New generic hullshape for multihulls

A new hull design concept for multihulls with application and benefits for both sail and power. Anyone interested in partnering in this hull concept can contact me through my email: robcain8@hotmail.com

 

Welcome to the forum.
What do you mean by "partner" and "further development"?
What is the current situation of your design and what is the goal?

 

Since it is a generic hull design with application to all forms of multihulls, all options are open. And while I have configured designs for all applications, power and sail, etc, I have concentrated on prototying the sailing multi version, and have progressed to a small catamaran design which I would like to build in the next year or two.
I am a retired ex-watersports designer and live in Thailand.

 

Also, this new hull design is new/novel and subsequently able to be patented. Which would reserved for all types of multihull, power, sail, large and small. At this stage I do not have the resources to go this path.

 

I understand that, given how novel and potentially patentable this is, you can't provide many details. However, you must also understand that if someone is going to get involved, investing their money or their experience and time as a designer, they will need much more information. No one can embark on an adventure, however exciting, without knowing anything.
From a potential investor's perspective, at the moment this may be a boat with very little stability, low buoyancy, and a real risk of capsizing. Not to mention the difficulty of making a hull that's suitable for both sailing and motorboats compatible.

 

Of course. if someone is genuinely interested, after signing an NDA, I could provide all the reqired details details.
The basic combination of design principles is applied to all applications - sail and power - with adaptations. But the basic principle remains all the hull application types.

 

Let me see if I understand you. You expect someone to sign something, to commit to something, and then find out what they've signed. Very clever of you!
I hope you'll excuse me if I've misunderstood you, but if I'm right, it seems to me you're asking for too much. I don't see anyone altruistic or crazy enough to sign that.
Good luck with your project.

 

@Robert Cain can you tell us in a nutshell, without disclosing any of your secrets, what is so revolutionary about your new designs?
I get the impression that the big names in multihull design and construction have (already) made significant improvements in the design and construction of these vessels in recent years - are your designs 'better' than these?
I am reminded (in a way) of the old saying 'it is difficult to re-invent the wheel'.

 

A concept can't be patented, only technology or a specific design. Principles also can't be patented. For example, Bernoulli's principle can be used by anyone to develop technologies. Do you have specific technology?

 

But this wheel has pin holes in it with vacuum assist, and the contact patch has been modified extensively.
I can't tell you what it's made of though it's new and top secret.
Trust me, this is a way better wheel, way better!
Those old wheels are so out dated. Come-on, get with the times.

Sorry Robert C, it's just a hard sell. It's all been done. The Polynesians started it, how many years ago?
Show us what you got or stop wasting your time.

 

I wish you well but doubt you'll find any takers on this form or elsewhere that are going to sign a NDA on something completely unseen.
Patents...reminds me; fairly recently a client called me all excited because he and his team had blown away the competition in a major marathon canoe race. He wanted us to patent the design ;-) It took me a little while to explain to him that patenting a particular hull shape was an exercise in futility; what happens when someone copies it exactly but is 1.30341 mm shorter? Hullforms have been copied extensively since the advent of fiberglass composite construction. Aside from the blatant lack of ethics involved, I consider the boats splashed from one of my one off designs as the sincerest form of flattery.

Back to my client that won the race with his team; they won the race, they just happened to use a well honed tool that was well matched to their capabilities and weight and most importantly, they were very capable.

 

Thanks for the replies. Yes, the actial terminology is Design Registration, rather than a patent. I've looked into this with a Patent laywer and this desogn is new and novel in respect of the combination of features it uses, which has not been used previously.
Yes it is difficult to sell for the reasons you guys have stated. Wouldn't the 'big guys' have already done it or having thought of it then dismissed it. Neither is the case, at least to my knowledge, and I've been looking for the 15 years when I first began this project.
The reasons I believe that I have discovered something new in multihull design is that, firstly, I have come to it from a different perspective than traditional boat designers. My background was design and manufacture of watersports and this where I've drawn my inspiration. The second reason is that multihulls have perhaps not been long in the minds of Western designers and things still evolving. My hull concept is specific to catamaran design. Thirdly, I have autism which allows me to think 'outside the box'. But which also, unfortunately, does not make easy navigation in the real world, that is 'inside the box'. Consequently, my design record is good. While my business ability is not. And this is why I need a partner.
I've designed a small racing/cruising sailing cat based on this hull concept which I plan to make in the near future. I could talk about the benefits for the sailing application later in another comment.
In respect of power cats this hull design is hybrid of sorts, a symmetrical and asymmetrical hull design. It has all the benefits of an asymmetrical, speed and sea handling - banking in turns, with the positive attributes of a symmetrical vee design - an open 'mouth' for softer ride and less susceptible to bow steer. Cheers

 

Am I misunderstanding something? I thought the only commitment in an NDA was not to disclose what is covered by the NDA.

I am reminded of the story of a British inventor who contacted a company to discuss an invention relevant to their business, with a view to jointly developing it to the point where something commercially viable could be patented, provided they agreed to sign an NDA. The CEO complained that if they signed, then without the inventor's permission they wouldn't be able to use the idea if they liked it. That was rather the idea.

 

There are two sides of this coin; Skip J and Robert B have touched them both. There are numerous examples of patents granted for some "new and hitherto unexploited function or property", but where the patent authorities have missed existing, and known applications of the same principles.

In my "previous life" I was the one to examine proposals for my employer to engage in the development of inventions from outside the company. Apart from the obvious violations of first principles of physics (..and there were many of those..) there were also those "inventions" that were known to mankind since far back in time, but where neither inventor nor patent authority had done their due background work. Now, if we had agreed to an NDA before viewing those proposals as in a "non-patented" stage, finding that we already were using the proposed principle since long, then there would have been a risk for legal trouble, or at least loss of good will following allegations, even if unfounded.

So, an NDA is a dubious instrument, as I see it; if you have a patent or equivalent, the NDA is not needed, and if you don't, possible users or partners take a risk with the "unseen" beeing already known. In the latter case, they may be blocked from the use of known knowledge. If you have an invention needing development by someone else, it is entirely a question of mutual thrust (which can be very thin after a while....., when money rolls out, not in).

 

I completely agree with you; you sign a commitment not to disclose what you've signed. But if you don't know, until after you've signed, what it is you're not supposed to disclose, who would commit to something like that? What if, on top of that, you've committed to, for example, providing financial support to a project you know nothing about?.
Perhaps I'm the one misunderstanding the OP's point because, frankly, it seems to me he is asking us to trust someone who doesn't trust us. It's that simple.
I suppose it would be possible to show some details, or give some minimal explanations, without compromising the secrecy of the whole thing, that would allow the rest of us to assess whether their participation in the project might be of interest to them.