Need a thesis paper

hello guys..


i am wondering if anyone help me about my thesis..
I will start that one very soon. I am deciding to use either tribon or shipconstructor for my thesis work . i wish to select a subject related to Large Container ship .

Please if any one can help me with ur thesis paper done by sc or tribon. PM me

or mail me please. click here http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=27772

thanks much

 

What level thesis? What facilities do you have access to?

 

what is the purpose of using Tribon etc for the thesis?..is this purely for you to get some working knowledge with one of the softwares to be more employable once you finish your studies, or do you feel it will assist aid your thesis?

Since, as Mikes says, what level and what facilities do you have access to? But just as important, what areas of interest in boats/ships etc do you have. No point doing a thesis for "the hell of it". It takes time and effort and as such, you must have a personal interest, otherwise you may not be able to maintain your enthusiasm for the subject.

Which university will you be studying at?

 

Thanks for reply.

it will be the final year Bsc. Naval architecture thesis. I will start after one month.. i feel interest with container ships/cargo ships mainly. The subject is not final yet, i mentioned that two software name because i am learning them.. not everything of them . but some modules.. as i am interested in Hull and Basic design rather than outfitting .
So, i will explain more soon just after i finally select my subject and consulting with professors. and here i posted only to get idea and right subject for thesis of undergraduate level as i mentioned.

Thanks again

 

Hydroponics growing attributes of cannabis plants in shipping containers or has that one been done before . . .

 

In my day you decided on the subject with your tutor and did the work yourself ...today you dont get a BSc but an OBE Other Buggers Efforts

 

What about something along the lines of solar/wind powered ships..at least partial solar/wind..."green" ships in other words...what about new bottom paint coatings for huge ships...they are one of the worst marine polluters due to the sheer amounts they have painted on their hulls....lots of emerging "solutions" in this area...at least maybe someday...
What about the Arctic and container ships.? ..the Arctic Ocean will be melting more and more...already ahipping comp. are thinking of new shipping routes... soon everyone will "pushing barges" every which way thru area that used to be ice pack...
Or you could discuss the deflection hardness of perspex windows of container ship lifeboats and their resistance to .50 cal. naval ammunition....You must have some ideas other than " I feel interest with container ships".

 

Like I said people wanting qualifications without doing any work themselves


OBE other buggers efforts ...glad you agree...tutor usually has some favorite project idea he wants the strudents to investigate ( for his phd ) ha ha

 

How about remodeling a supertanker into a dual use tanker/container vessel?

How about remodeling a supertanker into a dual use vessel?

I got the idea from the 1970’s remake of “King Kong” where they put him in a hold of a supertanker to bring him to NYC.

Just install a big hatch over each oil hold and some cranes on the deck. Maybe just a big fork-lift with lowing gear.

I figure most supertankers are coming from places that have oil but not much else, so a supertanker/container could carry loaded containers on the return voyage.

I also figure most conventional container ships coming back from oil rich regions would be lightly laden and could take the extra containers the tankers couldn’t return.

I think you could probably install some box handing hardware in the hold of supertanker and not care that it would be immersed in crud-oil ½ the time.








Here are my thoughts on re-modeling a supertanker into a dual use tanker/aircraft carrier.



My thoughts on Supertanker/Carrier combo from prior thread

​

"personal" for the CEO or some status hungry oil sheik, or maybe an oil dependent nation (buying or selling)

even if actual landing a C-130 not possible, at least they could drag chute out lots of cargo onto the deck

a supertanker is wide enough that you could park planes on one side and land and take off on the other, and massive enough that extra stores could be carried under the deck in conex boxes






how about using a super-tanker?
I would not presume to tell a fisherman how to run his deck, but a supertanker is just a big gas can and I don't see any compelling need for the large superstructure at the stern.

The Japanese carrier captains were able to guide their ships well enough with out a superstructure. Yes, they later added them, but for a 'part time' carrier, and with todays closed circuit TV, I would stick to a completely flat deck for the sake of the planes.

Maybe a bridge that could be raised on a mast when making port, with the mast simply lowing into the hull for air ops.

Just install a modular deck over the existing plumbing you see on a tanker's deck.

If figure tankers are pretty cheap and they are just lots of steel plates.

If I was planning any carrier ops the first thing I would want is a couple big cheap super-tanker 'flat-tops' for several reasons.

While the operational robustness is impressive, a carrier is always one bad landing away from a USS Forestall disaster, I'd want a backup landing deck in the vicinity.

Rather not risk a bad landing, and thus the carrier, and ejecting from a questionable plane, you could have a extra, dedicated landing deck that could not only handle the risk, but could be configured in ways not practical on a carrier deck, such as a thick layer of foam, or yet to be invented apparatus such a massive net.

All ships of valuable to anti-ship missiles, I'd rather send a big hollow supertanker with a few planes on deck in harms way than a multi-billion dollar carrier with thousands of crew. An empty supertanker could take numerous massive hits with little effect, even more if the tanks were a little more compartmentalized than normal...just a few more flat steel plates.

When serving as a supertanker the crew might miss their nice views from the superstructure, but they might enjoy the benefits of land based fixed wing aircraft visiting.

Not sure how big or what type of aircraft could land on a supertanker without all sorts of modifications.

Not sure how much "hard to relocate" heavy equipment is currently housed in the superstructure.

Who wants to draft up an "artist's conception" to sell this to some status hungry oil sheik?

wardd vbmenu_register("postmenu_292985", true);
Junior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Rep: 49 Posts: 98
Location: usa

i believe that the systems on a carrier are way more expensive than the hull and would a ex tanker be able to develop wind over deck speed to launch and recover

then theres aircraft maintenance facilities ships self defense aircraft fuel storage and handling, elevators, catapults, arrester gear, munitions storage and handling

soon you have a carrier

​

wardd
View Public Profile
Send a private message to wardd
View wardd's Gallery
Find all posts by wardd
Add wardd to Your Buddy List
#176 Post Feedback vbrep_register("293011") Flag for Moderator
08-12-2009, 03:57 PM
Squidly-Diddly vbmenu_register("postmenu_293011", true);
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2007
Rep: 3 Posts: 113
Location: SF bay

what "systems", just lop-off the super structure, weld some

​

hard points all across the existing deck, bolt some columns on those and bolt deck panels to the columns sort of like a "computer floor", over the normal plumbing that tankers have on their decks.

Have fork lift on the deck in case you need to bring up some stores from under deck conex boxes. Also good to shield other aircraft from those landing as seen in the movie "The Bridges at Toko-Ri".

Part of requirements for US Navy carrier ops is for planes to be able to both launch and land without catapults or arresting wires, respectively, and also to do so without the carrier doing 40 knots into a headwind. They might need to do it "straight on" and use most of the deck but they can do it. They just can't do it as rapidly.

Yes, I'm aware of "mission creep" and the Pentagon's habit of adding bells and whistles.

I figure a supertanker could carry an extra 100 conex boxes on original deck no problem, for maintenance and supplies.

​

 

PS-Don't supertankers and container ships routinely take-on water ballast?

instead of hauling water they could haul paying cargo!

try to market this idea as "green" because the tanker wouldn't be using all that fuel on returning an empty ship, and the container ships wouldn't be coming back under-loaded.


This would allow the ship owners to "hedge their bets". Hard to predict what the market demand will be for tankers or container shipping.

It might also be nice to be able to carry lots of containers on a tanker if new regulations require additional Oil-Spill clean-up equipment and supplies.

 

How about ultra rapid turn around cargo vessels?

I've seen concepts for them, working more like freight trucks than traditional ships. Cargo is loaded onto container 'barge hull sections'. The engine and everything is then its own section, and works like a floating dry dock, except that the cargo pods fit snugly into place.

Ship pulls into a port, takes on ballast water, pops off the cargo pod for that port, tugs bring in the next, ship heads out again having had a port turn around of 30 minutes or less. (with the right design work, maybe a ship could be done that would pass by a harbor mouth and drop/pick up cargo pods without really slowing down. Pick up fuel in special pods, crew by helicopter.)