constructive. Excellent.
     

  15. the1much
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 3,897
    Likes: 44, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 696
    Location: maine

    the1much hippie dreams

    hehe,,,when its my turn let me knowz,,,hehe ;)
     
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.