Hull Vane - the solution to improve ships' efficiency, performance and seakeeping

[@Ranger4564]

I was just thinking of a dynamic hull vane type mechanism, but fitted to the bow to control pitching and slamming in rougher seas. Imagine Canard type vanes that can be retracted or deployed. It is almost like the stabilizers already fitted on the sides of yachts. Very interesting the dynamic hull vane.

[@perhaps_not_]

Yeah maybe something like a bow that extends downwards to form something that looks like an axe bow

[@pierpalumbo415]

Excellent proposal and quite obvious from the beginning of the idea. New materials and construction techniques, leaving behind the "vase" and offering a new range of hull options to avoid waterlogging and discomfort on board. The rowing boat will remain, for a classic experience only.

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

How much fuel fuel it can save?

[@KearnuPhoenix]

Can a wing really create forward thrust? Is there a name for this effect?

[@edwardtye4119]

The forward angle of the wing means that, because lift it generated perpendicular to the surface of the wing - i.e. angled slightly forward as well as upward.

[@markandoyo2204]

SailBoat how about?

[@AlanRWynne]

Why only at the back? What about adding one more to the Front? Wont this provide even more efficiencies? Also help reduce piutching even more?

[@santyclause8034]

The bow tends to climb as the bow wave approaches Hull speed (lifting the front half of the boat on the wave angle), and the aft tends to sink (increasing the waterline area, and drag forces).

[@amiernahdijr]

---------------------------- < dropping a line. Thank you.

[@emanuelarnold4929]

👍🏽 👍🏽

[@0718dm]

It does not reduce CO2. If you increase range, you burn the same amount of fuel. It takes longer, but it is burned.

[@BernhardEhm]

but for the same range, you need less fuel, so it reduces Emission and if you increase range because of lower fuelburn it reduces Emissions too overall

[@santyclause8034]

A tankfull of fuel will produce the same volume of reactants no matter how long between refills.

[@BernhardEhm]

@@santyclause8034 lets look at Research-Papers from frontiersin and ship-technology: Boat emissions vary significantly at different speeds. Here are some key points based on that research: Reducing speeds across shipping Vessels has been shown to make a substantial contribution to effective short term measures for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A modest 10% speed reduction across the global fleet has been estimated to reduce overall GHG emissions by around 13%. A 20% reduction in speed would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides. This speed limit would also cut underwater noise by 66%. When ships travel more slowly they burn less fuel, which means there are also savings in black carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen oxides. In conclusion, slower vessel speeds, which increases btw. the Range of a Vessel, can significantly reduce GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. Let´s take a real life example of a 73ft (lwl) Steel hull full displacement Yacht with 165 mT Displacement, equipped with twin Cummins QSM 11 350HP marine Diesel Engines. The Max Speed is 11 Knot - Cruising Speed is 9 Knots ... at Max Speed (11 Knots), this Vessel burns 130l/h on 100% Engine Load, which equtes to a roughly 2200nm Range. If you drop the Engine Load to 50%, you reduce your Speed only at 20% to 9 Knots and burn only 67l/h, which increases your Range to 4500nm. If you decrease Your Engine Load by 50% - you also decrease your ghg-Emissions by around 20%. The Kicker comes, if you shut down one Engine and run the remaining Engine at around 51% Load - which is around 8,5 Knots, this drops your Fuel consumption to 47l/h and increases your Range to around 5000nm by decreasing your ghg-Emissions by around 30% overall ... so, the tankfull Fuel will NOT produce the same volume of ghg-emissions no matter what ...

[@WOKEMINDVIRUSMAGA]

Y’all are stupid 😊

[@getinit56]

This has got to be the dumbest comment I've read in a while. So you are saying that a car that gets 15 mpgs, improves its efficiency to 20, or 22 mpgs...is of no benefit to emissions although it burns less fuel to achieve the same work. Ffs. You must be a modern-day college grad. No wonder our diesel technology is so messed up. We could easily have doubled the efficiency of modern diesels, yet with people that think like you. We burn more diesel yet add Def fluid to the combustion. Smh.