On Mar 19, 11:56 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:09 pm, Wayne.B wrote:



On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:41 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:07:15 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Regal has a hull design that basically touts a "variable" deadrise, based on
lift.
This was an interesting read:

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal...ons/99opinions...

It takes a lawyer to claim that a shape hull shape can violate a
patent.
Every time my head creates a "new invention" I look on the internet
and see a vastly improved version already patented.
Once in a while when I forget to look on the internet, I see one of my
"inventions" already on sale at the store.

--Vic

I actually make my living by inventing things and as the saying goes,
"Theres thousands of good ideas and most of them are wrong" certainly
applies to what I do.
To enlighten some people, "Faster than light travel" is prohibited
mathematically because it results in violation of causality, ie.,
effects happen before the cause (yes, there may be exceptions). There
is nothing mathematically wrong with a variable hull.
I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ideas that didn't
work but I don't admit the ideas are dead .........yet. Sometimes,
something actually does work and you lean back and
think..........."DAMN, that is cool", being surprised it works.
It is perfectly normal for people to say "That can't work otherwise it
would've been done". You simply do not listen to such and go find out
why it hasn't been done.

You know who you remind me of?
Thomas Edison. With boats.
Keep at it, and you'll get there.
Or have plenty of fun trying.
Ever been down to the museum in Fort Myers?
That could be yours.
Always keep saying I'll go there, but I end up fishing instead.

--Vic

Edison was lucky to live in an age when a new "thing", electricity was
being developed and he took full advantage of it. Today, the
analogous "thing" is software about which I know nothing but there
sure seem to be some "Edisons" of software. Not knowing much about
power boats, I cannot afford to gamble the $10,000 or so on a patent
for boating stuff. My patents all relate to x-rays which I do
understand (specialization is so sad).

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned lobster boats given the
history of this newsgroup and its most prolific contributor. Classic
lobster boats have a fine entry forward which flattens out as you move
aft creating a shape which gets through the chop with minimal muss or
fuss but can still get on plane with reasonable power and economy.

Varying the deadrise underway certainly presents a number of
interesting challenges - possibly with some sort of inflatable
structure?

I believe that lobster boats were an inspiration for Tolman's designs
although Tolman may have reduced the deadrise more.
Yes, I did consider an inflatable structure, seems sorta failure prone
but a possibility.

Just looked at Bateau's 26' Lobsterboat which has a similar hull
design compared to the Tolman but the Tolman is more extreme.
Lobsterboat has deadrise of 13 at stern whereas my Tolman is 8 degrees
at transom.

On Mar 20, 12:01 am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:56 pm, Frogwatch wrote:



On Mar 19, 10:09 pm, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:41 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:07:15 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Regal has a hull design that basically touts a "variable" deadrise, based on
lift.
This was an interesting read:

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal...ons/99opinions...

It takes a lawyer to claim that a shape hull shape can violate a
patent.
Every time my head creates a "new invention" I look on the internet
and see a vastly improved version already patented.
Once in a while when I forget to look on the internet, I see one of my
"inventions" already on sale at the store.

--Vic

I actually make my living by inventing things and as the saying goes,
"Theres thousands of good ideas and most of them are wrong" certainly
applies to what I do.
To enlighten some people, "Faster than light travel" is prohibited
mathematically because it results in violation of causality, ie.,
effects happen before the cause (yes, there may be exceptions). There
is nothing mathematically wrong with a variable hull.
I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ideas that didn't
work but I don't admit the ideas are dead .........yet. Sometimes,
something actually does work and you lean back and
think..........."DAMN, that is cool", being surprised it works.
It is perfectly normal for people to say "That can't work otherwise it
would've been done". You simply do not listen to such and go find out
why it hasn't been done.

You know who you remind me of?
Thomas Edison. With boats.
Keep at it, and you'll get there.
Or have plenty of fun trying.
Ever been down to the museum in Fort Myers?
That could be yours.
Always keep saying I'll go there, but I end up fishing instead.

--Vic

Edison was lucky to live in an age when a new "thing", electricity was
being developed and he took full advantage of it. Today, the
analogous "thing" is software about which I know nothing but there
sure seem to be some "Edisons" of software. Not knowing much about
power boats, I cannot afford to gamble the $10,000 or so on a patent
for boating stuff. My patents all relate to x-rays which I do
understand (specialization is so sad).

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned lobster boats given the
history of this newsgroup and its most prolific contributor. Classic
lobster boats have a fine entry forward which flattens out as you move
aft creating a shape which gets through the chop with minimal muss or
fuss but can still get on plane with reasonable power and economy.

Varying the deadrise underway certainly presents a number of
interesting challenges - possibly with some sort of inflatable
structure?

I believe that lobster boats were an inspiration for Tolman's designs
although Tolman may have reduced the deadrise more.
Yes, I did consider an inflatable structure, seems sorta failure prone
but a possibility.

Just looked at Bateau's 26' Lobsterboat which has a similar hull
design compared to the Tolman but the Tolman is more extreme.
Lobsterboat has deadrise of 13 at stern whereas my Tolman is 8 degrees
at transom.

Do trim tabs at the transom accomplish the same thing? I assume they
are used to get the boat on a plane faster than without them thus
effectively making it a smaller deadrise.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:31:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

They had some exotic metrology set up to measure and record
the tests.

The photons contained in the laser burst exceeded the speed of light,
according to the test results.

Exotic metrology and impossible results go together.

Casady

Frogwatch wrote in news:571e39b1-f812-459a-b9e6-
:

It seems that deadrise has a radical effect on the ability of a boat
to get on plane quickly and thus use less fuel. More deadrise makes a
boat punch through waves better but increases draft and reduces fuel
economy in smaller seas. I assume that variable deadrise has been
tried. Of course there are boats that try to use hull shape to
accomodate varying conditions but not too successfully.
My Tolman has about 10 degree deadrise and is very light so is very
fuel efficient but pounds a lot in chop so I have to slow down to
about 12 kts. Why not some mechanism that would consist of another
outer variable hull layer that would be hinged at the chines allowing
the keel portion to move downward to increase deadrise. It would have
a flexible stiff plastic piece at the front to keep water out of the
area between the two hulls. Is this simply too complex for too little
benefit?


Having pondered this for a couple of days, I am struck by the problem of
changing the area of the floor between the keel and the chine. This might
be tractable near the transom (overlapping leaves, perhaps, kinda like a
'sliding lapstrake' construction), but as you get near the stem you gotta
worry about major changes in geometry as well as area. I imagine a really
clever designer could do it. I suppose the question is where in the hull
would variable deadrise be most effective in the transition to planing?
That might make an interesting thesis for someone...

Jim Willemin wrote:
Frogwatch wrote in news:571e39b1-f812-459a-b9e6-
:

It seems that deadrise has a radical effect on the ability of a boat
to get on plane quickly and thus use less fuel. More deadrise makes a
boat punch through waves better but increases draft and reduces fuel
economy in smaller seas. I assume that variable deadrise has been
tried. Of course there are boats that try to use hull shape to
accomodate varying conditions but not too successfully.
My Tolman has about 10 degree deadrise and is very light so is very
fuel efficient but pounds a lot in chop so I have to slow down to
about 12 kts. Why not some mechanism that would consist of another
outer variable hull layer that would be hinged at the chines allowing
the keel portion to move downward to increase deadrise. It would have
a flexible stiff plastic piece at the front to keep water out of the
area between the two hulls. Is this simply too complex for too little
benefit?


Having pondered this for a couple of days, I am struck by the problem of
changing the area of the floor between the keel and the chine. This might
be tractable near the transom (overlapping leaves, perhaps, kinda like a
'sliding lapstrake' construction), but as you get near the stem you gotta
worry about major changes in geometry as well as area. I imagine a really
clever designer could do it. I suppose the question is where in the hull
would variable deadrise be most effective in the transition to planing?
That might make an interesting thesis for someone...



Bring a lifejacket.

On Mar 19, 4:14*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:46:12 -0400, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
It seems that deadrise has a radical effect on the ability of a boat
to get on plane quickly and thus use less fuel. *More deadrise makes a
boat punch through waves better but increases draft and reduces fuel
economy in smaller seas. *I assume that variable deadrise has been
tried. *
Hehehehe. You *are* quite the poster.

Hey it's a boating post.
All good ideas are proceeded by lots of bad ones.
WD-40 followed 39 failed attempts.

Yeah, you'd think a person who claims to have a mechanical engineering
degree would know that.

On Mar 19, 4:29*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:14:35 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:46:12 -0400, HK wrote:

Frogwatch wrote:
It seems that deadrise has a radical effect on the ability of a boat
to get on plane quickly and thus use less fuel. *More deadrise makes a
boat punch through waves better but increases draft and reduces fuel
economy in smaller seas. *I assume that variable deadrise has been
tried. *
Hehehehe. You *are* quite the poster.

Hey it's a boating post.
All good ideas are proceeded by lots of bad ones.
WD-40 followed 39 failed attempts.

Not bad when you consider it took Edward G. Robinson 606 tries before
he arrived at the "magic bullet" cure for syphilis.
Killed a lot of people doing it too.
Just like WD-40 is still killing bearings.

--Vic

It's killing bearings because people are using it for purposes not
intended. Water is still killing bearings, too as is sand.

On Mar 19, 5:24*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...



Not bad when you consider it took Edward G. Robinson 606 tries before
he arrived at the "magic bullet" cure for syphilis.
Killed a lot of people doing it too.
Just like WD-40 is still killing bearings.

--Vic

So it's not a good idea for JohnnyPrepH to lubricate/winterize his outboards
cylinders with WD-40?

Cylinders don't have bearings, idiot.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Do trim tabs at the transom accomplish the same thing? I assume they
are used to get the boat on a plane faster than without them thus
effectively making it a smaller deadrise.

It depends on the size of the tabs. I use them that way on our
runabout and it does help keep the stern from digging in when you want
to jump on plane in shallow water. Once on plane however the boat is
faster without them indicating less drag. There are other uses of
course such as controlling bow inclination and leveling out side to
side trim. Our old Bertram 33 sportfish had a lot of deadrise carried
all the way aft. I installed oversized trim tabs in the hope that it
might improve fuel economy but it didn't seem to have much effect.

On Mar 19, 8:45*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch





wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:41 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:07:15 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Regal has a hull design that basically touts a "variable" deadrise, based on
lift.
This was an interesting read:

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal...ons/99opinions....

It takes a lawyer to claim that a shape hull shape can violate a
patent.
Every time my head creates a "new invention" I look on the internet
and see a vastly improved version already patented.
Once in a while when I forget to look on the internet, I see one of my
"inventions" already on sale at the store.

--Vic

I actually make my living by inventing things and as the saying goes,
"Theres thousands of good ideas and most of them are wrong" certainly
applies to what I do.
To enlighten some people, "Faster than light travel" is prohibited
mathematically because it results in violation of causality, ie.,
effects happen before the cause (yes, there may be exceptions). *There
is nothing mathematically wrong with a variable hull.
I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ideas that didn't
work but I don't admit the ideas are dead .........yet. *Sometimes,
something actually does work and you lean back and
think..........."DAMN, that is cool", being surprised it works.
It is perfectly normal for people to say "That can't work otherwise it
would've been done". *You simply do not listen to such and go find out
why it hasn't been done.

You know who you remind me of?
Thomas Edison. *With boats.
Keep at it, and you'll get there.
Or have plenty of fun trying.
Ever been down to the museum in Fort Myers?
That could be yours.
Always keep saying I'll go there, but I end up fishing instead.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a very cool place. He and Firestone and my hero Henry Ford were
buddies.