I completely agree with what you are saying here. I like to sail, not motor. To the extent that I can do completely without a motor I am much happier. The trimaran format allows one to go from point A to B more quickly and therefore more reliably. I quite like the idea of the Fisher boats and the 37 especially BUT the darned things are doomed to be motorsailers (lousy sailers) pretty much no matter what you do to them.
For my purposes much better to have a trimaran that can move right along under normal circumstance AND one with a larger sail plan so that a significant amount of power can be consumed by the larger prop of a maximally efficient REGEN/propulsion system. A larger prop works better for regen because it has the ability to convert more of the power that is ultimately provided by the sail system.
If one wishes to sail without penalty of regen one simply turns the prop over at a speed that neutralizes the large props drag. Adding even more power than the required neutralizing revs provides propulsion and adding less power than the neutralizing revs to the prop provides regeneration.
I need propulsion on the boat but the efficiency of the prop in propulsion is not nearly as important as the efficiency it has during regeneration. So for instance I'd rather have a propulsion to regeneration efficiency ratio of 40/60 than 60/40.
Propulsion is only for getting away from the mooring, handling tides when necessary and emergency situations such as storm or dead calm conditions.
I want a serial hybrid with a highly efficient diesel dc generator used mainly to drive an electric motor when the batteries run too low on juice to do so. Trimarans should be as easily driven by electric motors as they are by wind and therefor I would expect a decent turn of speed on good sized trimarans for even motors considered to be smallish (such as the ME0913).
All of the above says MAINLY that the propulsion system is a backup that I wish to use a little as possible because, i wish to sail not motor.
kind of an aside to the above but one fellow suggested that a normal prop mounted backwards would produce the best regeneration.... intuitively this seems correct to me.... it would be less efficient in propulsion mode but probably maximally efficient for regen..... you seem a knowledgeable fellow and I wonder if you would you have any thoughts on this???
From: Jace Hobbs <jacehobbs@yahoo.com>
To: electricboats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Electric Boats] regen, displacement, sail plan, hull form....
To add to the multihull consideration, I think considering highly efficient hull forms and the larger than average sail plans makes sense for multiple reasons. I would like to add that I have worked with some of the prominent multihull designers, built several to my own design, have a patent in the field and have been a featured speaker at the Miami boatshow and published on this kind of consideration.
The points I would make are
1. Boats that sail well and fast don't need propulsion nearly as much of their travel time, and so can afford lighter and smaller auxiliary drive systems.
2. Boats that sail well are not stranded with mechanical breakdowns to their engines in all but extraordinary conditions. I have done entire three month cruise on my 12 meter boats with only using a single 10 gallon gas consumption on a two stroke engine that could push the boat at 10 knots. I did have to motor around, but at a fraction of the throttle and for shorter distances because sailing was/is preferable. A better outboard with a larger prop would probably halve that amount consumed.
3. Regen on a small system does not create as much drag, supposedly , as a larger motoring capacity would require. This allows fortuitous advantages to life under sail.
4. Modern materials and design make the low boat weight very available, which allows the rig to be smaller and still have sterling performance. One has to escape the keelboat mentality of massive strength against the sea and go with the composite global loading technologies that produce terrific weight to drag to power combinations.
5. If we spend as much time as we would on the power side of boat design on becoming competent to built light hull forms, then performance and happiness under sail are a consequence.
6. The practice of weighting a sailing craft to keep it upright may be tradition in the European cultures, but it is laughable in many places in the pacific. We are still coming to grips, that ballast is a strange practice that has many negative consequences for the total system that a boat is. Perhaps it is time to escape the weight, embrace the multihull, and reap the benefits.
From: electricboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:electricboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Green
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:23 AM
To: electricboats@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Electric Boats] regen, displacement, sail plan, hull form....
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:23 AM
To: electricboats@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Electric Boats] regen, displacement, sail plan, hull form....
Hi, Mike,
Your trimaran choice might be right on the money, provided you keep the weight down.
I don't know if it is for certain that you would need to increase the sail area. Seems to me that the top, say, 20% to 30% of speed is a
power hog, whether the power be from sail or motor. By tolerating a slightly slower speed
at the top end, the regen power gained is worthwhile.
From Eric's power consumption figures, from very rough memory, he uses about 4500 plus watts at
hull speed, and 20% of that at about 50 or 60% speed.
Presumably, assuming enough wind, the reverse is true, and there would be potentially 3500 w or so of
regen available if he could accept the slower speed and
yet still carry the sail needed to go at hull speed.
You might find that you would have to add a massive amount of extra sail, just to gain a
few knots that represent a small percentage of your speed?
But bear in mind that I am just a thinker, not yet a sailor.
John
2b. regen, displacement, sail plan, hull form....
Posted by: "Michael Mccomb" mccomb.michael@yahoo.com mccomb.michael
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2012 10:25 am ((PDT))
Wanted to see what responses I would get to the following thoughts.
I've been going back and forth on which type boat is best converted to a regenerating sail plan and have now pretty much settled on a trimaran with a larger than average sail plan balanced out by whatever increased beam is necessary.
It seems to me that the only variable that comes into play concerning regen IF one can reach say 6 knots is the amount of power that the sail plan can generate. Displacement has mostly to do with acceleration and the only consideration to the reduction of regen capability with concern to displacement is that for a given same hull form a boat of increased displacement has an increased whetted surface area.
Even the 1.3 hull speed rule for figuring cruise doesn't seem too relevant when compared to sail plan size. A very fast hull will, during regen, be penalized at a higher percentage of that hull speed during when in regen mode. A trimaran which can be very fast due to very low resistance will give up a much higher percentage of it's speed if a prop is being used for regen than would a more normal mono-hull.
IF the above is more or less all correct then it would seem that the primary consideration when trying to develop good regen would be to make certain that one has the optimal sail plan in terms of power generation and that would necessarily point one at a taller sloop or perhaps cutter rig. Multiple masts carry more sail but with reduced efficiency so that the same boat with a commensurately larger single mast rig will be faster due to it's producing more power.
A taller rig then requires more keel to keep it where it belongs and the most efficient keel is the deeper blade type which adversely affects draft. And so even though the trimaran would give up a greater percentage of speed during regen it would seem that in order to get rid of the deeper draft required to offset a larger sail rig the trimaran would be the ideal regen platform as it may offset the larger sail plan with beam rather than, as must be done with a mono, draft.
am i missing something obvious???
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (8) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment