G I didn't mention the "Normandie", as I wasn't sure most would be
aware of the nature of it's demise, as well as I couldn't remember if it
was spelled Normandy, or Normandie.

otn

Terry Spragg wrote:

Shure thing, dude. You do the engineering study calculation of
losses and gains, etc, where we show that programming the
flippers to recycle roll energy, saving fuel for propulsion is
financially beneficial, and write a letter to convince the
owners to pay me to rewrite the software controlling the fins,
and I will give you half of the proceeds. Is that shareware
enough for you? Saving even one percent of the fuel used on the
QEII is a lot of money.

What are you talking about?

"The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control
the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of
the ship to stabilise the hull."

What the F are you talking about?

Of course, if they come back and say that that concept was their
intellectual property from 20 years ago, and sue you for exposing
trade secrets, you are on your own.

What? The trade secret to some kind of perpetual motion machine?

Think about it for a second ... "scavenging" energy from the
forward motion is called slowing the ship down to get some
of the power back that you put into it to speed it up to
begin with. Why don't you just give me the money instead.

Rick

Terry Spragg wrote:

Shure thing, dude. You do the engineering study calculation of
losses and gains, etc, where we show that programming the
flippers to recycle roll energy, saving fuel for propulsion is
financially beneficial, and write a letter to convince the
owners to pay me to rewrite the software controlling the fins,
and I will give you half of the proceeds. Is that shareware
enough for you? Saving even one percent of the fuel used on the
QEII is a lot of money.

What are you talking about?

"The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control
the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of
the ship to stabilise the hull."

What the F are you talking about?

Of course, if they come back and say that that concept was their
intellectual property from 20 years ago, and sue you for exposing
trade secrets, you are on your own.

What? The trade secret to some kind of perpetual motion machine?

Think about it for a second ... "scavenging" energy from the
forward motion is called slowing the ship down to get some
of the power back that you put into it to speed it up to
begin with. Why don't you just give me the money instead.

Rick

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:49:44 GMT, Rick
wrote:

Terry Spragg wrote:

Shure thing, dude. You do the engineering study calculation of
losses and gains, etc, where we show that programming the
flippers to recycle roll energy, saving fuel for propulsion is
financially beneficial, and write a letter to convince the
owners to pay me to rewrite the software controlling the fins,
and I will give you half of the proceeds. Is that shareware
enough for you? Saving even one percent of the fuel used on the
QEII is a lot of money.

What are you talking about?

"The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control
the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of
the ship to stabilise the hull."

What the F are you talking about?
////.

Rick

He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.

Brian W

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:49:44 GMT, Rick
wrote:

Terry Spragg wrote:

Shure thing, dude. You do the engineering study calculation of
losses and gains, etc, where we show that programming the
flippers to recycle roll energy, saving fuel for propulsion is
financially beneficial, and write a letter to convince the
owners to pay me to rewrite the software controlling the fins,
and I will give you half of the proceeds. Is that shareware
enough for you? Saving even one percent of the fuel used on the
QEII is a lot of money.

What are you talking about?

"The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control
the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of
the ship to stabilise the hull."

What the F are you talking about?
////.

Rick

He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.

Brian W

Brian Whatcott wrote:

He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.

By "... programming the flippers to recycle roll energy,
saving fuel for propulsion ..."?

Think about that one for a moment.

Rick

Brian Whatcott wrote:

He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.

By "... programming the flippers to recycle roll energy,
saving fuel for propulsion ..."?

Think about that one for a moment.

Rick

Brian Whatcott wrote:
He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.


Rick wrote:
By "... programming the flippers to recycle roll energy,
saving fuel for propulsion ..."?

Think about that one for a moment.

OK......
It'd work. That's not to say it would be a net saving of energy, but the
anti-roll fins already do their thing at the cost of added drag.
"Programming" them to net forward thrust might not be possible except at low
speeds, and increased roll (although they would still dampen it), but it
would work.

Regards
Doug King

Brian Whatcott wrote:
He's talking about bartering some roll momentum into forward momentum.
He may come on weird at times, but I think he may have a (small) point
on this one.


Rick wrote:
By "... programming the flippers to recycle roll energy,
saving fuel for propulsion ..."?

Think about that one for a moment.

OK......
It'd work. That's not to say it would be a net saving of energy, but the
anti-roll fins already do their thing at the cost of added drag.
"Programming" them to net forward thrust might not be possible except at low
speeds, and increased roll (although they would still dampen it), but it
would work.

Regards
Doug King

Charles,
I'm originally from Brockville & noticed your message about the length
of the Lakers when I was doing a search. My father was a ship's master
on them and they were very long for a reason, to get through the locks
on the St. Lawrence. There are no other ships around the world with
the Laker's narrow configuration.

Cynde




"Charles T. Low" wrote in message ...
This is larger than the Titanic by far. Interestingly (to me), many of the
lake freighters which sift by my small city of Brockville on the St.
Lawrence Seaway are longer than the Titanic. Perhaps it was a big ship _for
its time_.

With some difficulty, I found a QM2 specifications page at www.
cunard.co.uk, which said this:

====

Length: 345 meters / 1,132 feet
Beam: 41 meters / 135 feet
Beam at Bridge Wings: 45 meters / 147.5 feet
Draft: 10 meters / 32 feet 10 inches
Height (Keel to Funnel): 72 meters / 236.2 feet
Gross Tonnage:
Approximately 150,000 gross tons
Passengers: 2,620
Crew: 1,253
Top Speed: Approximately 30 knots (34.5 mph)
Power: 157,000 horsepower, environmentally friendly, gas turbine/diesel
electric plant
Propulsion: Four pods of 21.5 MW each; 2 fixed and 2 azimuthing
Strength: Extra thick steel hull for strength and stability for Atlantic
crossings
Stabilizers: Two sets
Cost: Estimated $800 million dollars

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat