Newbee with a brilliant idea needs your help!

Your first statement is an opinion, and shows good logic. The second one is purely fictional, as a little thought will demonstrate (care to name sources to the contrary?)

As I mentioned above, newspapers sell newspapers.; they do not report news. Headlines like, "Everything's Fine, Rest Easy" rarely make the front page. Gloom and doom sell newspapers. The SCCWRP is not an industry "front" but a government entity, tasked with protecting the health of the populace and the safety of the environment. FYI, California has a record--throughout the world--as being extremely tough on environmental issues--all automakers who sell here, for instance, must manufacture a specialized version of their cars, with higher pollution standards than anywhere else. California is about 10 times as large as Belgium, has 3.5 times as many people; 4.5 times as high a GDP and nearly 50% of all available land under irrigation (compared to about 5% of your country's) We grow more wheat than Australia, more rice than Japan and we provide nearly 100% of all fresh produce to 100 million people throughout the Western United States. At the same time, our population is growing at 3% per year and there are at present more than 20,000 housing units under construction--at all times. California, on its own, has income, consumption and output on a par with many major countries (If I remember correctly, California, if taken as a country, would have the 8-9th highest GNP in the world--just behind that of France). California spans 800 miles North to South, which means we have rainforests in the north and desertification in the south--where 2/3 of the population is. Water, and water politics, are a very big thing here--more water is produced and consumed in California than in any country in the Middle East. The world's best scientists study these things, here--salaries are astronomical, success ratios are high and reputations are made here. I offer this to demonstrate that California environmental studies are fairly highly regarded throughout the world. I wonder if the Sydney Morning Herald can boast the same?

Dave

 

I've been thinking, Kitetug; couldn't you reduce the financial burden of your idea by eliminating the boat altogether? You've got a few hundred thousand invested in the water bag, another few hundred thousand in the kite and controls; why add a $10-20 million tug boat to the mix? Your solution is going to be a "slow boat" anyhow, and tying up an expensive tug must surely be counter productive.

The device is going to need an attendant tow boat leaving and entering port, sure, but whilst at sea, why can it not be completely robotic? Or at most, robotic with a "squealer" which calls for human assistance if/when something goes outside of design parameters?

I can imagine a system, for instance Alaska to California, which has half a dozen bag + kites enroute at all times, with a single part-time tug at each end sending and receiving, and an occasional ship running back up the coast, taking empty bags and packaged kites back to Alaska. Just BTW, this is an all downwind route, which should render it even more efficient.

One great advantage in hauling clean water--and especially in bags, is that a collision or grounding isn't going to be catastrophic. This alone goes far towards silencing critics, especially for the kite-drawn concept, and also for robotic control.

Dave

 

I've been thinking about this, but I'm not enough into the nautical engineering of such a concept. I've always thought that you would need some kind of keel to keep a structure (maybe a long and strong carbon-fibre pole - placed horizontally over the bag - may suffice).

Your point about the fact that a worst case scenario for a "disaster" with a water bag is merely that fresh water would spill into salt water, is indeed very strong. I've seen a few concepts for all-robotic ships and of course the main problem is the risk of a disaster. With a baggie full of water, there's no such risk.

Anyway, the concept of the bag is not patented at all, so you're free to use it. (There are a few patents but they're not too general.) It would be super cool to have a fully automated carrier for bulk fresh water, on fixed routes, with kites.

There are plenty of routes which make sense, and there's great satellite data and info out there about seawinds and ocean currents, as you know, no doubt. It shouldn't be too difficult to create software for a kite, using these data, making it virtually infallible to operate automatically.



Finally, and now we're going into unchartered territory - and fantasy: in the 1980s, a team of German scientists went to the Arctic to wrap an iceberg into a polymer bag; the goal was to have the iceberg travel its year long course from the Baffin Bay through the Davis Strait and Labrador Sea after which it ends up in the North Atlantic off New Foundland. The thing worked. The plastic bag withstood the enormous year long stress, wind, icebreaking, etc...
The idea was then to tow this bag with the now melted water to North Africa and Southern Europe.

The guys had a patent, and Australian Antarctic services are now looking into the idea of bagging bergs again.

I must be honest and tell you that my fantasy of the water carrier + kite came from reading this story.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/antarctica/default.htm

Australian polar scientist Professor Patrick Quilty thinks he has a pretty cool idea.

He wants to move Antarctic icebergs around the world for use as a source of water.

Yes, icebergs.

Professor Quilty reckons it can be done by wrapping icebergs in huge, and he means HUGE, plastic bags and towing them to places like Africa where water is a scarce commodity.

[More]

---------


Anyway, as you know, there are permanent ultra-strong winds on the Southern Ocean, and kite-towing a mega-bag full of icebergwater from there to dry South Africa or Namibia, will become a reality within the next 20 years - I'm willing to make a longbet on this!

http://www.longbets.org

By the way, one of the waterbag guys has an unchallenged bet on longbets.org, check it out here:

http://www.longbets.org/176

 

Well, as things seem to be going on, the whole Arctic icebergs may reach Africa by themselves... melted. Maybe Proffesor Quilty will have a bit of a problem finding icebergs to tow...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

 

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. Reading the very same report, I came to the conclusion that, for the next several decades there will be MORE bergs available floating around; you conclude fewer. How interesting!

Dave

 

This particular study has ended. A friend of mine--a kite designer--was involved, helping them sort out how just exactly to "lasso" an iceberg. They solved the specific problem (no, I won't tell you how), but the major study was discontinued. I do not know why.

Dave

 

I agree with Packateer. the drag would be enormous

 

Dave,
... to tow them in an hipothetic future, where there are no more bergs, nor polar ice left...that's what I meant.
Maybe P. Quilty would re-direct his efforts on how to bring these bergs back together...?...Maybe even better try to find out how to avoid the Antarctic melting...?

 

This is a lovely thought, Guillermo, but it is one of politics more than one of boat design, is it not? I am a boat designer, not a politician, so I can offer you wishes of good luck, but not such solutions.

Dave

 

I have read in a French Magazine (Le Marin/Voile Magazine) some news about Kit-sailing that are interesting to the discussion:

"Sky Sails, an Hamburg company, have developed a mast that permits to launch a kite without human intervention and a command center that controls the sail. The kit is made by North Sails, it has 160m2 and Sky Sails says that it will permit a saving of 50% on fuel. The German Company Beluga Shipping is going to mount one of those in one of their ships, a 100m long cargo boat."

Well, I am very curious about this...

http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13

 

anybody think a kite to be as far as reaching the tradewinds? that wat the big birds carrier hops on ....... he..........

 

an idea that might work would be a modifcation of the Ice berg plan someone has a few years back. problem was, it would melt and not be navigatable underway. my idea is to make picreate in blocks and then made into a huge barge designed to be able to be navigated to the site. Then the blocks could be floated to the user and thawed for the water. the sawdust could be compacted and used for fuel, or even better for camel bedding. . the picreate blocks could be made in a far north country in the winter. all you would need is water, sawdust, and a slope to slide the blocks into the water. picreate would not melt on the way. picreate is as strong as cement and would easily hold up in a seaway.its great that im not the only designer who is nuts!

 

Actually, he is partially right, Vega. bible as it is today was passed on to us by greeks who wrote it by translating it from various arabic dialects, such as aramaic for example.

Caligraphy tells us that they were not drunk when they wrote it. Whether they were drunks or not, greeks still did more for the culture than his nacist compatriots currently bombing innocent people around the world and preparing the stage for another world carnage. And using that sad book as a cover.

As Marx said, wars are either class or religious. And religion is the opium for the masses that is used by rulers to justify their wars.

 

They also talk a lot! Them as do a lot of talkin' ain't got time to do! beside which nobody likes a smart arse!

Also with a view to these comments on this mythical collision - only got a plastic waterbag what damage would that do? What about the item it runs into, liner? ferry? tanker loaded with crude oil?

Remember it takes two to have an argument!

"I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it!"

 

so what is the drag of the bag compared to a ship with the same capacity?
What is the price of the bag compared-"-?

Regarding sideforce: A long sausage would provide a decent enough L/D to go atleast marginally upwind I think. Making it narrow would reduce the stress I think, and maybe increase L/D, but increase the skin area. or make a sausage-shaped soft keel? Or if you bridle the bag from both the top and the bottom, it would shape a loong channel on the lee-side, creating a looong, huge, entertaining and lift-producing vortex?

Hows abous this:

Use the kite, or kites, to produce an oscillating motion of the bag. It could be one kite attached at the bow of the bag, flying from side to side in a headwind. Or it would be one kite either side of the bow, alternately pulling. Or it could be several kites, attatched along the bag. Would look like a huge eel. You could go straight into the wind, I imagine. Ref some threads around here, "sine-wave propulsion" for one.

Really, bulbob, come up with a more convincing argument that the idea discussed here is not environmentally sound. You're arguing that it is going to burn too much fuel? What?

Regarding "making water a commodity" - who is doing that? Don't you agree it is beneficial to develop cheap, sustainable ways to get water to where it is needed?

Regarding D'artois' concerns - Having seen some of the contraptions that can survive the sea - yes, this sounds like child's play - lots of fun!
Finally, if decomissioned, you could make a theme park on them!