New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: On DeckMovable Ballast
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

On DeckMovable Ballast

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Doug Lord View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 03 Sep 05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Post Options Post Options   Quote Doug Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 05 at 6:07pm
In point of fact I've gotten several really good suggestions and comments.
   The change I proposed changes the concept substantially from the original idea but both versions are still on the table.
I'm curious about exactly what about the concept, as you understand it, that you object to; can you be very specific?
Back to Top
Isis View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2753
Post Options Post Options   Quote Isis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 05 at 5:59pm
Isis, perhaps you noticed or would notice if you read and understood my previous post that I was suggesting a major change in how the wing ballast system would work as compared to the original post. I would have thought that it was clear that there is no settled design yet and that I was asking for a reasoned opinion on the change to the system. Your mantra of "build it" is fairly useless at this point since the very nature of the beast is still undecided. I asked for comments relative to the change I proposed; it is no where near the DESIGN stage yet much less building!


Doug: I read and, I believe, understood your previous post and although you were sugesting a major change in the mechanics of the project, the underlying principle remains the same and it is this underlying principle that people are having trouble accepting. So you are not ready to enter the design stage, but as yet you seem to have been met by nothing but criticism of the concept and untill people believe the concept they are unlikely to put forward constructive comments on the actual mechanics of the final design
Back to Top
Doug Lord View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 03 Sep 05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Post Options Post Options   Quote Doug Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 05 at 5:33pm
Isis, perhaps you noticed or would notice if you read and understood my previous post that I was suggesting a major change in how the wing ballast system would work as compared to the original post. I would have thought that it was clear that there is no settled design yet and that I was asking for a reasoned opinion on the change to the system. Your mantra of "build it" is fairly useless at this point since the very nature of the beast is still undecided. I asked for comments relative to the change I proposed; it is no where near the DESIGN stage yet much less building!
Astevo- There are substantial differences between this and a tri: 1) the buoyancy pods on this thing are not used to develop righting moment.2) the weight of the wing+ ballast would be lighter than the ama's and cross arms of a square tri capable of flying the main hull. 3) While in the new proposal the wing does not slide across the boat-just the ballast does-the wing is still mounted pivotably(and adjustably) so that the boat can heel up to around 20 with the wing still level.4) The hull of this boat would be designed as a planing hull.
Just like in the Bethwaite and Langman Maxi Skiff's there is some simalarity between this concept and a tri . But the most important consideration, in my opinion ,is the fact that the tri REQUIRES the use of the buoyancy of the ama to sail normaly and this concept DOES NOT. Major Difference! This boat would be lighter than a square(high powered ) tri and it would be easier to trailer and store. It would have much less likelyhood of a pitchpole though w/o the ballast(see my previous post) in the daggerboard it would be difficult to recover from one-like a tri.
The thing that I'm trying to work on is whether or not the fixed(side to side) wing would be better than the sliding wing.....
===================
edit: Forgot your question about self righting. For me personally it is essential that it can be singlehandedly rightable-not necessarily "self-righting".If it was to ever develop into a production version marketed to disabled sailors I would think it would have to be 100% self-righting.

Edited by Doug Lord
Back to Top
Isis View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2753
Post Options Post Options   Quote Isis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 05 at 12:30pm
As you've probibily noticed by now, im not at all convinced.
You obviously are though. If youre that sure it will be a sucsess: build the damn thing!! proove us wrong!!
Untill then I cant see you getting much other than negative comments from both here and SA
Back to Top
a_stevo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 29 Aug 05
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Post Options Post Options   Quote a_stevo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 05 at 6:37am
i just dont see any potential advantages of this over a tri. Do you really need this thing to be self righting?
Back to Top
Doug Lord View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 03 Sep 05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Post Options Post Options   Quote Doug Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 05 at 10:06pm
There is no way that I can see a small boat where the single crew sits inside like a 2.4 Meter having more power and speed than if the crew can move ballast either electrically or manually.And the least force would be required to move the ballast horizontally-as well as less draft and much more RM than with a canting keel. My original idea was to move the ballast inside a "Wing" that also moved to weather leaving nothing on the lee side of the boat at max extension.
But after seeing Langman's new maxi skiff I'm thinking a better design would be a fixed wing(removable for trailering/stowage); this means that for the same RM the wing on this version would be twice as long as the original concept but with buoyancy pods the "capsizability" of the boat would be much less. The appearance would be more like Bethwaites and Langmans boats(only much,much smaller) with the pods designed only for emergency backup not for sailing on(or with).
If the wing is fixed there would be less need for a ballasted daggerboard-it could probably be done away with and the boat would be 20kg or so lighter.
Any brilliant thoughts on this would, of course, be greatly appreciated.
   
Back to Top
Skiffe View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 05
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 220
Post Options Post Options   Quote Skiffe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 05 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Originally posted by Isis

Ive just read the Sailing Anarchy thread... obvouisly got a lot of respect on there Doug

Incidentally there has been at least one abusive post on this thread that Mark has removed. My main concern about Doug starting to post here is that some of his SA antagonists will move in too. I've seen similar happen on other boards. 

I'm the poster of the  "abuisve" post. You can see for yourselves who came here first. However when the ONE thread is started by the some person on THREE forums using the same words well.... as for further coments about Doug I'll keep them to SA

12footers. The Only Way to FLY

Remember Professionals built the titanic, Amateurs built the ark.
Back to Top
Doug Lord View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 03 Sep 05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Post Options Post Options   Quote Doug Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 05 at 1:39pm
No Stefan, I don't intend to build it commercially-if it gets built it will be for me personally-- at least to start with.
But thanks for your sincere best wishes!
What I'm looking for is every comment possible to help think out the "character" of the boat that uses this system: the degree to which it should be powered up or not etc. Among many useless posts there have been quite a few gems that have helped with the conceptualization of the final version of the boat.


Edited by Doug Lord
Back to Top
Stefan Lloyd View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 03 Aug 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1599
Post Options Post Options   Quote Stefan Lloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 05 at 8:17am

Originally posted by Doug Lord

Sorry old boy but it's not time to build yet. (snip)I guess the model will have to serve as proof of concept for now-and believe me it 'twern't inexpensive to build and test:

So, I surmise that all this posting on every sailing board in the known universe is about getting positive responses you can show to people who might give you the money to develop it. Good luck!

Deck moveable ballast is a fascinating and promising concept. Signed, A UK Sailor.

Hope that helps.



Edited by Stefan Lloyd
Back to Top
Doug Lord View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 03 Sep 05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
Post Options Post Options   Quote Doug Lord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 05 at 12:45am
The only(!) thing(s) Pteradactyl and the 17 have in common are on deck movable ballast, buoyancy pods and a ballasted appendage in the water. Interesting any way you look at it.
I've not learned how Bethwaite utilizes the ballast on his LAS but I have learned that apparently Herreshoff had a small boat using a brass ingot or so as on deck movable ballast; I was told it was one of his favorite boats.
The more I look into it the more I like the concept and not just for disabled sailors.
The boat seems like it could be configured from a high performance dinghy with numbers similar to a 505/FD to even more powerful. Since the ballast in the wing is adjustable and the ballasted board is removable there may be more than one level of performance/excitement achievable with the same basic hull+wing.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy