Sailors wrong for thousands of years?

=======================
Most inventors and boat designers I know, and have read about, pay a great deal of attention to history. Windmaster, for instance knows the history of the rotary sail quite well and has made working examples that are simply first class performers. The potential application of what he has done to a small fun boat should not be underestimated. Is more research necessary-you bet and he's the first to admit it.
To disrespect people working on new ideas because they haven't got it right yet or sold it to Hobie yet is the real curse of those who fail to pay attention to history-or understand the history being made right in front of them.

 

Rube Goldberg hadn't been born yet.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but it looks like you didn't get my point. Let me try again: I was saying that there are lots of threads where people talk about designing boats like canoes and skiffs and air boats. None of these kinds of boats are good for open water, yet you don't go to those threads and tell everyone that canoes are no good for open water. So why do you come to this thread and start complaining about how wind-turbine boats would not be good for open water? Who said they would be? What is the point of even bringing that up? If you don't think that is something that needs to be brought up in every design discussion about canoes, then why do you think it needs to be discussed in very design discussion about wind-turbine boats?

Why do you feel the need to give advice not to do something that no one has proposed doing?

You must be confusing me with someone else. I'm not especially interested in mechanically-linked wind-turbine boats (I thought Rick Willoughby's idea for a turbo-electric boat was better). I'm just annoyed at these repeated pseudo-critiques.

"You want to find a way to make sour ice creams? Well, I don't think they would have the same marketability as vanilla."

"You want to invent a desert topping that also works as a floor wax? It won't last as well as specially-designed floor wax."

"You want to invent a computer network based on carrier pigeons? It won't have very high bandwidth."

All true criticisms. All completely beside the point and nothing but distractions from what could otherwise be a fun topic.

 

My objection to this thread and many like it is in the "packaging", not the content. Starting a thread with the phrase "Sailors wrong for thousands of years?" directly creates a conflict, and implies the discussion will show how this new information changes the sailing paradigm.

This is the "Fox News/Rupert Murdoch" approach to starting a discussion, rather than an academic/scientific approach. I prefer Fareed Zacharia to Glenn Beck when I wish to have geopolitical discussion. I prefer BBC to CNN.

No one appears to be disputing that a boat can be designed to go directly upwind using wind as the power source. Some people are questioning the practical application of the technology. I guess it is a matter of perspective. My "default mode" is the "macro" viewpoint of a practical engineer - does the technology translate well into the "real" world? Other folks have a different perspective the "micro" viewpoint where the technical correctness of the argument is more important than it's real world application. Both modes of argument are "correct" depending on your viewpoint.

Windmaster does not appear to be arguing that these designs are ready for practical applications today. He does appear to be hoping/enticing others take up the concept and further investigate how progress could be made towards practical use.

My perspective is that when you consider driveline losses (efficiency), operating on all points of sail (indicating rig rotation, transmissions, planetary gears, differentials etc.), feathering and angle of attack adjustment ... the list goes on and on ... there is a huge gap between a little model that simply goes upwind and a useful addition to human transportation. From my seat of my pants (opinion, not fact) the issues that need to be resolved to make this idea practical are too great to overcome. The pop bottle model presented, with direct shaft drive, and use of various final drive ratios via propeller change is not functional in the real world.

I'm not doubting the function and correctness of Windmaster's model - but I do see enough issues for the title of the thread to be misdirection - sailors for thousands of years have not been "wrong" - they have rejected this concept as impractical as it has been presented repeatedly over the years (centuries?). There is no paradigm change found here - but the concept itself needs significant refinement before it become "revolutionary".

I hope this concept works out. I hope there is a paradigm change here and we can solve many of the world's energy problems.

--
CutOnce

 

Again, cool tech. I don't think a canoe does well on the open water of the ocean, but was never intended for such, like a windmill boat. A canoe does fulfill an economic need for people and millions are in use, because it is a useful boat for the waters intended, and is ancient in its perfected development for the job and versatility.
To develop a new tech one usually needs a reason to do so, like the developers of the birch bark canoe.
As interesting as this topic is, it does not address any sort of real need as far as I can see, but is merely an exercise in fascinating theoretical engineering. What is the projected use, market and function of a perfected windmill boat? How is it superior to what presently exists? My question is 'why?'

 

New Technology / rotary sails

NOTE: numbers and highlighting added by DL for clarity.

===========================


Note: the highlighted and numbered areas above are specifically replied to under the appropriate number below. The above quote is exact.

===========================
1) My opinion is that not liking the title of a thread is no grounds for dissing the technology-particularly as presented by Windmaster who did not start the thread. But given the title-and the performance of Windmasters prototypes-I see nothing wrong with it in terms of a factual basis for it.
If a system has been devised-model or full size- that allows a boat to use the wind to "sail" directly into the wind then the question is a viable one. The thing is, it is NOT a question of "IF": it is a fact that an RC model has successfully been sailed directly into the wind!!(See the video) Now some are fond of saying "aw ,that don't mean nuttin-its only a model". How completely, irretrievably, uninformed such a comment is! If you look at some of the most significant sailboat designs that provided major innovation in naval architecture over the last 20-30 years like Hydroptere, Skat, Hydraplaneur, Canting Ballast Twin Foil Technology-every single one (and many others) started their innovative lives as RC models. Far from toys, RC models used in a testing program can be a major development tool. Testing with RC models is a viable and accepted method of testing new design technology for sailing systems.
On the basis of the proven ,preliminary testing accomplished by Windmaster it is quite possible that I was taught incorrectly that sailboats can't sail into the wind: I have seen it being done under control of a skipper.
---
2) That's true: some people are questioning the practical application of the technology. I don't mean to be condescending but that is simply incredible to me. It must be lack of imagination, lack of knowledge about such a system or a combination of a lot of averse ways of looking at new development. I live right on the Banana River on Cocoa Beach-aside from spectacular sunsets- it is a great place to sail. But I can't tell you how many times in a North or South wind that somebody at some point has said:" wouldn't it be cool to just sail straight into the wind", followed by laughter at the perceived absurdity of the idea. I'm quite sure that the uniformed, "perceived absurdity" is directly responsible for the attempts by some to categorize serious technical proposals, based on proven technology, for boats that can sail directly into the wind to be received with a very unfair dose of skepticism. That makes developmental funding hard to come by-and without serious development the true potential of these systems may never be realized-and that would be a crying shame.
---
3) With all due respect, I don't think you know enough about the technical aspects of these systems to say that. Especially in the face of proven RC model testing in substantial wind and other full size testing as linked to right here on this thread. I'm also acutely aware of criticisms of other technologies made without a clue about how the technology works or can be implemented. I think far too many people are willing to ridicule and/or criticize what they don't understand. And to shoot first and never ask questions....
---
4) Again the title of the thread. From what I've seen any sailor that rejects this technology as impractical-especially the technology demonstrated by Windmaster is making a serious mistake. The technology unequivocally works and the practical applications from small fun boats on up simply await the effort and funding of serious development.
I wish the innovators and developers in this field the best of luck-the breaking down of "the perceived absurdity" of sailing into the wind is tough like breaking down of all the preconceived notions that have slowed down development throughout the years. Notions like the absurdity of a sailboat sailing on wings and with wings, like the notions of movable ballast, unstayed masts, kite power, standing up and holding on to a sail, a monohull actually being faster than all multihulls under 20' and so on and so on.
It takes courage, guts and money-just never, ever, give up or give in!
Good Luck, guys!
=======
Pictures-left to right: 1)& 2) a couple of my rc test models for an "on-deck movable ballast system", 3) Whitehouse/Richards render of a project under development to keep a canting keel 100% clear of the water, 4) Alain Thebault and the first RC model of Hydroptere, 5) "Hydrosail", a modified F3 RC model to test the foil and altitude control system for Dr. Sam Bradfields 40' SKAT hydrofoil, 6) Yves Parlier's RC model of his 60' "Hydraplaneur":

 

Doug:

Please stop re-writing material posted by me, adding your numbers and stripping out things you don't like. If you use quotes, have the courtesy to understand that "quotes" mean you leave material unaltered. If you wish to "snip" out content, then clearly indicate so.

If you feel numbers are necessary to cross reference things, use superscript numerals and appropriate brackets so your additions can be distinguished from the author of the material quoted. The Chicago Manual of Style is a good reference for how to construct text conversations.

You have exactly zero accurate knowledge of what I do or do not understand - the same clear understanding I have of your qualifications, education, professional status and experience. Your opinions of what I do or do not know are not relevant to the conversation. Frankly, you have a very bad habit of attacking the person, not the idea - this is called an ad hominen attack - whereby discrediting a person you feel you are discrediting their ideas. In most polite and professional circles, repeated ad hominen attacks are grounds for being banned

I apologize to readers of the thread for this off-topic but hopeful request that the previous poster focus his angst on ideas, not people. Referring to

and

is certainly not acceptable forum behavior. Adding "With all due respect" to your personal ad hominen attack is just putting sugar frosting on a dog turd and then expecting people to ignore the behavior.

I hope the moderator simply enforce the rules we all agreed to and appropriately deal with this. I look forward to hearing more about your opinions about things and ideas - and no further of your opinions about people.

--
CutOnce

 

The request to keep the discussion about ideas and resist further unproductive back-and-forth insult/attack is greatly appreciated.

Everyone should also please indicate appropriately where anything is snipped within a quoted block of text.

 

Rotary Sails

A quote from Tom Speer on a previous thread regarding using rotary sails to sail upwind:

 

There's no doubt it can be done, I've been doing it for years. It's just amazing there could be anyone left who thinks it can't be done.

I hope we have got beyond the stage of whether or not it can be done and can concentrate upon how to do it better.
BTW
Sailing directly upwind driving an underwater prop is nothing to do with an "autogyro" boat which cannot sail directly upwind.
The only thing they have in common is that they both have a rotating wind-rotor.
Because of this similarity, people often connect one with the other. They are nothing to do with each other.
Neither would it be a good idea to try to create a "hybrid" (using the same rotor) since the parameters required for the two designs are completely different.

 

Of course it can and has been done. The question is can it be developed to be economically sensible? If I build a windmill powered boat, what is the cost, what are the benefits? What advantages do I incur over a conventional type? Directly upwind is the one point of sail this type vessel has a clear advantage, and usually the one with the most violent motion as vessel speed opposes wave speed, so the one that will put the most stress on the machine. Less sailing is done to windward for this reason as much as any other. I keep bringing up vessel motion as a limiting factor but it seems this type of boat is only for smooth water, which limits it to use as a recreational toy. A very clever and interesting one that should be investigated further.
Modern sail boats don't go directly upwind, but are very efficient at coming as close as possible with no moving parts, bearings or shafts. They also deal with waves, storms, violent motion and entropy well. Yes, a boom is dangerous when tacking or jibing but a prop is dangerous all the time, as well as noisy and making vibration.
I am deeply devoted to use of natural forces instead of oil for our needs and want this to work, but I can't see the path to success yet.
If practical and capable of being scaled up, this tech could save an awful lot of oil, which we need to do.

 

How many of recreational vessels are economically sensible?

 

Not many, that's for sure. But the wind power boat seems a much larger investment for the same size, number of berths, etc. with the only better performance being dead upwind, and all other points of sail slower. Not economically sensible compared to conventional sailing craft at this time. Maybe in the future.

 

There is a certain amount of truth in what you say I must admit.

As you may know, I also work on self-trimming wingsails.
Therefore my most recent ideas turn towards a dual-drive boat with a rotor (quite small) for going directly upwind and a wingsail setup for other points of sail. The water prop being able to be lifted out of the water - folded or feathered when not needed. How about that?

 

Another answer:

All of them. The benefit of recreational vessels has little to nothing to do with cost of operation as the critical deciding factor for "sensibility" (whatever that subjective topic means to each one of us). The benefits are less tangible and probably more important.

As long as a designer's product catches the attention of someone else, and the new boat is built and used as it was intended - it IS a sensible activity (to someone at least!). Doesn't have to make economic sense!

Reading through a lot of the material available (hours of fun), and working out my own answers to Mr. Speer's autogyro sail questions has not made me change my "seat of the pants" opinion regarding the "real-world" viability of this type of system. It may be viable for those interested in investigating the potential for further refinement, but I can't see people investing in it for general transportation / recreation today.

--
CutOnce