Solution to problem of hull speed

I think I'd have tested the 'integrated" prototype ( shrouded in secrecy, of course) before bothering with any patent protection, it may not work the way you expect,at all, I can't see how it will do what you claim, but happy to be proven wrong.

 

So since the boat has width and volume it will generate a bow wave with no propulsion.
When you turn on the props, the bow wave is sucked down and ejected to the back, filling in the stern depression?

If we were to continue your comparison to a jet, then a single engine fighter should have only frictional drag since it pulls the air from the front and ejects it to the back?

Interesting that you got a patent on an idea you can't prove works - one of the weaknesses of the patent system.

So tell us. What in your opinion will prove you have "solved" the hull speed problem? Attitude of the hull at hull speed? The amount of power used to maintain hull speed? Power vs speed plot?

What size is your 2nd prototype?

 

I have to say, the canoe shape of it is putting a great weight of expectation on the propulsive units, 'cos it will squat very promptly at "hull speed" without this magic effect, having very little hull volume aft.

 

What happens in beam seas when the tunnels leave the water when the boat rolls.

 

Good point, but only one to worry about when it it works on the smooth first !

 

I expect my design to be more stable in pitch, roll and yaw.

In smooth water, there is no problem, obviously. Unstable sea states are more problematic, but the solution for stabilization of propulsion system intake flow has been included in the patent application.

The patent incorporates active analog damping to stabilize the flow into (and therefore out of) the propulsion system. The technique is rather simple, and incorporates the use of a pair of flumes port and starboard to act as delay lines. This is a technique straight out of analog computing methods, analogous to LCR modeling circuitry for damping harmonics (i.e., designing a shock absorber). This is basic physics.

In a following sea, there will be substantially reduced positive feedback due to the shortened moment arm between the propulsion system and the centers of mass and buoyancy.

In both pitch and roll, since the system is dynamically integrated, it is also mass coupled, so the hull will behave as if it's displacement were doubled. In a beam sea, the hull configuration will break up the interaction of the hull and cresting wave, reducing roll.

The design of the hull planform lends itself to incorporation of roll stabilizers. Unlike conventional planforms, it also lends itself to stabilization in pitch.

As an additional benefit, the location of the propulsion system midships will reduce the polar moment of inertia in pitch, roll and yaw, as well as simplify structural issues.

My design should outperform conventional displacement hulls in just about every way imaginable.

 

Hull speed is an empirically arrived at explanation of one consequence of a particular hull shape being propelled through water at the water surface. Hull speed does not constrain all hull shapes to a limited speed. Planing boat are one example that does not conform and long skinny hulls are another.

If I were to attempt to design a hull that operated as a displacement boat but was able to go faster than it's empirical limit, I'd try to make the boat act like a long skinny hull. Dealing with the bow wave is one way to do this and is probably what the OP intends. Wave cancellation bulbs at the bow do this to a minor extent but are limited to specific speeds and require a critical shape for the particular boat and speed.

Aircraft do something similar with their "area rule" concept. The OP apparently wants to manipulate the wave system by physically moving it around to reduce the height of the wave that holds normal boats in the hollow between bow and stern wave. Move part of the bow wave to the middle of the boat and the boat begins to look like a longer, more skinny one.

How much power is required to actually accomplish this bit of magic is not discussed and will be the 400 pound gorilla that he has to deal with.

On the other hand, I may be completely off track and totally misunderstand what he is trying to do.

 

You are implicitly raising the "LNL" design paradigm: long, narrow and light.

You should add the following additional design criteria: commercially nearly useless and impractical except for recreational and pleasure craft.

My objective is, and always has been to devise a displacement hull which is not constrained by the limitations of orthodox marine hydrodynamics (i.e., hull speed). I believe I have attained my objective.

Historically, when the age of steam arrived, sailing hulls were adapted, first by adding mechanical propulsion and keeping sails and masts, and later, after increases in power and reliability, by deleting the sails and masts altogether. The adaptions were essentially a patchwork.

It did not occur to innovators (with good reason, from a historical context at least) that sailing and powered vessels function through completely different propulsion modes: sailing vessels get their motive power through the air, while powered vessels achieve their through interaction with the water. This in turn implies that the design paradigms for powered vessels should be at least somewhat at variance with those of sailing hulls.

Marine architecture, like so many fields, suffers from path dependence (anyone who uses Microsoft products understands the problem from a different perspective). In this context, I have taken new knowledge (applied chaos theory as it applies to hydrodynamic systems) and gone back down the design pathway to the beginning, and applied new tools to old problems. My knowledge of the mathematics of self organizing nonlinear dynamic systems has been instrumental in this regard.

Some time ago (nearly 20 years) I observed that from a certain perspective that conventional powered displacement hulls and their associated propulsion systems were dynamically open and dissipative. In this context, hull speed is an artifact of the implicit assumption that the open system is correct.

I take issue with this assumption, and assert that the correct model should be dynamically closed and regenerative. This assumption leads down the investigative process that led me to my invention, and its associated patent.

 

Here is the previous thread on the same silly idea...
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hydrodynamics-aerodynamics/hull-speed-49830.html

 

Perhaps you should read what is written before answering. I intentionally did not include LIGHT in my post, which make you reply "useless and impractical".

 

I would not call the transformation of power to sail patchwork at all. I just think of it as evolution. I will be interested to see if an actual vessel of your design works . There are many patents for ideas that never see the light of day. I hope it does work as well as you say so I will wait and see what eventuates.

 

The OP has talent, whether it is just for gobbledegook hinges on successful trials of a prototype, which would be a major undertaking in itself. Until that is done, and independently verified, there is little point in further discussion, imo. There is a suggestion of triumphalism in the claims being made, that would be better held back pending concrete results.

 

Solutio to problem of hull speed

Stay with it man..don`t let these guys bully or crush you there are many who will support you. No one gets anywhere with the peer pressure and critics.

 

What are your thoughts on the workability of the system in the PDF at https://patentscope.wipo.int/search...&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=?

 

Bullying?

It certainly is a reaction to the OP's unwillingness to explain what he is talking about.
This idea is in a "patent pending" status, so he can divulge anything he actually wants to explain - he's protected if he gets the patent.

If he doesn't he is not protected anyway.

Why did he come here if he was unwilling to talk about his idea?
Bragging?

I suppose next time he can go to Sailing Anarchy and get a more polite response.

Actually the only thing I wanted was to understand the idea.