Re: [PUP] Lightning strikes and email
As dictated to Scott Bulger by Mike Maurice, lying down on the couch in my family room, after 22 hours of traveling from China. Which is to say, this is not necessarily a lucid statement:
A sail rig will tend to "round up" if the balance of the rig is predominantly aft of the center of resistance. The result being, the bow will tend to come up into the wind.
Cordially, your scribe, scott
-------------- Original message --------------
Thanks so much Mike for sharing your experience and expertise with us
newbies... with that in mind, could you explain more completely your
statement below about the sail rig (i.e. 'tend to round up...etc.')
I'm trying to get my brain around it and have no sailing experience for
the context.
Thanks,
Mike
This position leads to a sail rig which not completely balanced in that
the boat will tend to have "weather helm", a tendency to round up into
the wind in a strong gust. This is an intended feature which means that
less attention has to be paid to the sails while they are up as in a
gust that might otherwise knock the boat down, it will just tend to
round up into the wind and spill it rather than be knocked
over._______________________________________________
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List
Mike just went over to advise?
Ron Rogers
Anyone heard of any fuel cells being developed for mid-size boats?
I thought this news was interesting...(in a disappointing way) but it
seems that passagemaker boats are much closer in size to cars - and
could utilize the same systems... any thoughts,
Brian.
April 5, 2005
HEADLINE: MTU abandons the'cool'fuel cell due to lack of interest:
Market puts dampener on efficient energy source
BYLINE: Patrik Wheater
MTU-Friederichshafen has pulled the plug on its two-year research and
development programme into fuel cell technology for marine applications.
The backtrack follows extensive market research that suggested to the
German engine builder that the marine industry is not yet ready for fuel
cell technology.
MTU spokesman, Daniel Reinhardt, said: "We have stopped development of
fuel cell technology as the market reaction was not as intense as we
would have hoped."
He said MTU had intended to adapt its fuel cell technology to the marine
sector, but was unable to justify further development at this time.
However, research and development into fuel cell technology would
continue for stationary systems.
"It does not make sense right now. The market may change and we may come
back to it in the future," said Mr Reinhardt.
The engine builder had believed the mega-yacht market would offer one
opportunity to take fuel cell development forward. There was some
interest, Mr Reinhardt said, "but interest does not make a market".
As recently as September 2003, MTU unveiled No.1, a 12 m prototype yacht
powered by the PEM - proton exchange membrane - fuel cell system it
dubbed "Cool Cell". At the time, fuel cells were represented as a
long-term strategic addition to the company's product range and
considered "a great forward leap towards efficient energy utilisation".
Elsewhere, development of fuel cells for the marine market will
continue. In April this year, HDW-Fuel Cell Systems, a subsidiary of
German shipbuilder Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, will put into service
its fuel cell plant for maritime applications demonstrator. The
demonstration plant has been integrated into a 20 ft standard shipping
container for easy installation on board ships for testing purposes.
Besides the fuel cell modules of 160 kW, which operate on hydrogen, the
container includes all the processing and electrical engineering systems
for control and monitoring, as well as an inverter which adapts the
energy to be fed into the ship's mains.
By early summer it will be operated in various projects on board ships
at sea.
According to HFCS: "By generating energy which is environmentally
friendly, low on vibration, noiseless and efficient, fuel cells raise
customer satisfaction with all types of vessels - from pleasure boats,
mega-yachts, cruiseships and inland vessels to giant box ships, and from
mine-counter-measure-vessels to frigates."
I represent Lagoon catamarans, the world's largest manufacturer of
catamarans. An electric-motors option is available for their sailing
models (41' to 57' -- meaning cats priced from about $250K to $1M,
[U.S.] ). Yet the interest in the electric motors alternative has been
quite minimal. Personally, I've long thought that fuel-cells were a
superior alternative to the electric motors option. But regardless of
about 90% of what clients "initially" tell me, in the end the PRIMARY
factor influencing their purchase decision invariably is one thing:
price (cost).
Given that reality, it's my opinion that until diesel costs $9 or $10
per gallon, I don't believe there's going to be any big interest among
boat buyers (and thus no commensurately large, or committed, R&D effort
by the manufacturers) to offer an alternative to the diesel engine.
Remember, today's $2.50 per gal. fuel cost (at the pump) -- while much
balleyhooed in the media -- is considerably less than the 1981 price of
$3.05 (adjusted to reflect inflation since then). So we have a fairly
long ways to go before there's enough sustained buyer "shock" about fuel
prices for said buyers to eagerly, and demonstably, switch their
allegiance in propulsion choice.
The initial fuel-cell alternative will undoubtedly be an expensive
option. (In the Lagoons, the alternative of the electric motors is about
an extra $15K to $20K.) So that immediately extinguishes much of the
argument for "saving money." In a similar vein, if you don't see the
average boat owner rushing out to buy a fuel-cell car for $35K, then why
should potential manufacturers of boating fuel-cell systems risk high
R&D costs in expectation that those same individuals will nonetheless be
eager to spend 10 to 20 times the sum of a fuel-cell car for a fuel-cell
boat?
Or, to put more of a dollars-and-cents tag on it: a 45' power-cruising
catamaran, operating at 18 knots, burns about 14 GPH. So, in a single
day's run of 200 miles, the cat burns $300 to $800 LESS (yes, in a
single day!) than comparable size/speed monohull cruisers (which burn
from 25 to 45 GPH at 18 knots). So, even though right today there exists
a simple and proven way to save hundreds of fuel dollars per day --
without resorting to exotic, expensive, questionably reliable,
cutting-edge technology -- I see no rush by monohullers to switch to
catamarans.
Perhaps that makes it a bit easier to understand why CEO's, carefully
eyeing their potential "bottom line," are apt to shy away from the huge
expense of developing cell-fuel technology for boats. It's like
contemplating the hosting of a VERY expensive party....with the
foreknowledge that very few guests are likely to show up.
Just one ol' salt's opinion,
Rod Gibbons
BrianC wrote:
Anyone heard of any fuel cells being developed for mid-size boats?
I thought this news was interesting...(in a disappointing way) but it
seems that passagemaker boats are much closer in size to cars - and
could utilize the same systems... any thoughts,
Brian.
April 5, 2005
HEADLINE: MTU abandons the'cool'fuel cell due to lack of interest:
Market puts dampener on efficient energy source
BYLINE: Patrik Wheater
MTU-Friederichshafen has pulled the plug on its two-year research and
development programme into fuel cell technology for marine applications.
The backtrack follows extensive market research that suggested to the
German engine builder that the marine industry is not yet ready for fuel
cell technology.
MTU spokesman, Daniel Reinhardt, said: "We have stopped development of
fuel cell technology as the market reaction was not as intense as we
would have hoped."
He said MTU had intended to adapt its fuel cell technology to the marine
sector, but was unable to justify further development at this time.
However, research and development into fuel cell technology would
continue for stationary systems.
"It does not make sense right now. The market may change and we may come
back to it in the future," said Mr Reinhardt.
The engine builder had believed the mega-yacht market would offer one
opportunity to take fuel cell development forward. There was some
interest, Mr Reinhardt said, "but interest does not make a market".
As recently as September 2003, MTU unveiled No.1, a 12 m prototype yacht
powered by the PEM - proton exchange membrane - fuel cell system it
dubbed "Cool Cell". At the time, fuel cells were represented as a
long-term strategic addition to the company's product range and
considered "a great forward leap towards efficient energy utilisation".
Elsewhere, development of fuel cells for the marine market will
continue. In April this year, HDW-Fuel Cell Systems, a subsidiary of
German shipbuilder Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, will put into service
its fuel cell plant for maritime applications demonstrator. The
demonstration plant has been integrated into a 20 ft standard shipping
container for easy installation on board ships for testing purposes.
Besides the fuel cell modules of 160 kW, which operate on hydrogen, the
container includes all the processing and electrical engineering systems
for control and monitoring, as well as an inverter which adapts the
energy to be fed into the ship's mains.
By early summer it will be operated in various projects on board ships
at sea.
According to HFCS: "By generating energy which is environmentally
friendly, low on vibration, noiseless and efficient, fuel cells raise
customer satisfaction with all types of vessels - from pleasure boats,
mega-yachts, cruiseships and inland vessels to giant box ships, and from
mine-counter-measure-vessels to frigates."
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List
Good explanation, Scott. But if there are any non-sailors who are still
a bit unclear, one could almost over-simplify by mentioning a windvane.
When acted upon by a breeze, it invariably (if properly balanced, which
is a 101-explanation of Scott's more apt mention of "center of
resistance"), swerves so as to point directly into that breeze.
The inherent behavior of a sailing vessel whose helm is untended to
"round up" into the wind is also known as "weather helm," and is
generally considered a positive feature, born of good sailboat designing.
An "unbalanced" windvance (or a sailboat lacking 'weather helm') would
NOT, if acted upon by a breeze, point into that breeze. In fact, in the
sailing world, this tendancy for a boat to turn into the wind (if there
isn't someone at the helm to counteract that motion by altering the
rudder's direction) is also sometimes described as "weathervaning."
RG
scottebulger@comcast.net wrote:
As dictated to Scott Bulger by Mike Maurice, lying down on the couch in my family room, after 22 hours of traveling from China. Which is to say, this is not necessarily a lucid statement:
A sail rig will tend to "round up" if the balance of the rig is predominantly aft of the center of resistance. The result being, the bow will tend to come up into the wind.
Cordially, your scribe, scott
-------------- Original message --------------
Thanks so much Mike for sharing your experience and expertise with us
newbies... with that in mind, could you explain more completely your
statement below about the sail rig (i.e. 'tend to round up...etc.')
I'm trying to get my brain around it and have no sailing experience for
the context.
Thanks,
Mike
This position leads to a sail rig which not completely balanced in that
the boat will tend to have "weather helm", a tendency to round up into
the wind in a strong gust. This is an intended feature which means that
less attention has to be paid to the sails while they are up as in a
gust that might otherwise knock the boat down, it will just tend to
round up into the wind and spill it rather than be knocked
over._______________________________________________
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List
Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List