Incredible design, the oviparouswoolmilkpig ?

Try to keep in mind that nearly all design concepts evolve to include the practical realities required to take them to a viable stage. This guy may be heavy on the style and light on the physics, but the concept is interesting, and could evolve with constructive help. Most often, the high-concept work is handed over to those with the design and engineering background to work out the bugs.

I for one don't discourage creativity. Of course, thats my job in a nutshell.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

don't get me wrong... i will never discourage creativity!
although i may leave the impression sometimes beeing a technician.... but creativity is a gift and should be supported at all times.

i had a discussion once with a locally priced designer about his design for a new-age diving computer.
while a lot of the ideas he had were phantastic (not meaning out-of-reality) some concepts were just plain crap and physically impossible. i tried to explain the flaws and 'impossibilities' of his design but would he listen?
no - because it would have meant that some of his designed 'key-features' had to be abandonded....
still won a price for that thing although any diver or anyone with a slight education and comprehension for physics would have known that it is not working the way the designer thought.
never got build by the way....

some designers are just over the moon and there is no lasso long enough to get them back to the ground - unfortunately those designers are often the ones winning prices (given sometimes by a commitee of equally 'over-the-moon' designers).
technicians are not well represented in such commitees because they are so stubborn, unimaginative and boring, always picking on physics and practical issues..... ;-)

 

For me, the whole idea of design is to come up with something new that has potential to improve some aspect of our human society. Everything else is art. I have no objections to art, but this sort of thing belongs on the cover of a science fiction novel.

My dictionary allows altenative interpretation of the word "design" - as an aspect of art, specifically the design of a work of art. However, the prize panel clearly does not interpret it in this manner, since the prize category "transportation" is clearly intended as a practical issue rather than an artistic one. The panel is not doing its job, and doesn't even know what it is.

Sorry, but if this is not at least potentially a functional concept then it is not a design. Therefore it does not deserve a prize supposedly given for design.

I invited the designer to respond to some simple questions but so far have not heard back. That might be due to a language problem; either way it's a pity as I was hoping he would contribute to this discussion.

 

i am completely with you! ;-)

would really like to know the designers response - if he will give any....

 

I understand and agree with most of the reasoning here. If the prize is given for high-concept ideas, that is, ideas of value, with little attention given to the detailed physics, then thats one thing. If on the other hand, the prize is given for a potentially viable concept, then function should be the prime focus.

And yes, some designers are a handfull, and dare I say it, completely blind to objectivity, and in some cases, impossible to deal with. Half of my career has been designing and engineering aeronautical and sailcraft projects, the other half has been leading or directing design and development teams in a variety of markets. After thirty years in the business, I have learned to be very objective toward concept work, and to selectively extract the viable elements of a concept, while discarding the crap in a very diplomatic way.

When I look at this particular concept, I see a number of viable elements. Some aspects, like the solar array, will need advancements in the technology to output enough energy to be practical. Who knows, in ten years, solar might be there. The variable angle drive-pod system makes sense to me in terms of docking (retracted) and roll stability (extended). Hydro drives like this tend to create a certain amount of tracking stability. A function of the ducting design and compressive effects. So extending them would aid stability, and reduce the amount of drive differential needed to maintain a set heading, if indeed they were used for steerage. The wings I would argue are an old idea, and have proven to have some real potential in many experimental projects for the past sixty or more years. Although this particular hull design would severly limit the potential speed. Still, when you look at the combined wing area, and the potential compressive effects of having them parallel and in close proximity, they should drive the boat fairly well. You wouldn't win a speed contest, but then again, with the optimum angle to the sun, it should scoot pretty well as an auxillary to the main drive system.

So I do see a lot of potential here. There is no doubt that the concept is pushing the practical envelope, and that it needs some real refinement, but I'm looking past these and seeing where it might go. When I toss the hull design and replace it with a less pratical (for cruising) lighter displacement hull, I imagine a pretty cool test-bed. But of course, that was not the designers intent.

I think sometimes we tend to read too much into what should be expected of concept work. Most designers have a very loose grasp on how benefitial their work will be to the end-user. The creative imperative is the driving force most often, and that is as it should be. Secretly, for me, the measure of a good designer is how close he or she gets to hitting the mark in terms of usefullness, practicality and need, before engineering and tech start reshaping it for the real world. Then again, I would not want to limit a development effort to only designers who are focused on practicality as the prime directive. I want those far-out, wacked and often silly ideas in the mix. Otherwise, we would have a very limited pool of potential breakthoughs to draw on. My job these days, is to look at all the ideas, and pull out what might lead to something unique. Most of the time, that means disappointing some member of the team. But if I handle it right, they just dust themselves off, get back into the game, and try to improve their understanding of the requirement.

Anyway, this guy may have lucked out with the award, but somehow he pulled it off agains't the competition. So either the judges are seeing something beyond the current physics, or the competition just didn't have anything better to offer. As far as getting him to answer questions, that may be a bit of a pipe-dream. Who knows.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

I would like to believe that the driving force here is creativity. When I was ten years old I won prize for a picture of an interplanetary space ship, I recognized the need to deal with matters such as the vacuum of Space and the need to dock with smaller craft that could land on a planet's surface, and the panel in turn recognized that. At the time I thought my idea would have worked but I know better now.

This design would have beaten mine, I am sure, but competitions such as these are for adults and should set a higher standard.

I cannot believe anyone with the slightest technical training would submit a design with such small wings in relation to the hull size. What I can believe is, the designer's principal intent was to win a prize for the least effort. Prizes such as these are great marketing tools.

It's a grab-bag of fashionable concepts, solar energy, wind energy, energy storage etc. interestingly, the only aspect dealt with in detail is in the use of internal space, a recognition of the presence of architects on the panel.

 

Hard to say what the real driving force was here. Each designer has his own motivation. Robert Perry for instance seems driven by money. Wereas Doug Peterson seems driven by creativity.

I would never bet on the criteria driving a judging panel. Design is such an eclectic pursuit, it defies generalities very often. And what drives one design award panel may be of no interest to another. Design for the most part is a very mixed bag. Most of us go through our careers with a sense of deep depression over those concepts which ultimately proved viable, but at some future time, and by another designer or faction that had the spotlight when it mattered. Mixed in, extreme elation when we hit it at the right time and place.

Regarding this design, it is a grab bag for sure. One could argue that any decent designer could have combined all of what are existing technologies to come up with this concept. Proportionally correct or not.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

I think the designer grew up on Thunderbirds. The draft alone makes it a farce as a practical boat. Reminds me of this paraody in the picture. Only it's had a huge effort in rendering the concept which might kid some people into thinking that it's practical.

The construction, engineering, operational limitations, and unnecessary expense are too long to list.

I think it's an expensive Avant-Garde floating apartment that is all style with some very compromised functionality as a practical boat that was never intended to be built. It's just a fantasy .

The drag will be high, wetted surface area is high and I'd like to see the lines and coefficients for some practical comment. I'd also like to know the metacentric height, gyradius of rotation- roll period etc.

 

You can't seriously be suggesting that the Thunderbirds are a....farce.
I'll try to look past the blasphemy and concentrate on the fact that on some planets, Whales can fly.

I agree that the design would not stand up to scrutiny, but again, its just a concept. I'm not defending it as such, but I suspect that there is interest in building a prototype. And once that process begins, the entire design will undergo a drastic transformation at the hands of experts. Most likely with the designer tied up and screaming his bloody head off.

In design very often, there is no accounting for sense. Witness some absolutely rediculaous boats that actually made it to production.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

Name two!

 

The Chrysler 25 would be one, and the venture folding cat another.

 

My point is that many concepts are capitalized without the benefit of sound engineering.

 

If the award was made in all seriousness by the "green Dot" - they should be certified as "brainless" - as I am inclined to agree with the postulation that it detracts from any reasoned design where the use of renewable energy is a consideration - I have seen better efforts from a 14 y/o and if that was the winner then all I can say as a pre-baby boomer - Thank God I will not have to rely on his taxpaying capacity in my older years - unless he is to become an artist/graphic-designer etc and makes heaps of money from his artistry - then it is a good start - watch more "StarWars"....

 

I'm with Kevin in this.. Most of us just take this consept too seriously
Thunderbirds rules

 

Hey, cut the guy a break! Mike didn't call the Thunderbirds a farce, he was merely criticising the draft of the Omnipig!