| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Queen Mary 2
The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty
- can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
I'm not sure this belongs on a cruising newsgroup, but what the heck...
The Titanic was only 882' 9" long, the Queen Mary (1934) was longer at 1019' 5", wider, higher and almost twice the displacement. http://www.queenmary.com/html/factsa...on=titanicvsqm -- Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
I'm not sure this belongs on a cruising newsgroup, but what the heck...
The Titanic was only 882' 9" long, the Queen Mary (1934) was longer at 1019' 5", wider, higher and almost twice the displacement. http://www.queenmary.com/html/factsa...on=titanicvsqm -- Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
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 ==== "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
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 ==== "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
"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_. It and its two sisterships the Olympic and Britannic were the longest liners in the world beating the previous best of the Cunard Liner Mauretania by 92 feet 6 inches. -- Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca 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 ==== "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
"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_. It and its two sisterships the Olympic and Britannic were the longest liners in the world beating the previous best of the Cunard Liner Mauretania by 92 feet 6 inches. -- Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca 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 ==== "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier than an aircraft carrier - and it cost $800 million to build. It was christened by Queen Elizabeth on Thursday 1/8. It weighs 151,400 tons and has 1300 cabins, more than 900 of which have huge private balconies. The average tab on a transatlantic crossing is $27,499. It has a nigjtclub and a 1,094 seat Royal Court Theatre - a 3-story Brittania Restaurant that seats more than 10,000 among other restaurants on board - a Grand Lobby - a Canyon Ranch SpaClub and Illuminations room which flaunts the first planetarium ever built for star-gazing on the high seas - a Baltimoral Suite, a library and bookstore, and many other surpises. I must check to see if the Titanic was larger! |
Queen Mary 2
Thanks for the information!
|
Queen Mary 2
Thanks for the information!
|
Queen Mary 2
Thanks for your response!
|
Queen Mary 2
Thanks for your response!
|
Queen Mary 2
"Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck. The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Queen Mary 2
"Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck. The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Queen Mary 2
Evan Gatehouse wrote: "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck. The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... |
Queen Mary 2
Evan Gatehouse wrote: "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck. The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... |
Queen Mary 2
otnmbrd wrote: Evan Gatehouse wrote: "Alice" wrote in message ... The newspaper says the Queen Mary 2 is taller than the Statue of Liberty - can generate enough power to light a small city, is longer and heavier Don't I know it. I was talking to some NYFD guys at the New Orleans Workboat show. They said their existing fireboats fire monitors (water cannons) wouldn't be able to reach the upper deck. The suggestion to allow the fire to burn down a few decks to where they could reach it was not greeted with enthusiasm. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover propulsive energy in advantageous postures? Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning, replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes. Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even saving wage requirements. Serendipity? -- Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ® |
Queen Mary 2
Not sure what your getting at here.
What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with loss of stability due to "free surface effect". There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume). The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look at it, turning free surface into an advantage. I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to supply fire mains. The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related. Terry Spragg wrote: otnmbrd wrote: That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover propulsive energy in advantageous postures? Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning, replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes. Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even saving wage requirements. Serendipity? |
Queen Mary 2
Not sure what your getting at here.
What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with loss of stability due to "free surface effect". There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume). The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look at it, turning free surface into an advantage. I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to supply fire mains. The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related. Terry Spragg wrote: otnmbrd wrote: That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover propulsive energy in advantageous postures? Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning, replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes. Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even saving wage requirements. Serendipity? |
Queen Mary 2
otnmbrd wrote: Not sure what your getting at here. What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with loss of stability due to "free surface effect". There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume). The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look at it, turning free surface into an advantage. I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to supply fire mains. The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related. Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Terry Spragg wrote: otnmbrd wrote: That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover propulsive energy in advantageous postures? Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning, replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes. Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even saving wage requirements. Serendipity? -- Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ® |
Queen Mary 2
otnmbrd wrote: Not sure what your getting at here. What I was referring to, was the destabilizing effect of all that water in high areas .... loss of stability due to high weight, coupled with loss of stability due to "free surface effect". There are two types of stabilizers, employed on ships .... active ( gyro controlled fins), and passive ( such as FLUME - doubt QM2 is using Flume). The flume system uses water in thwartship tanks (preferably up high) to counter rolling .... basically a moving weight, or, another way to look at it, turning free surface into an advantage. I don't know of any ships which store water to use in a gravity feed to supply fire mains. The power used with fins, in no way affects the power available to the mains, to drive the ship .... their adverse affect will be drag related. Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Terry Spragg wrote: otnmbrd wrote: That could be a good thing ...... all that water, all that high up ..... Just think, anti roll weights up high, water stored for fire fighting by gravity feed. Stabilisers use some power to stop rolling, imagine instead the power used to move high counterweights to stop rolling? The power used in the anti roll stabilisers control the scavanging of energy from the forward motion of the ship to stabilise the hull. How much power is actually required to stabilize the liner, counting the loss to forward propulsion? Are the stabs programmed to recover propulsive energy in advantageous postures? Does the concept also work for skyscrapers, to charge gravity powered fire sprinklers while stopping earthquake and wind induced motion? Sloppy water couplings and hydroplaning bearings would leak water recycled for evaporative air conditioning, replacing the action of trees lost to the ground site, while allowing some form of 'natural' waterfall for gardens aloft in the skyscraper, capable of doubling as waterslide escape routes. Add a few mountain goats, climbing walls and mountain flora, and you have got an environment for a large dwelling complex housing workers and industry whilst reducing commuting impacts, even saving wage requirements. Serendipity? -- Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ® |
Queen Mary 2
Terry Spragg wrote:
Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Like, totally Zen, dude. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Yeah, OK. Can I get that in shareware? Rick |
Queen Mary 2
Terry Spragg wrote:
Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Like, totally Zen, dude. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Yeah, OK. Can I get that in shareware? Rick |
Queen Mary 2
Rick wrote: Terry Spragg wrote: Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Like, totally Zen, dude. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Yeah, OK. Can I get that in shareware? Rick 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. 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. -- Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ® |
Queen Mary 2
Rick wrote: Terry Spragg wrote: Their serendipitous, synergystic effect, hardly adverse. Like, totally Zen, dude. Stabiliser fins are flipper propulsors, too, if programmed right. Yeah, OK. Can I get that in shareware? Rick 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. 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. -- Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested solicitations. Spamspoof salad by spamchock TM - SofDevCo ® |
Queen Mary 2
Terry Spragg wrote:
... [Spraggonics snipped] ... Terry, good to hear from you again. Hope the new year finds you well. BTW, I'm sure you'll agree it's a big relief that reading _all_ the messages here is not compulsory. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.tripod.com |
Queen Mary 2
Terry Spragg wrote:
... [Spraggonics snipped] ... Terry, good to hear from you again. Hope the new year finds you well. BTW, I'm sure you'll agree it's a big relief that reading _all_ the messages here is not compulsory. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.tripod.com |
Queen Mary 2
|
Queen Mary 2
|
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
Queen Mary 2
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com