• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Doug Lord

Movable Ballast Dinghy Design

185 posts in this topic

Seems to me that there is a lot of room in fast dinghy design for real innovation that would allow non-athletic crew the opportunity to sail a fast, crew-rightable(w/o very much crew movement and w/o outside assistance)planing dinghy:

1) Trapwing System-a sealed wing with ballast sliding inside( that moves as the wing does).The wing is supported by trapeze wires. Ballast about 80lb for a 14 footer. Can be moved manually or electrically very quickly-faster and farther than another crew could move. Enormous RM AND the capability of using the "wing" to right the boat since the wing has more buoyancy than that required by the ballast inside it.

2) DSS foils- these foils, either retractable or not, can be used on a dinghy specifically designed for them to create about 15% more RM upwind and close to 100% more off the wind. If the foils don't retract, the boat has to be designed to sail at an angle of heel of about 10 degrees. DSS must be used with a movable ballast system like the Trapwing system.

3) This kind of system would open up a whole new area of performance dinghy sailing for those who are not athletic enough or who don't want to be athletic enough to sail a singlehanded trapeze boat. It would be and incredible way to sail for many, many people who otherwise could (or would) never sail a performance dinghy. It would be safe,rightable by the crew and is based on model testing for over 10 years.

4) In a few months, if I can raise the money, I'm going to build a full size version of the Crossbow fl, below.

 

Picture-14'Crossbow fl scale model:

post-30-0-18004900-1366488905_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not-this-shit-again.jpg

 

Doug

 

I really cannot believe that you posted this. I think this is the 3rd time you have started exactly the same thread in just over 4 years. Nothing has changed. It's going to end up with the same shit fight as always

 

1. Its balast so its not a dinghy - you will argue that you can have ballast on a dinghy because humans are ballast = shitfight.

 

2. Balast cannot be practically moved fast enough - you will tell us all about the motors which can move the stuff fast enough. Most (all?) won't agree. = shitfight

 

3. It's potentially dangerous. You will argue it isn't = shitfight

 

4. There is no demand for something like this. You will argue there is = shitfight

 

I honestly cannot remember all the other things that go on, but you get the picture. Or are you saying there si something new to add to the discussion? If so, it certainly isn't in your first post.

 

I seriously don't get you. There are discussion going on all over these forums that you have and can make valuable contributions to, yet you choose, once again, to drag up old stuff. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, I believe in this concept based on 50 years of experience sailing, designing and building boats. I think it has a lot to offer-tremendous potential. I'm going to build the prototype if I can raise the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug

 

I really cannot believe that you posted this. I think this is the 3rd time you have started exactly the same thread in just over 4 years. Nothing has changed. It's going to end up with the same shit fight as always

[...]

Back in the good old days of Usenet and news readers, a good newsreader could be set to ignore (killfile) threads and posts by certain authors. Modern discussion forums don't seem to have that functionality, a backward step. Where is the "ignore this thread" button?

 

You can manually ignore the thread I guess. Takes more discipline though. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to build the prototype if I can raise the money.

stop being a fucking wanker do ug

 

how many fucking times have we heard variations of this

 

back to 110% tosser mode huh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking hilarious.

 

I read these forums because it is some of the best entertainment around. The girlfriend's tits!

 

Doug, you have some great and proven ideas and you have contributed a lot of positive information and encouragement.

 

I think it's just time to build the prototype! By hook or by crook. Sell the house. Sell the dog. Make it happen. Prove everyone wrong or discover why it doesn't work and make the changes. Go for it. Maybe that's where everyone is at with the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that there is a lot of room in fast dinghy design for real innovation that would allow non-athletic crew the opportunity to sail a fast, crew-rightable(w/o very much crew movement and w/o outside assistance)planing dinghy:

1) Trapwing System-a sealed wing with ballast sliding inside( that moves as the wing does).The wing is supported by trapeze wires. Ballast about 80lb for a 14 footer. Can be moved manually or electrically very quickly-faster and farther than another crew could move. Enormous RM AND the capability of using the "wing" to right the boat since the wing has more buoyancy than that required by the ballast inside it.

2) DSS foils- these foils, either retractable or not, can be used on a dinghy specifically designed for them to create about 15% more RM upwind and close to 100% more off the wind. If the foils don't retract, the boat has to be designed to sail at an angle of heel of about 10 degrees. DSS must be used with a movable ballast system like the Trapwing system.

3) This kind of system would open up a whole new area of performance dinghy sailing for those who are not athletic enough or who don't want to be athletic enough to sail a singlehanded trapeze boat. It would be and incredible way to sail for many, many people who otherwise could (or would) never sail a performance dinghy. It would be safe,rightable by the crew and is based on model testing for over 10 years.

4) In a few months, if I can raise the money, I'm going to build a full size version of the Crossbow fl, below.

theres' your problem buddy

 

NO-ONE see it that way, no one that actually sails dinghies, or has a good recollection of doing so

 

get someone to back you up that sails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Julian Bethwaite:

The SKUD crew use a hydraulic/electric system now to cant the skipper to windward.

 

That technology exists now and is in use on a regular basis and dose not fail.

 

Not sure you have to build it to prove it!

 

Models are good things, save everyone a lot of $$$.

 

JB

------------------

In the Future Tech Thread, Posts 203-240, http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=140398&page=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Julian Bethwaite #2:

Julian Bethwaite took the time to say that he thought my "Trapwing" concept had merit in the post below. Some of you may not know that Julian Bethwaite, Paul Cayard and Russel Coutts collaborated on a concept called Pterodactyl: nominally a monohull and designed to use movable ballast sliding athwartship at deck level. More:

----

 

Thanks again to Julian Bethwaite for the comments and information posted here:

-----------

One of my inspirations -that has bolstered my own work on this project- is the Bethwaite/Billoch collaboration on the concept of Pterodactyl-which was conceived of to use on-deck movable ballast. Here is the original SA article: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...teradactyl.htm

--------------

What wasn't known then was what Julian says about it here. I asked him to comment on the Trapwing which he did in a PM that I'm publishing here with his permission. He reveals who was behind the Pterodactyl project:

 

"A few years back these pages graced a thing called the Pterodactyl, it was a big double proa that Russel Coutts and Paul Cayard asked me to do as the ultimate circuit boat. Among other things its nice to see the OMR*go that route, but Russel was big on having 3 tonne of lead on tracks moving from side to side, inside the wing beams. I thought moving water through 200mm diameter pipes would be better, but the concept has merit. Your issue is that unless you have significant tip pods, then you will never be able to react quickly enough to keep the wings out of the water. Just cant do it! "

 

*Ocean Multihull Rule: it is the predominant rating rule used in Asia (and

Australia) it seems for handicap racing in this part of the world.(dl)

===================

Pictures wing tip pods as suggested by Julian, DSS:

post-30-0-16803100-1366553372_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-85338500-1366553588_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-32756700-1366553617_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that there is a lot of room in fast dinghy design for real innovation that would allow non-athletic crew the opportunity to sail a fast, crew-rightable(w/o very much crew movement and w/o outside assistance)planing dinghy:

1) Trapwing System-a sealed wing with ballast sliding inside( that moves as the wing does).The wing is supported by trapeze wires. Ballast about 80lb for a 14 footer. Can be moved manually or electrically very quickly-faster and farther than another crew could move. Enormous RM AND the capability of using the "wing" to right the boat since the wing has more buoyancy than that required by the ballast inside it.

2) DSS foils- these foils, either retractable or not, can be used on a dinghy specifically designed for them to create about 15% more RM upwind and close to 100% more off the wind. If the foils don't retract, the boat has to be designed to sail at an angle of heel of about 10 degrees. DSS must be used with a movable ballast system like the Trapwing system.

3) This kind of system would open up a whole new area of performance dinghy sailing for those who are not athletic enough or who don't want to be athletic enough to sail a singlehanded trapeze boat. It would be and incredible way to sail for many, many people who otherwise could (or would) never sail a performance dinghy. It would be safe,rightable by the crew and is based on model testing for over 10 years.

4) In a few months, if I can raise the money, I'm going to build a full size version of the Crossbow fl, below.

 

Picture-14'Crossbow fl scale model:

 

Setup fundraising account. I'll donate just for entertainment value!! Dontations will be added as the Crossblow progresses (DOCUMENTED IN THIS THREAD OF COURSE). I'm sure everyone here's behind this.

 

http://www.razoo.com/

http://www.gofundme.com/online-fundraising/

http://www.youcaring.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's old is new again! Keeps going round and round!

 

Build it Doug! Just F'in build it. Doesn't have to be perfect, just prove the point. Sell the concept to us, the ignorant masses. Till then STFU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good, get the funding and build something!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, get off the computer, and put the savings in bandwidth and time into the project.

Between 6500 posts here and 10000 on the other site, you could have built half a dozen full-sized boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not-this-shit-again.jpg

 

Doug

 

I really cannot believe that you posted this. I think this is the 3rd time you have started exactly the same thread in just over 4 years. Nothing has changed. It's going to end up with the same shit fight as always

 

1. Its balast so its not a dinghy - you will argue that you can have ballast on a dinghy because humans are ballast = shitfight.

 

2. Balast cannot be practically moved fast enough - you will tell us all about the motors which can move the stuff fast enough. Most (all?) won't agree. = shitfight

 

3. It's potentially dangerous. You will argue it isn't = shitfight

 

4. There is no demand for something like this. You will argue there is = shitfight

 

I honestly cannot remember all the other things that go on, but you get the picture. Or are you saying there si something new to add to the discussion? If so, it certainly isn't in your first post.

 

I seriously don't get you. There are discussion going on all over these forums that you have and can make valuable contributions to, yet you choose, once again, to drag up old stuff. :wacko:

+1000

 

Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/hello?ref=nav If you can't get funding via Kickstarter, you don't have a market

 

And if you really believe in this, you could self-fund it. a fast PLC costs about $300 http://www.plcdev.com/cheap_plcs

your sensors and actuators for the movable ballast about $500 since that sort of positioning actuators are standard industrial parts http://www.ebay.com/sch/Linear-Actuators-/55826/i.html

Batteries will cost you $200

A used Laser II - nice stable platform with a solid hull $500

 

So Doug - put your money where you rmouth is. For $1500 (ok $2,000) you could build this thing. Build it, and prove us wrong. If you really "believe in it" you can afford to set aside $100/mo for a year to fund it. If you can set aside $200 then you can have it done in 6 mos Remember that it will take you 1-2 month to find the right actutator and another 1-2 mos to write the initial code for your PLC.

 

Since the coding tools for the PLC are free (see the link) you will have $400 to spend by the time you need to buy one. By the time you are done with your initial coding, you will have enough $$ to buy one linear actuator so that you can experiment with it. By the time you've sorted that out, you will be able to afford all the LAs you need.

 

You will then need at least 2 mos to sort out the software for keeping it balanced (and you don't need a boat for it - plus you already have that "circular cockpit" hull sitting in your yard that you can use so you don't even need that. But lets say that went to the junk yard. So you have to wait for 2 mos to afford the Laser II or even a used Laser hull (or Force 5 or even a sunfish - any tipping dinghy will work. It will take you at least 1 month to design and build the track mechanism for the moveable ballastt (you can get used jib tracks cheap)

 

You then mount it on the boat and to sailing....

 

And if you can afford to set aside $300/mo, you can self fund this and have all the parts bought before you can use all of them. Look the programming isn't hard, you basically need only two sensor inputs: The heel angle, and the position of the weight. The first is a digital input the second is I/O from the actutator. So this is a fairly simple feedback loop. The hard part is the software. And that's just your time. no money involved.

 

 

See, you don't have to do a Frazer/Shaw 4.0 type build. Most startups self-fund the pilot. In the case of the Shaw - I suspect Frazier and Shaw are splitting the construction and materials cost and that it was built out of the spare cycles the Shaw shop had between paying gigs.

 

 

So you don't need to "raise funding" for this. Unless you are unemployed, if you truly believe in this - you can fund it yourself. I suspect you don't because you are scared it will fail and its easier to have the excuse of "I can't fund this myself" than actually doing it. So stop spamming this board with an attempt to sucker someone else into buiilding your dream project for you... Either you believe in it or not. If you believe in iit, you can sell some of your RC gear and basically fund this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-27388-0-19595900-1366639217_thumb.jpg

 

This was the scene at our sailing club at the weekend- a demo day for the K1 'ballasted dinghy'/keelboat.

 

Does it represent interest in a ballasted small boat, suitable for inshore waters? Sure...

 

Does it represent commercial demand for them at our club? Not so sure, it depends how many orders they get.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the sail plan for the Crossbow fl. I have many of the components of the boat including the daggerboard, rudder, bucket seat, DSS foils, running rigging and 80lb lead ballast for the wing. She will use an A Class wing mast section(from a damaged section). In addition I have a go pro camera, speed puck and igotu GPS tracker.

The question being decided now is to build the prototype from styro carbonated by Falcon Marine or 1/8" Okume carbonated by Falcon. Engineering of the joystick controlled electric ballast moving system has already been partially done and will be completed by Rick in Australia.

Design from scratch is the best solution for this boat because of the unique requirements of the wing and of the DSS foils.

a brain fart

 

why don't you list a bunch o' numbers 3 feet long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, someone has gotten there before you, waaaay before you.

 

 

And don't give us this shit saying "That's not a dinghy it's a small keelboat" It's ballast moves. Way more efficiently than yours....So therefore it wins./

 

http://www.swingkeelsailing.com/wordpress/technical-specs/

 

 

And BB, gybeset is just annoying. You throw one suggestion someone's way and he calls you retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like an IC- without the benefit of microadjusting the leverage by moving the 'payload' inboard quickly in the lulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, what is the major advantage of your system? The SK2 can be sailed off a beach, saw it done. Bit of a balls but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, what is the major advantage of your system? The SK2 can be sailed off a beach, saw it done. Bit of a balls but it can be done.

 

The major advantage of the system is that any size person with or without physical disabilities from 100 to 250lb can sail a planing dinghy w asy spin and right it from inside the boat using the wing-righting moment is controlled with a joystick(similar to the numerous RC boats used to test the basic concept.) Secondary advantages include the first use(test) of DSS foils on a planing dinghy with the enormous added RM, particularly off the wind resulting in increased performance compared to no DSS. The wing prevents turtling and can right the boat after a knock down with a slight movement of the joystick . The boat is shallow draft with retractable foils. The wing simply rotates for trailering. Ballast is adjustable in 9lb increments. Battery power is more than sufficient for two days of hard racing.

It opens up a new world of planing monohull sailing for people who might otherwise never be able to experience one of the most fun ways to sail there is.

 

A model of an 18' version of this boat illustrating the wing deployed to port:

post-30-0-96444700-1366663730_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-50117700-1366663767_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply

 

there is no major advantage

 

it won't work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why don't you list a bunch o' numbers 3 feet long

and you did

how many hundreds of times have you done this knowing you will NEVER build

 

fuck off doug

Not even remotely close, Mr. Tea. The Crossbow uses on-deck movable ballast in a sealed wing. No in-the- water ballast, no canting keel, shallow draft, beach sailable. The Trapwing system is assisted by DSS foils. Nothing like this is available anywhere or I wouldn't have to design and build it.

 

Summary of features and specs:

--------------------------

Features:

1) Self-bailing cockpit

2) Boat rightable from 90+ degree knockdown by crew w/o crew movement using the wing regardless of the position of the sliding ballast.

a. ballast wing is sealed and has buoyancy much greater than that required to float the ballast sliding inside.

b. ballast+ wing can be moved manually or electrically faster than a crew on a trapeze could move.

3) Rig utilizes modified rotating, A Class wing mast, sealed with masthead buoyancy to prevent turtling,

4) Ballast wing pivots:

a. to allow trailering

b. to move ballast aft when required with wing extension.

c. also pivots athwartship to keep weight low to windward and to keep lee side of wing clear of water.

5) Ballast is adjustable in 10lb increments,

6) Boat can be sailed off a beach,

7) Boat features an asymetrical spinnaker, an underdeck spinnaker chute and retractable bow pole,

8) Skipper sits in a sliding seat that can also tilt 10 degrees each side so the the skipper sits upright at the designed angle of heel of 10 degrees. Seat can be fixed in center so it won't tilt while still retaining the capability of sliding fore and aft.( see illustration below)

9) Large, buoyant "spray rails" act to help provide a dry ride and knockdown recovery,

10) Self-tending jib with variation of Swift solo single sheet system.

11) Boat uses removable, "plug-in" DSS foils for greatly increased power to carry sail with speed.

12) Boat can be "turboed" to be capable of upwind planing with addition of a maximum of 62lb ballast and a 150 sq.ft. rig.

13) Boat has extremely wide crew weight range: approx 100lb to 250lb for normal sailing. All ratios are based on 250lb crew and would drastically improve with lighter crew weight. For class racing, it would be my desire to see a class adopt the maximum crew weight as standard with lighter crew carrying weight under the seat-or perhaps two "weight classes"-whatever it takes to encourage the widest participation.

-------------

Specifications: (changes are to be expected)

LOA-14.6'

Beam- 4.75'

---at waterline-3.75'

Sail Area-(boat will use a carbon A Class wing mast from Matt McDonald/ Falcon Marine LLC, laid up specifically for this boat).

--upwind- 120 sq.ft.

-- downwind- 240 sq.ft.

Weight-sailing weight w/o crew- 223lb which includes:

--hull, rig, foils-124lb

--Trapwing Ballast System:

--wing-21lb. @ 12' length overall, pivots for transport, and moving weight aft.

-- max ballast 78lb(8 pieces of lead-removable-.25" X 8" X 12"-about 9.72lb each)

Max Crew weight: 250lb(crew weight range is exceptionally wide on this type of boat since the crew contributes very little to righting moment)

All up sailing weight including crew-473lb

DSS Foils: each 1.63 sq.ft.( 6" X 39") 6.5/1 aspect ratio, Welbourn section.

-------

Ratios-

DLR=67

SA/D=

--upwind-31.6

--downwind- 63.3

SCP/Total weight= .2

Note 1: a ratio of at least .3 is required for upwind planing and could be achieved on this boat by adding 62 lb. to the ballast tray in the wing. Nice "turbo" idea for sometime as long as the buoyancy of the wing is enough for righting.

Note 2: an interesting side note to the application of Bethwaites ratio to this boat is that it is not clear to me that proper "credit" is given to the lift potential of the DSS foils. For the upwind RM calculation the lift from the foil was calculated based on a speed of slightly over 5 knots. If the upwind speed were, say, 8 knots the ratio would increase to .27+. A speed of 10 knots with the 250lb crew changes the ratio to .295 and with a 180lb crew that ratio changes to .35.

That adds a very interesting twist to testing in that it appears that reaching off a bit to increase speed may pay much larger than normal benefits on this boat. Speed increases the lift on the DSS foil expoentially and therefore increases RM dramatically. Sounds like fun to me.....

===========

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, someone has gotten there before you, waaaay before you.

 

 

 

And BB, gybeset is just annoying. You throw one suggestion someone's way and he calls you retarded.

RETARD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 'and will be completed by Rick in Australia'
  • 'and Rick's design ... by an electric motor-Rick(an expert in electric power) '
  • 'Engineering of the joystick controlled electric ballast moving system has already been partially done and will be completed by Rick in Australia.'
  • from Matt McDonald/ Falcon Marine LLC, laid up specifically for this boat)
  • The question being decided now is to build the prototype from styro carbonated by Falcon Marine or 1/8" Okume carbonated by Falcon

Get 'Rick' 'Matt' or Falcon to

 

POST HERE

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why couldn't the "payload" be moved inboard quickly in a lull? My system and Rick's design is supposed to facillitate exactly that with movement faster than any crew, like Simon said earlier. You have weight on a horizontal ,virtually frictionless track, moved by an electric motor-Rick(an expert in electric power) doesn't think it will be slow.

Sounds like an IC- without the benefit of microadjusting the leverage by moving the 'payload' inboard quickly in the lulls.

 

 

whilst I don't profess to have any working knowledge of ballast systems for SKUDs etc, I do own a Beneteau First 21.7. This has a centreboard keel, which can be retracted into the hull and lifting rudders. This is to facilitate beach sailing for a day boat- even has a cabin to sleep in overnight, can take a camping stove and you can fit a portable crapper into the forward bunks if your wife's too posh to piss in a bucket.

 

It has a choice of asymmetric or regular kite (I have neither and have zero use for a downwind sail with a 5 year old and a 1 year old on board) They are also raced extensively across Europe, including in the Solent and on Windermere in the UK.

 

What possible benefit does 'all that shit on deck', have over a retracting centreboard/keel? Especially if the boat is even smaller and aimed at singlehanding.

 

It sounds like a complete nightmare, loads of maintenance for zero benefit and a total eyesore above the boot top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not 'Posh' but we have your 'Scary' here in the suburb here not far up the road

 

do you want her back please ? i'll send the bucket, even a lid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would kind sir, I'd be forever grateful.

 

TTFN Game of Thrones has just started...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bucket would be a throne in the aussie vernacular

well if you were using it as you are suggesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I learned something new in this thread. When Doug talked about the decreased reaction time his ballast had, I always thought the ballast was going to be autonomously controlled with a PID scheme or similar. Only took months of skimming every 5th word or so in the hundreds of posts on the subject to get that. Now I don't even agree that decreased reaction time is possible versus someone adjusting their back or knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like an IC- without the benefit of microadjusting the leverage by moving the 'payload' inboard quickly in the lulls.

Well actually the acutators can move pretty quickly, but all the battery weight is going to kill the project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From and earlier thread based on Ricks spreadsheet and calculations based on TWICE the weight for the 14 footer-this for the 18' version-times and speed the same for 14 footer-battery smaller:

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

In disabled sailing design a lot of innovative work has been done with electronics to allow reliable equipment for steering sheeting etc. On a movable ballast system-particularly the one on the 18' prototype the weight will be moved electrically with a "joy stick" control. In order for such a system to be viable it must move the weight quickly and be able to do that for at least 8 hours a day.
Thanks to Rick for coming up with the tentative results here. The spreadsheet he did incorporates a 20% grade-uphill(which the ballast would see infrequently). Rick has been a very big help-incredibly generous with his expertise!

=========================



Moving 70kg(154lb) 5.49m( 18')-full out on one side to full out on the other side/ times are 1/2 for CL to full out:

--1) in 4.5 seconds requires a 7.1 AH 24v battery for well over 8 hours of ballast movement equivalent to 5.49m(18') every 5 minutes.(1.83m in 1.5 seconds)
-
--2) in 5.49 seconds requires a 5.8 AH 24v battery for the same(1.5m in 1.5 seconds)
-
--3) 20AH Lithium= 16lb.(approx. 24lb for ni cad)


========================

This is a system that moves the wing and the weight inside the wing simultaneously. And for the purposes above we're talking the actual distance moved by the weight. So I'd probably go with a 20 AH 24 volt battery.
And it moves the weight faster than a crew on a trapeze could move their weight(CG) the same distance:


Full out to full out times for some trapeze equipped boats:

=======================
Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the trapeze movable ballast system on the Contender
=============================
Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM
6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out*

=============================
505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhYl8X2Pc&feature=related
6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

=============================
12' skiff- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PvV820Qpk (toward end of video)
7-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast from full out to full out

=============================
International Sailing Canoe-


5 sec 50% out to 50% out;estimate 7 seconds full out to full out (very hard to find IC videos that show a boat tacking!)

=======================
* full out to full out= max outboard movable ballast CG on one tack to the same position on the other tack.

=================
Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out-(2.25 seconds from Center Line to full out)**...
**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few minutes for 8 hours+)

==================

post-30-0-23524300-1366675797_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't the "payload" be moved inboard quickly in a lull? My system and Rick's design is supposed to facillitate exactly that with movement faster than any crew, like Simon said earlier. You have weight on a horizontal ,virtually frictionless track, moved by an electric motor-Rick(an expert in electric power) doesn't think it will be slow.

Doug

 

Please don't quote me to justify anything you are claiming. All i said was that you would claim that it could be done, everybody else would say it couldn't. Guess what? I was right! Stop all thsi rehashing of past posts and get on and build something. Last time you posted this stuff, I offered you a substantial bet that it would never happen. You wouldn't take it and we now know why. For the majority of the time you have been posting on here you have claimed to be either building or just about to build a boat, yet we have seen nothing (Don't bring out photos of your "non" foiler - how many years ago was that?) It's now well past the time to put up or shut up. Why do you insist in reposting the same stuff every couple of years. Do you really think our collective memory is that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From and earlier thread based on Ricks spreadsheet and calculations based on TWICE the weight for the 14 footer-this for the 18' version-times and speed the same for 14 footer-battery smaller:

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

 

In disabled sailing design a lot of innovative work has been done with electronics to allow reliable equipment for steering sheeting etc. On a movable ballast system-particularly the one on the 18' prototype the weight will be moved electrically with a "joy stick" control. In order for such a system to be viable it must move the weight quickly and be able to do that for at least 8 hours a day.

Thanks to Rick for coming up with the tentative results here. The spreadsheet he did incorporates a 20% grade-uphill(which the ballast would see infrequently). Rick has been a very big help-incredibly generous with his expertise!

 

=========================

 

 

 

Moving 70kg(154lb) 5.49m( 18')-full out on one side to full out on the other side/ times are 1/2 for CL to full out:

 

--1) in 4.5 seconds requires a 7.1 AH 24v battery for well over 8 hours of ballast movement equivalent to 5.49m(18') every 5 minutes.(1.83m in 1.5 seconds)

-

--2) in 5.49 seconds requires a 5.8 AH 24v battery for the same(1.5m in 1.5 seconds)

-

--3) 20AH Lithium= 16lb.(approx. 24lb for ni cad)

 

========================

 

This is a system that moves the wing and the weight inside the wing simultaneously. And for the purposes above we're talking the actual distance moved by the weight. So I'd probably go with a 20 AH 24 volt battery.

And it moves the weight faster than a crew on a trapeze could move their weight(CG) the same distance:

 

 

Full out to full out times for some trapeze equipped boats:

 

=======================

Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

 

7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the trapeze movable ballast system on the Contender

=============================

Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM

6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out*

 

=============================

505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhYl8X2Pc&feature=related

6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

 

=============================

12' skiff- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PvV820Qpk (toward end of video)

7-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast from full out to full out

 

=============================

International Sailing Canoe-

5 sec 50% out to 50% out;estimate 7 seconds full out to full out (very hard to find IC videos that show a boat tacking!)

 

=======================

* full out to full out= max outboard movable ballast CG on one tack to the same position on the other tack.

 

=================

Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out-(2.25 seconds from Center Line to full out)**...

**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few minutes for 8 hours+)

 

==================

so based on that model this thing has to be sailed pretty flat or the ballast system is going to dig in to leeward. Course that could really funny to watch. The boat heals, digs in the "wing" and the computer sends the wing to windward with gusto, where by the whole kit and cabootle rolls hard the other way, sending the ballast back the other way. Would be epic to watch from the dock. Wonder how long before the ballast shoots overboard and the whole thing goes tits up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no computer control-all wing/ballast movement is controlled by the skipper.The Crossbow is designed to sail at a 10 degree angle of heel. Wing pivots athwartship such that as the boat heels the wing remains level within an adjustable range. I developed athwartship pivot in the mid 90's on the Melges 24RC Power Ballast System. It is a feature of the 14 system as well:

post-30-0-36113800-1366677288_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not-this-shit-again.jpg

 

1. Its balast so its not a dinghy - you will argue that you can have ballast on a dinghy because humans are ballast = shitfight.

 

Take some shitfight that is an element of shitfight. It follows by linearity that a shitfight will insue since alpha * shitfight=shitfight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no computer control-all wing/ballast movement is controlled by the skipper.The Crossbow is designed to sail at a 10 degree angle of heel. Wing pivots athwartship such that as the boat heels the wing remains level within an adjustable range. I developed athwartship pivot in the mid 90's on the Melges 24RC Power Ballast System. It is a feature of the 14 system as well:

That's even worse, and with this comment you prove you have never sailed any sort of real high performance boat. One of the best skiff sailors I've met once said in describing sliffs and windsurvers said tthat

Shortboard windsurfing is 90% anticipation

49ers are about 70% anticipation

 

And by extrapolation 5ohs etc are 55%-60% anticipation. IOW you have to start moving your body BEFORE you can feel the boat change. You cannot do this with a joystick very easily. You've clearly been sailing RC boats for far too long

 

Now furthermore your power requirements are nonsense. Because your tack to tack speeds are about 1/2 of what they need to be. Yes it is true that if you "count through" a normal tack or jibe, those are the times for he tack. But that includes a fair amount of time spent in the middle of the boat transitioning under the boom etc.

 

What you are not noticing is that the time from say "full out trap" to "middle of the boat" is more like 1.5 seconds And thats in a normal tack. In an "out of shape" tack, where the crew is diving into the boat to keep it from flipping you are under a second.

 

So for your "autoballast" to work, you need wing to wing transition times equal to what the crew can do in panic mode - IE about 2 seconds. So you need a power output of about ten times as much power as you are talking about since you are talking about 3x the actual transition speeds.

 

 

and the "disabled sailing" stuff does not give you useful data since those are all keelboats and have well below 50% anticipation rates.

 

 

 

So again Doug You don't need $30k to show that this can work. In fact startups - even with someplace like Kickstarter - do NOT, I repeat DO NOT get funding for a Proof Of Conceppt that is full on glossy and sexy. That only happens when a Deep Pocket Angel like Fazier shows up at a shop with money burning a hole in his pocket (succesful in the computer industry, he could afford to shell out $15-$30k for a first hull)

 

That means you need to build a POC. That means an old hull (Laser II or similar, that you convert with used bits to mockup the capability.) That means a used PLC (because joystick control proves nothing) and that means used linear actuators.

 

And like any math proof, the DSS system has already been demonstrated and you can add in the proven numbers as needed. Whats missing are the POC numbers for the stability for the "moving wing". So you don't need to implement BOTH DSS and the wing for your POC, just the wing. If you insist on implementing the DSS -- well then you just need to implement it on on tack as a permanent foil. This simplifies your POC for the "trapwing" as well, since you only have to show it working on that same tack from centerline to full out.

 

but again, as Simon and everyone else have sad - you are all talk and no action.

 

You could build a working POC for under $2000. But will you? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm done with this thread. Doug, you've gotten solid advice on

 

1) where to go for funding

2) What sort of POC is likely necessary to receive that sort of funding

3) How to self fund this

4) how to build an incremental POC at low prices

 

If you want to ignore that so that you can claim that you can't afford to build a POC but if you did you would be a revolutionary... well then you are what you are

 

BTW how did the late great Magnus Olssun fund being an ocean racer and ski bum? Think about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doug, someone has gotten there before you, waaaay before you.

 

 

 

And BB, gybeset is just annoying. You throw one suggestion someone's way and he calls you retarded.

RETARD

Awh angry? You could be exactly what Doug is looking for in his target market for this boat.

 

 

Doug, Look at the comments above.

 

You have gotten great advice on building a proof of concept, along with a few exaples of why people think it may not work.

I like Jwlbrace's the best, he has the best of all worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I said I was done but the nonsense of a 5oh taking 6-7 seconds for weight transition is just too ludicrous. Notice the gybe that starts at 1:21 seconds, from 1:22 when crew starts moving in, to 75% weight transition (ie both butts on the new weather tank) is LESS THAN 2 seconds. So with the "trapwing- the weight would still be in the middle of the boat, maybe slightly to leeward. which means you are swimming. because the boom has come across and loaded up the side the ballast is still on... OR, you have slowed the boat down so much waiting for the boom to gybe, that you have lost any "DSS benefit" and you are going to spin out the moment the boom does come across. Note also this is a TACTICAL gybe, not a crash gybe, not an "oh shit".. Basically the system you have will not work on a skiff at wind speeds over 8 knots. PERIOD

[/youtube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here we have the exact opposite of clean, effective design put into a proposed design. Over on the MXNext thread, Phil S has enunciated one of the best, well-reasoned responses I have seen on these pages in a very long time. I'll paraphrase...

 

"In the 40 years since the Laser appeared there must have been thousands of failed attempts to make a "better" single hander. The MX is just another one. Most aspirants decide that higher performance will sell, make it bigger, more sail, more powerful (more complicated, as you see in this attempt) etc. MX decided to make this one look sexier. All seem to forget what it is that made the Laser so popular in the first place, long before it became a world wide success.

 

Price and marketing were a big factor, but other things were also.

 

The fact its so simple has to be a winner, The fact its also simple to rig, launch, board, recover etc has to be the one thing that most of the wannabes seem to miss. Making something bigger, wider or less stable (or, more complex) are all negatives to big sales."

 

A spot-on take that dices the onion precisely. Critical thinking and fresh design is only rarely about reaching into the added complexity bag of tricks. Most, truly great design work is strengthened by a less is more approach that reduces weight, maintenance, costly breakdowns and inordinate learning curves for the crew member(s). If it takes a relentlessly posted sheet of vacuous numbers and yet more crappily fabricated model examples to express what you are trying to do, then you've already missed the point of presenting a clean approach to a design issue. If this "design solution" with the nifty name were to be presented in a highly regarded industrial design class, it would be laughed out of the room and summarily marked-down for being way too complicated for its intended mission.

 

I shudder to think what Doug would produce should he turn his attention to a redesign of the everyday toilet.... though he's sure to trademark the name, "The Lord's Throne", (now, new and improved with a joystick control and lightning quick butt wiping actuators) and then sell it off to a big, bathroom fixture firm like Kohler. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get these visions of a situation where a rogue wave knocks the joystick to leeward and the boat turtling in 0.75 seconds, thanks to the electric ballast.

Now, unlike with humans, the ballast is still attached to the boat... now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Doug, someone has gotten there before you, waaaay before you.

 

 

 

And BB, gybeset is just annoying. You throw one suggestion someone's way and he calls you retarded.

RETARD

Awh angry? You could be exactly what Doug is looking for in his target market for this boat.

 

ha ha

 

au contrare , put a smile on the dial. I'll try it again

 

RETARD ....

 

LOLS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug - you already have the answer - it's a trimaran. All these expensive, complex, made to fail parts when the tri does it simply.

 

Now, how's that people's foiler coming along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5 seconds? Too long man. As someone demonstrated before, in reality it gets done much quicker by a person hauling their fat ass aound...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.5 seconds? Too long man. As someone demonstrated before, in reality it gets done much quicker by a person hauling their fat ass aound...

===============

That referred to the CG of the ballast moving 18' in 4.5 seconds. Watch some of the video I posted earlier-no trapeze crew can approach max out to max out in 4.5 seconds. That is, the crew CG max out to max out-and those videos show less total movement of the crew CG in more time than the movable ballast of either version.

On the Crossbow, the distance is less(14') and the time is 4 sec for moving the cg of the ballast 14'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I want to see innovation and encourage it, I have to agree with about everyone else.

 

No doubt the ballast can move quickly. No doubt you have enough battery power.

 

But, dinghy sailing is a complicated balancing act, an acrobatic act, especially with crew. It takes instinct and a feel for the boat that takes hours and hours to gain. It's never simply throwing weight from one side to the other. It's having a feel for the shift in your feet on the floor, hearing the main flap, feeling the breeze come around, releasing and cleating lines, all in seconds while anticipating headers or lifts or chop hammering the bow. Sometimes it means keeping weight on center for an extra second til the boat comes around in heavier seas. All instinct and heaps of experience. Rolling tacks in lighter air! Crew weight constantly shifts in anticipation of what is ahead. The true meaning of moveable ballast.

 

There may be something to be honed from your design but so far it is lacking real world trials. I still say build it. You might discover the solution from actually trying to sail it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug

1) your links don''t work

2) those are tactical tacks not crash tacks

 

I can do a "wire to wire" crash tack on a Musto or a 49er in about 3 seconds, maybe even faster. it is Standup, one step, two steps, grab the trapeze wire and swing out, I know that my 49er crew could go from trapeze to 75% out (ie body hiking over the wing, in about 1.5 seconds .... when I screwed up a gybe or a tack...You basically don't know what the fuck you are talking about

 

Because you have not sailed in years. and you don't actually hang out with saiilors.

 

 

but prove me wrong, build it. I showed you how you can build a PoC for under $2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They all work now-all 6-7 seconds full out to full out. All taking longer to move a shorter distance than Crossbow ballast.

12', about 8 minutes in.

505 1:38 in

FD about 2:30 in

Contender-several-2 min in.

 

12' Skiff:

505:

FD:

Contender:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug - simple question... have you ever sailed one of these boats?

You don't know what you are ttalking about

 

Youtube videos are of TACTICAL maneuvers... iow best case handling. Not crash case handling. again I can guarantee you that wire to wire can be as fast as 3 seconds here's a Wire to wire on a Musto that is 4 seconds

<youtube>

 

And that's a nice mellow tack, notice also that 75% of the weight shift takes 2 seconds, then 25% takes another 2 seconds.

 

I've sailed a 5oh, an I14 and a Musto (Contender) you simply don't know what you are talking about because you've never actually sailed these boats or talked to anyone who races them actively.

 

In fact the reason for doing a 7 second tack on a Musto is because it maximizes VMG. Not because that's the fastest you need to toss the boat around when necessary. And I can guarantee you that in shifty conditions I will make 50% of the transition in under 1 second: From full out wire to standing in the hull trying to keep the rig from coming in over me. Again worst case numbers is what you need for safety, not best case.

 

you need a 3 second end to end transition time. Nor are you going to get 8 hours out of it because you will have constant vibration in the system. in most sailing conditions you will have adjustments every 10th of a second at a minimum. A joystick can't handle that. none of the disabled sailing systems can handle it Those boats all have hysteresis built into the system because they are keelboats

 

 

 

 

BTW here's another 4 second Wire to Wire Tack followed by a 3 second one - you just dont know what the fuck you are talkiing about

<youtube>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaning towards the tri/foil argument. Why not a tri? Why not just add foils to what you have? They seem stable without the extra ballast and mechanism.

 

"Save the Monohull!"

post-81201-0-29481300-1366751934.jpg

post-81201-0-08804600-1366751944_thumb.jpg

post-81201-0-79648300-1366751952.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel strongly about this concept, by all means build a POC boat. Like others have stated, there are a number of different ways of crowdfunding something like this. What gives me pause is I doubt the market for such a boat is very large. I suspect that there aren't all that many nonathletic people looking to get into high performance dinghy saiing. To me, that's sort of like using a boat, a motorcycle and a Segway to do a triathlon. The people who are wanting to do a triathlon don't want the motor assist, and the people who aren't interested in expending the energy to swim, bike, and run aren't interested in doing a triathlon at all.

 

There already are ballast assisted dinghies, i. e. Rondar K6, Bennet VX One, they just put the ballast at the end of the fin. Less complex and more reliable that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel strongly about this concept, by all means build a POC boat. Like others have stated, there are a number of different ways of crowdfunding something like this. What gives me pause is I doubt the market for such a boat is very large. I suspect that there aren't all that many nonathletic people looking to get into high performance dinghy saiing. To me, that's sort of like using a boat, a motorcycle and a Segway to do a triathlon. The people who are wanting to do a triathlon don't want the motor assist, and the people who aren't interested in expending the energy to swim, bike, and run aren't interested in doing a triathlon at all.

 

There already are ballast assisted dinghies, i. e. Rondar K6, Bennet VX One, they just put the ballast at the end of the fin. Less complex and more reliable that way.

 

I believe that the prototype will prove to be so much fun-it's already innovative-nothing like it anywhere-that people that never considered such a way to sail will have a very positive reaction. Building it and refining it will be the second step-all the preliminary design work and model testing is complete.

I couldn't expect there to be a demand for something that so few even understand and fewer yet think will "work".

So building the fullsize prototype is the next step-after I raise the money.

From a historical perspective there are many elements of the Crossbow fl that are absolutely new technology-never seen before. But the basic concept was pioneered many, many years ago by none other than one of the Herreshoffs:

 

I just found some details about a story that I'd heard a few years ago-about

"Herreshoff" experimenting with on-deck sliding ballast.

This is from a book "Herreshoff Sailboats" by Gregory O. Jones and lays out some interesting details of the first recorded use of on-deck iron sliding ballast that I've been able to find. Apparently, new rules and sheer terror got in the way of further development though the two boats that used this form of ballast were very fast. The Seawanhaka Corinthian Yacht Club, formed in 1871 banned movable ballast.

Charles Herreshoff built four "Julias" ,the second was outfitted with an athwhartship track for 550lb. of iron ballast to slide. The method was to release the ballast from the windward side and allow it to slide to leeward just as the boat tacked. Charles designed a larger boat "Kelpie" that his two sons built that used a larger sliding ballast system-1000lb! Kelpie was very fast.

This stuff is exciting to read about and one can only speculate how these systems might have been refined over the years. I think modern versions of systems like these using lead or water have a tremendous potential in high performance boats of all sizes. I'm going to concentrate on small boats where I see an exciting opportunity to explore this interesting technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herreschoff designed sand baggers too. That was in at the time. Maybe what you really need is a remote-control sandbag thrower. Or given you only want to move 80 pounds around, save a few bucks and hire a small kid to run back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, you don't need to "raise any money" to build the Proof Of Concept. You need less than $2k. Sell some of your RC gear and go buy a PLC and some linear actutators and see if you can get a simple Laser hull to remain stable in a wading pool. Or take a Laser II and build it to work on one tack

 

Because if you can show that it works on 1 tack with chewing gum and bailing wire, you will be able to crowdsource the funds to build the rest easily.

 

 

the gotcha of course is that deep in your heart you know you lack the skills to get this to work. So you want OTHER people's money to get sunk into hiring some folks to do it for you,

 

Coward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug listen to BalticBandit- He is speaking the truth.

 

For this system to work the speed will need to be very very fast, and be absolutely foolproof.

If you were sailing in say 20 knots breeze and the ballast suddenly decided to slide down to leeward.... what happens then? Cpasize?

I'd like to see your limited mobility helm right it or dump the main in time to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its more than that, say you are running at 165 deg in 15 knots and doing 18knots, your apparent wind is fwd of the beam and your heeling moment is below max. you stuff a big wave, And your speed drops from 18 to 12 knots and your apparent wind is now right on the beam and your heeling moment instantly goes up by 25%. Your weight has to now shift outboard dramatically. Note that using DSS in such a situation makes it worse because as your speed drops the lift contributed by DSS also drops.

 

Leave out the absolutely foolproof part, since you are transitioning from coming down the face of a wave, to up the wave to through the wave roughly every 13 of a second. and you are having to adjust your weight that frequently. That's why even on a trapeze you are getting a pretty good core workout. Your mechanical ballast will either have to adjust for this, or you have to have a hull that is more stable (read slower and hence needs more ballast).

 

 

Fuckit I said was done and then got sucked in. Screw it, I'm done. This clown isn't going to build a PoC and will whine to his grave about how he could not raise the money to revolutionize sailing because "others just didn't get it. When in realty he's just too big a coward to build an easily affordable PoC that WERE IT TO WORK would bring him the funding he wants

 

He's just a big coward looking for an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ignore the wing buoyancy and the electro-mechanical design which assures very fast wing+ ballast movement. In a knockdown, the wing buoyancy will prevent a capsize -and right the boat-regardless of the position of the lead.

Model testing has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that joystick control of RM thru sliding movable ballast works-and works well. The prototype, designed specifically for this system, is the next step.

Doug listen to BalticBandit- He is speaking the truth.

 

For this system to work the speed will need to be very very fast, and be absolutely foolproof.

If you were sailing in say 20 knots breeze and the ballast suddenly decided to slide down to leeward.... what happens then? Cpasize?

I'd like to see your limited mobility helm right it or dump the main in time to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a knockdown, the wing buoyancy will prevent a capsize -and right the boat-regardless of the position of the lead.

 

Does it have a ballasted keel as well? If not, there are bound to be conditions where it will go turtle. If I were disabled, I wouldn't trust it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason for a ballasted keel as long as the boat has a sealed mast and masthead floatation. The original 18 had a ballasted keel but that was before testing showed the wing would right the boat even with the lead ballast inside the wing in the worst possible position. The attachment of the wing to the boat in a center "apparatus" that allows the wing to slide thru it is extremely rugged with engineering comparable to the attachment of a fin keel. If the wing was to break free of the boat you have a similar disaster to that of a keel breaking off or a multi breaking in half.

The trapeze wires support the wing as the ballast is moved outboard and lines from the wing to the transom(on the 14) control the "pivot"(as viewed from above) of the wing(F& A position of the weight). "Pivot" of the wing(as viewed from aft) is automatic and adjustable within a set range. The major key to this system, in terms of safety and handling, is the enourmous buoyancy of the wing-several times that required to float the ballast sliding inside it. The high buoyancy, planing wing tips keep the ends of the wing out of the water with momentary contact.

 

In a knockdown, the wing buoyancy will prevent a capsize -and right the boat-regardless of the position of the lead.

 

Does it have a ballasted keel as well? If not, there are bound to be conditions where it will go turtle. If I were disabled, I wouldn't trust it.

 

post-30-0-70285600-1366808941_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-94980800-1366808986_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-46438200-1366809009_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-52577900-1366809040_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a sealed mast, with a ballast now acting like a keel and the hull underside acting as a FO big downwind sail after the knockdown....

 

 

I don't see a safety issue, anyone else like to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you ignore the buoyancy of the wing in your totally unrealistic scenario?? Sorry, but that makes no sense. It is not physically possible for the wing to be straight down- the buoyancy would right the boat regardless of the position(in the wing) of the weight.

so a sealed mast, with a ballast now acting like a keel and the hull underside acting as a FO big downwind sail after the knockdown....

 

 

I don't see a safety issue, anyone else like to comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for christ sake FFS doug

 

give it up, or shutup(& do it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in your totally unrealistic scenario?

 

wheres my ROFLcopter when i need it ?post-3212-0-16277000-1366810879_thumb.jpgpost-3212-0-16277000-1366810879_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can you ignore the buoyancy of the wing in your totally unrealistic scenario??

 

 

How can you ignore the buoyancy of the wing in your totally unrealistic scenario?? Sorry, but that makes no sense. It is not physically possible for the wing to be straight down- the buoyancy would right the boat regardless of the position(in the wing) of the weight.

so a sealed mast, with a ballast now acting like a keel and the hull underside acting as a FO big downwind sail after the knockdown....

 

 

I don't see a safety issue, anyone else like to comment?

 

 

hardly unrealistic... anyone who's seen cats with mast floats get blown across the sea when their poor helmsman can't swim fast enough to keep up with it, knows it's possible for such shit to happen. Now you want to add some with mobility issues into that mix... nice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can you ignore the buoyancy of the wing in your totally unrealistic scenario?? Sorry, but that makes no sense. It is not physically possible for the wing to be straight down- the buoyancy would right the boat regardless of the position(in the wing) of the weight.

so a sealed mast, with a ballast now acting like a keel and the hull underside acting as a FO big downwind sail after the knockdown....

 

 

I don't see a safety issue, anyone else like to comment?

umm, no doug, it's not impossible. unless you're really just building a trimaran with some moveable ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Doug whatever. Show us a pic of you sailing anything with a bit of go, fuck it anything at all recently that has been in anyway widespread to shw you know something about the current sailing market and I'll accept what you're saying.

 

While you're at it Gybeset can do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug.

 

 

You shite on about in mast bouyancy if the wing floatation doesn't stop it from being knocked down, which it might not. What if the mast breaks? Which is a very real possibility in those conditions...

 

I know some disabled sailors and I doubt they would trust this thing with their lives, they'd prefer to stick to a SKUD if they wanted something reasonably high performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug has designed the first ever anti-capsizable multi-something or other. Who knew that Trimarans wouldn't capsize if you just made your floats smaller and added weight inside them?

 

Doug has developed something that throughout the history of humans as a seafaring species we have been trying to design. Wow.

 

 

 

Seriously Doug - have you ever capsized a trimaran in conditions that would make that a likely event? I have. There are some pretty big forces that get a boat to that point. In my case it was a pitch pole. I suppose your design is impossible to pitch as well? As noted above, a likely outcome from all that mast floatation is a broken mast. The boat will be nice and stable at that point - upside down. That doesn't mean you don't do it. I've got mast floatation for my rig, but I know that if I flip, I'm likely to break the mast anyway, so I might as well give a shot at recovery. But even if you do have mast floatation - you never say the boat is anti-capsizable. That's just bad karma. Ask the designers of the Titanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Doug whatever. Show us a pic of you sailing anything with a bit of go, fuck it anything at all recently that has been in anyway widespread to shw you know something about the current sailing market and I'll accept what you're saying.

 

While you're at it Gybeset can do the same.

 

get over yourself RETARD, you are here to learn

 

fuckin n00b thats just outta school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you people not realised yet that you can't reason with Doug ? suckers

 

this is 'Doa hg Loa Dao' from China,

 

who although not formally trained has a backyard interest and self-taught in aerodynamics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the boat were to dismast and wind up turtle am I wrong in guessing that the now inverted ballast system with flotation will not be able to get the boat back over? Since there is enough buoyancy to try and prevent a capsize once inverted that buoyancy will be more than enough to keep the ballast on top of the water. This is a very serious problem. All boats can wind up upside down, it is a contingency that needs to planned for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok Doug whatever. Show us a pic of you sailing anything with a bit of go, fuck it anything at all recently that has been in anyway widespread to shw you know something about the current sailing market and I'll accept what you're saying.

 

While you're at it Gybeset can do the same.

 

get over yourself RETARD, you are here to learn

 

fuckin n00b thats just outta school

I'm willing to bet I'm currently doing far more sailing than you are, and that "just outta school" may not be a bad thing. Hell, you're probably just too worn out to actually consider the ideas presented... and Noob? I dunno, thought I had enough posts by now... weird, I must have spent it sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the boat were to dismast and wind-up turtle"- Maybe in a hurricane. The fact is that disabled sailors are sailing trimarans that capsize or pitchpole on a regular basis. This boat will be multiple times less likely to pitchpole or capsize but if it did it would be rightable by the crew if the wing and mast was intact.Since that is so critical the mast would ,obviously, be stronger than a "normal" dinghy mast. But with boats anything could happen and anything could be very dangerous. But given what's actually being done now, I'd say this boat would be as safe or safer than anything currently being used for disabled sailing and it would be the only singlehanded planing dinghy available anywhere for those with some mobility issues.

 

IF the boat were to dismast and wind up turtle am I wrong in guessing that the now inverted ballast system with flotation will not be able to get the boat back over? Since there is enough buoyancy to try and prevent a capsize once inverted that buoyancy will be more than enough to keep the ballast on top of the water. This is a very serious problem. All boats can wind up upside down, it is a contingency that needs to planned for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those tris? They might not plane exactly but they move pretty damn fast. Look at what Geoff Holt sailed around Britain sure! geoff-holt-challenger-trimaran-3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"If the boat were to dismast and wind-up turtle"- Maybe in a hurricane. The fact is that disabled sailors are sailing trimarans that capsize or pitchpole on a regular basis. This boat will be multiple times less likely to pitchpole or capsize but if it did it would be rightable by the crew if the wing and mast was intact.Since that is so critical the mast would ,obviously, be stronger than a "normal" dinghy mast. But with boats anything could happen and anything could be very dangerous. But given what's actually being done now, I'd say this boat would be as safe or safer than anything currently being used for disabled sailing and it would be the only singlehanded planing dinghy available anywhere for those with some mobility issues.

 

IF the boat were to dismast and wind up turtle am I wrong in guessing that the now inverted ballast system with flotation will not be able to get the boat back over? Since there is enough buoyancy to try and prevent a capsize once inverted that buoyancy will be more than enough to keep the ballast on top of the water. This is a very serious problem. All boats can wind up upside down, it is a contingency that needs to planned for.

Please cite examples of these capsizes? One hull with movable lead safer than a tri? I doubt it. Many of the new tris have hollow amas that allow righting. And just curious how much will this likely cost one offered to the masses? $6,000? $10,000? More? I can't imagine it will be anywhere near a Sunfish or Laser, 2 boats that revolutionized sailing for accessibility (i.e. cost) and simplicity. An electrical system in a marine environment on a dinghy, crucial to staying upright, seems great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when I think about it, maintenance on such electrical systems would be a bitch, as the dinghy would probably be stored outside, be subject to ectremes of temperature and it would get very, very wet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok Doug whatever. Show us a pic of you sailing anything with a bit of go, fuck it anything at all recently that has been in anyway widespread to shw you know something about the current sailing market and I'll accept what you're saying.

 

While you're at it Gybeset can do the same.

 

get over yourself RETARD, you are here to learn

 

fuckin n00b thats just outta school

Touched a nerve GS?? Still waiting for you to answer my question as to when you last went sailing and this

 

Doesn't count

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when I think about it, maintenance on such electrical systems would be a bitch, as the dinghy would probably be stored outside, be subject to ectremes of temperature and it would get very, very wet.

Actually if you use hazardous environment PLCs and Linear actuators (like the kind they use in Chem plants etc) that's not really that much of a problem... That's why I gave links to such....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And when I think about it, maintenance on such electrical systems would be a bitch, as the dinghy would probably be stored outside, be subject to ectremes of temperature and it would get very, very wet.

Actually if you use hazardous environment PLCs and Linear actuators (like the kind they use in Chem plants etc) that's not really that much of a problem... That's why I gave links to such....

Ah makes sense now, thanks. However I still think they're just one more thing to go wrong in a big way.

 

What did Gybeset even sail when he did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the boat were to dismast and wind-up turtle"- Maybe in a hurricane... This boat will be multiple times less likely to pitchpole or capsize but if it did it would be rightable by the crew if the wing and mast was intact. Since that is so critical the mast would ,obviously, be stronger than a "normal" dinghy mast. But with boats anything could happen and anything could be very dangerous. But given what's actually being done now, I'd say this boat would be as safe or safer than anything currently being used for disabled sailing...

 

With bold pronouncements such as: "maybe in a hurricane"... "multiple times less likely to pitchpole, or capsize"... one could almost believe that Doug has seriously run the full gamut of analytical values for this boat based on his vast knowledge of university level physics and higher math. Now, we all know that he has not done that, so one is only left to believe that he's quite simply, talking out of his ass on the matter. I suggest that he doesn't have one substantive clue as to whether, or not, this contraption would be safer than a currently used trimaran for disabled folks.

 

This issue becomes seriously magnified when one considers that there are several dynamic, fully active moving parts to this boat that are susceptible to mechanical and electrical failure... which a trimaran has precious few; as in no dynamic, active mechanisms. That issue, alone would make for a very uncertain systemic problem for anyone who chose to sail in this machine over a way less problematic trimaran with an excellent track record already in place.

 

Quite simply, this is just another of Doug's wildly concocted solutions to a problem, as perceived by Mr. Lord, that does not exist in the real world. If you buy into this, then Doug has a wheelchair for you that is equipped with a surplus JATO rocket motor because, you know, all wheelchair folks are missing that thrill of having their ankles scraped off at 200 miles per hour as they shriek across the pavement at your local supermarket parking lot.... but, hey... it's safer than most Darwin Award devices out there.

 

Further, you will notice that as soon as The Lord makes his grand pronouncements, he starts to back peddle his way into a more sedate position on safety issues. Check it: " the mast would ,obviously, be stronger than a "normal" dinghy mast" and "with boats anything could happen and anything could be very dangerous" and "I'd say this boat would be as safe or safer than anything currently being used for disabled sailing..." So, folks, it's really obvious that the Dougie doesn't really believe, nor does he really know, any meaningful, repeatable statistics with regard to functional safety and this boat design. If I were a wheelchair person, I wouldn't get within fifty feet of this thing. I'd, literally, run the other direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GS was movable ballast (rolling side to side) on a 24' IOR boat the last time he sailed.....

 

 

and yes, electronics can always go wrong, just like the mast can break.. Which is precisely why most disabled wouldn't use this. and the joystick system works fine if you are trimming the jib on a boat with 200% of safety factor of RM in the keel. It works fine if you are driving an RC system where the torque/weight ratio is astronomical. OTOH, these PLCs are used iin some of the most hazardous industrial environments where failure literally means hundreds of millions in damage and hundreds of lives lost. I'm talking about things like refineries and nerve gas destruction faciilities. these are very very reliable.

 

Explosions like the ones in Texas occur precisely because this automation is often NOT used at the smaller factory level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug - it doesn't take a hurricane. I pitch poled a weta in front of the GG Bridge. Windy day, yes, big winds, yes, but no hurricane.

 

And I seem to recall you moaning about how the Weta is an underpowered little boat that doesn't stretch the edges of technology.

 

 

Actually - you know how you could test your system? Pick up a used weta. If it all goes pear shaped, you've got built in buoyancy to help you out. I bet you could get an early one for about $7k. And you'd be able to sail when you weren't mucking about with rails and weights, etc. You might find the little thing so fun, you just keep sailing….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GS was movable ballast (rolling side to side) on a 24' IOR boat the last time he sailed.....

 

 

and yes, electronics can always go wrong, just like the mast can break.. Which is precisely why most disabled wouldn't use this. and the joystick system works fine if you are trimming the jib on a boat with 200% of safety factor of RM in the keel. It works fine if you are driving an RC system where the torque/weight ratio is astronomical. OTOH, these PLCs are used iin some of the most hazardous industrial environments where failure literally means hundreds of millions in damage and hundreds of lives lost. I'm talking about things like refineries and nerve gas destruction faciilities. these are very very reliable.

 

Explosions like the ones in Texas occur precisely because this automation is often NOT used at the smaller factory level

Hey that rolling ballast is important in the world of sailing, it saves the people who actually sail from being bored!

He's gone quiet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simply, this is just another of Doug's wildly concocted solutions to a problem, as perceived by Mr. Lord, that does not exist in the real world

Well Chris on this one piece I have to disagree with you. Doug is seeking to solve a real world problem. Namely that folks like himself and GS are just too fat and inadequately skilled to sail a planing skiff. So he wants someone to build a boat for him that he can enjoy the feeling of sailing a skiff without having to put in the effort to get into good enough shape and spend the time necessary to acquire the skill to sail.

 

and that's a real challenge. in the real world: how to get cowardly fat wannabes to be able to sail fast boats that require real skill to sail.

 

But frankly its not a problem I'm too worried about solving. Dougie could spend 6 mos getting into shape or 6 mos building a PoC

OR

 

like most such unmotivated cowards - he can spend 6 mos bitching that no-one gets his solution and that he just doesn't have the money to fund developing it.

 

I guess cowardice and laziness do count as handicaps....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no reason for a ballasted keel as long as the boat has a sealed mast and masthead floatation. The original 18 had a ballasted keel but that was before testing showed the wing would right the boat even with the lead ballast inside the wing in the worst possible position. The attachment of the wing to the boat in a center "apparatus" that allows the wing to slide thru it is extremely rugged with engineering comparable to the attachment of a fin keel. If the wing was to break free of the boat you have a similar disaster to that of a keel breaking off or a multi breaking in half.

The trapeze wires support the wing as the ballast is moved outboard and lines from the wing to the transom(on the 14) control the "pivot"(as viewed from above) of the wing(F& A position of the weight). "Pivot" of the wing(as viewed from aft) is automatic and adjustable within a set range. The major key to this system, in terms of safety and handling, is the enourmous buoyancy of the wing-several times that required to float the ballast sliding inside it. The high buoyancy, planing wing tips keep the ends of the wing out of the water with momentary contact.

 

In a knockdown, the wing buoyancy will prevent a capsize -and right the boat-regardless of the position of the lead.

 

Does it have a ballasted keel as well? If not, there are bound to be conditions where it will go turtle. If I were disabled, I wouldn't trust it.

 

gallery_2352_338_45741.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a great idea-forget the 150lb(thats the 18) at the top there wanting to go down(righting the boat as it goes)-I could just have an auto-inflate helium balloon about 50' in diameter spring out of the high side to hold the wing up and just sail back in like that. An emergency wing rig-brilliant... Great thinking-thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug - do the math again. What amount of righting moment is weight on centerline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us the detailed drawings of the mechanism that holds the wing to the boat, holds the weight within the wing, allowing it to slide across the wing internally... you know, the whole tamale of builder working drawings that are at the heart of the thing, etc. If you can't produce accurate, scaled, draftsman quality drawings of the mechanism, then I say the whole thing is total BS.

 

Not only does it not do what you say it can do, but you have no way to produce the drawings so someone could actually build it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Chris - he needs to hire someone to draw this, because, he's too much of a coward to try to do it himself and possibly fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ I don't even think that is sarcasm.....are you actually trying to kill people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug I was pretty good at technical droning in schoil, I'll draw them for you??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ I don't even think that is sarcasm.....are you actually trying to kill people?

Maybe if we build it for him, he can go for a Darwin Award?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't going to be pretty. A boat that is sorta meant for the physically handicapped is NOT being drawn by a person with a skill set handicap.

 

Doug, please spare this noble fellow the grief. Put this masterpiece on hold, enroll in a Junior College CAD drawing class, get a cheap software package from AutoCAD and learn, for once, how to do this yourself. If you fancy yourself as a seminal design guru (and we all know that you do) then why not join the fraternity and get on board with the skills of the trade?

 

Without those skills, you are the same as the guy who arrays ten million cocked and loaded mousetraps to launch a monkey into space. The same as the guy who put a military rocket on the top of his Chevy BelAir and proceeded to fly his ass into a hillside.

 

Like BB says.... what is it that you are afraid of, anyway? I've been watching you for, what now... some eight-nine years? And in all that time, you have resisted the actual process that would take your baseline capabilities to something like respectable. Instead, you are still doing the toothless Jethro routine as a design goof and its more than apparent that you are struggling with a deep set of issues regarding self worth. Do it now and you can die a hero to all the monster dreaming garage tinkerers out here in Internet land.

 

My prediction... rather than rising to the challenge, you'll, instead, produce another meaningless list of numbers and crudely formed pencil doodles, coupled with a clunky, do nothing scale model demonstrating how cool the whole thing is in your mind. No meaningful drawings, no hard core math (remember, numbers are important to you) and no functional, working device that shows how the meat of the project is supposed to work. Dump the pie in the sky design mode and get with the program. Don't get me wrong here. Dreaming is good, but it has to be coupled with function and skills if it's going to get over the hump that sits in front of every ten year old with a desire to build a treehouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what, Mr. Razor? One of us is very confused?

 

Boats on it's size. Pinned down my strong winds. Weight is directly above, maybe pushing the mast down, maybe trying to right the boat, but you don't know. In fact, it could be very stable on it's side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites