these turbine alternaters are easy to make

actually flywheels are the most efficient form of energy storage known
and they are silent when run in a vacuum on magnetic bearings
as for safety they are a time bomb just waiting to go off
imagine over several million foot pounds of energy in motion say 10,000 rpm at 3' diameter and 200 lbs
that thing would demolish everything it hit for about five minutes before it even thought about slowing down
not safe at all brother
thats the problem with em
they're a time bomb
and no I have most of the resources I would need to machine em out myself
its the materials is all Ild need to spring for and thats dirt cheep
hell I can do em out of titanium if I want to go for higher rpm's but Ill stick with under 20,000 rpm and go with chrome molly
its cheep and strong enough
eats cutting heads though

the basic answer to your question is that if there were a way to deal with the gyroscopic tendencies toword axial stabilization
then it would work fine
for instance in a wave piercing design
but in a design meant to roll with the seas you would be wasting valuable energy every time you played with the moment of rotation
or whatever thats called

Mas
I already did that and Im sure I got it close but I still come up with about 42 tons displacement
Im building a scale replica to keep me amused till I get things rolling and so I already have the sections copied to graph paper
waiting glass for my new modeling table as I figured I might as well start out with a bomb place to do the model
cherry framework under a piece of 3/4 inch etched and edged glass
Ill cut the lower edge dead straight and use it as a T guide for the drafting part and then hook a piece of homosote over it for the building part

its got to be ballast
I just cant think of anything else it would be

Im just going to call the guy who has one for sale and ask him

ps
that last picture is of the exact lines I have with the slight barrel back to it
its a 1928 model
Im debating keeping or loosing the barrel back

 

Bos, where did you come up with 7,000 BF? That is also 7,000 LF of 2 x 6.
Are you going to crib frame it like the Ark? Best, Stan

 

traditional plank on frame
I got the scantlings for it and worked up an estimate from there
maybe I screwed it up
Ill go check my numbers again but I cant be that far off
and no
board feet and lineal feet are two completely different animals

 

Boston, usual position (D.A.), so - if you are NOT sailing, why permanent ballast? - OK if it is temporary (water) ballast when fuel and other stores get low, so as to hold lines & designed efficiencies - new thing for me in relation to mono power when "hull speed" is all that is desired....?

 

60' long by 10' high = 600 X 2 +1200 LF + transon 15' x 10' + 150 LF
adds up to 1,350 BF of 2 x 6 x 2 or 2,700 BF + another 150 total 2,850BF so if you double plank it in 2 x 6 you have 5,700BF. Your wood count is off base. Best, Stan

 

Really? And just how long can you store the energy, and how much are you spending on it? I know they look great on paper, but there are many, many problems with current ones.

I've only ever seen existing ones that are designed for short term, high energy storage, acting more as a buffer than as a 'battery'. Something between a capacitor and a storage cell. Are there ones that actually run well on magnetic bearings that are permanent magnets? The few I've worked with (For massive machinery) used a high powered electromagnet baring to be properly balanced.

 

traditional plank on frame
I got the scantlings for it and worked up an estimate from there
maybe I screwed it up
Ill go check my numbers again but I cant be that far off
and no
board feet and lineal feet are two completely different animals

W Oak
ribs
1860 board feet ( +20% ) average free board of 6' + 13' beam = 25' each at the widest point at 1 1/4 x 1 1/4
keel
550 board feet ( actual 475 ) 4.5" x 18" average height over 68'
stringers
200 board feet ( + 20% )
bilge clamp
120 board feet ( actual )
bilge keel ( not sure I need them but Ill add it in for now ) 4"x6" x 60'
240 board feet
3 keelson's not actually necessary but we used to do it all the time
360 board feet ( actual )
garboards
150 board feet ( + 30% )
floors 300 board feet ( actual)
beems and carlins
500 board feet ( actual )
shelves and clamps
160 board feet ( actual )

white oak 4,140
and just for fun I went way overboard on those estimates
only thing I think I missed was the knees and I can go them out of scraps
ok I missed the 4x4 frame to the wheel house and a beam or two also in the wheel house area

red ceder
1600 board feet if I went with the 5/4 planking they had on it 26x50
but Im kinda silly about building heavy so Im going with 8/4 so x 1.75
and call it
2,800

cherry exterior
decks 5/4
600 board feet ( + 20% )
wheel house raised panel
1000 board feet 4/4 ( + 30% )
aft cabin house
1000 board feet 4/4 ( + 30% )

cherry
2,600

4140
2800
2600
--------
9,540 board feet if I really try and waste wood

at an average weight of say 3.1 lbs per board foot = 29,574 or 14.8 short tons
I could throw another say thousand feet in of WO and Cherry and still only be at way less than half of what this thing is supposed to weigh

oh and I forgot the cherry railings and guard rails
doesnt mater weight doesnt add up no mater how you look at it

its miles from the 42 tons displacement I get when I calculate for volume displaced

 

In 2 x 6 BF and LF are the same, It just seems like a huge amount of wood.
Hard to believe there is that much in it from the picture. the 2 x 6 are nominal dimensions

 

Stan
you are so right
I completely read that wrong
my bad

I posted some numbers and although I went way overboard on it I was trying any way I could to come up with 42 tons
Im thinking old Roby used to always say add up the wood and double it and you should get about the displacement after you add all the engines and such
so if I can get the hull materials to weigh in at 21 tons then it will all make sense but its not even close


flywheels

 

Your estimates on wood are equal to a 3,000 sq. ft. wood floor home with 1 x 6 cedar siding and standard 16" on center framing. I just cannot believe there is that much lumber in that boat. It is unreal to me. Not saying you are wrong maybe telling myself never estimate lumber in a boat. Best, Stan

 

oh I overestimated
I went with largest dimension frame and for all frames and widest point on each beam for all beams
same on decking with only the beam and length considered and not the shape
same on all cabin house paneling and that keel is kinda hefty at 4.5 x 18 over the full length including the stem area
although the ribs Ill probably enlarge from the called out numbers of 1 1'/4 x 1 1/4 since I enlarged everything else
Ill work it all out and pay someone to check it before I start buying but
I definetly overestimated
what its showing me is that I did something wrong in one of two things
displacement or ballast
cause the rule of thumb old Roby used to use was always high
displacement hardly ever equals twice the hull weight
so either that hull has ballast or I calculated the displacement way wrong
and Im pretty sure I got it right
frankly Im ok with ballast but its kinda a surprise

if I have to ballast that thing Im putting a huge brew kettle in it

 

...excerpt from a posting of mine under, "New propulsion sytems for ships"..

One big solution to our energy equation has to be 'storing energy'. We just don't have a lot of good storage capabilities, particularly as related to electrical energy. Many times we are forced to use as we generate it. Think of the possiblities if we could really efficiently store electrical energy. Our sun is a fantastic source of energy as it bombards us with it every day. But our collectors (solar cells) just don't have the capacity to give us the energy density we need to power up a lot of our energy consuming items. And we need better storage methods than our current crop of batteries.

I have always had an interest in 'super flyweels' as a storage method ever since I learned of their original development by Johns Hopkins Labs years ago doing my college days. Hopkins wanted to put BIG flywheels (at the time low-tech weighted wheels) in underground chambers at power plants and have the excess energy available at night from these plants spin up the wheels so they could be called upon the next day during peak periods rather than turning on a 'peaking turbine'.

And I began to follow their re-development in the late 90's as several parties sought to re-invent them for auto use. I was real excided when Chrysler sought to enter La Mans with a flywheel powered car.

I still have a lot of old material stored away on this subject (before my computer days). But I believe if you simply 'google' "super flyweels" you will get a lot of info, for instance:


http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home5/PG01898441/flywheel.htm

...more here
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/propulsion/new-propulsion-sytems-ships-9630-11.html#post85848 posting#163

 

A spring is a good store of energy and 100%efficient. Push with 50lbs and you got 50lbs, it don't go away and will stay for years.

The uneveness of the road could be used to store spring energy with a ratchet type of gadget. Like absorbing wave energy. But by road energy the faster you go the more energy you make.

I hav'nt invented it yet infact I just thought of it then.

 

ok how about back on track with a good question from Masali that frankly I should have answered better

steam consumption on the engine being considered is 1000 to 2000 lbs an hour

I will have a steam recovery system to recycle at least some of he heat and steam using a simple condenser coil and relief valve in a closed loop system

although the system comes with provisions to allow for using sea water I think it best for the durability of the engine to go with a steam recovery system and use distilled water

so you were right Mas about the water maker
I need one but not as large as you might thing
it all depends on the efficiency of the recovery system


the pellet consumption rate at full tilt or about 14knots as it compares to the power requirement of the original twin diesels is

so to get the same BTU takes about twice the mass of pellets than diesel although the cost is only half per BTU
about
the actual number is
.089/.024=3.7 per penny mass
738/435=1.7 per penny btu
3.7/1.7=2.18 times the mass of diesel for the same btu of pellets

so for the same range I would need 2.18 times the mass of diesel in pellets
the original boat held 300 gallons at 7.15 lbs each thats 2,145lbs
and had a range of about 270 miles
so it would take about 2.18x2,145lbs=
4,676lbs of pellets to do the same

If I wanted to hop the pond in one fell swoop I would need to go from

1866/270=6.9
6.9x4,676=32,316lbs or 16.17 short tons and Ild want "tons" extra to attempt the trip with
call it 20 short tons of fuel pellets

should take about 187 hours depends on currents and wind or about 8 days to make the crossing
an a lot of stoking

could be done but Ild be riding about 16" low in the water when I started out if I didnt unballast the ship any

basically means water ballast is going to be my best bet

hmmmmmm
187 hours and 32,316 lbs = 173 lbs an hour at 10 knots
so I need a 1500 lb capacity hopper to get a decent nights sleep

 

Cripes this thread is getting as bad as that global warming thing.

Ooooh I do miss the Drivel thread, it did have its purpose you know.