Actively variable deadrise
 

Actively variable deadrise
 

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?

Actively variable deadrise
 

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. 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?

Hehehehe. You *are* quite the poster.

Yes, there are plenty of "variable deadrise" hulls around, but not
because of hinges.

If we are talking small monohull planing hulls, there are flat bottom
boats that pound at speed, boats with deadrise like yours that plane
nicely in a light chop, mod-vee hulls that do a bit better than yours in
more chop, and deep vee hulls. There also are hulls with rounded chines
that do a bit better than yours.

A hinged bottom? Hey...design and build one, and get back to us.




--
The morality police - the bloviating gas bags of the religious right -
have fallen lower than the stock market. It has truly been an amazing
(and amusing) thing to watch these so-called "spokesmen of Christ"
defending their morally indefensible positions these days. Finally -
they're going away. It seems an answer to a prayer. Thank you, Lord.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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

Actively variable deadrise
 

"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?

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:44:06 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:



Active Variable deadrise. Actually an interesting concept. I know fighter
places have variable wing surfaces, etc. Maybe an inflatable sponson for a
tunnel on the sides, etc. At least it is a boating content thread. But
since you are imagination restricted, would be hard for you to accept this
as an interesting concept.

Here ya go.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6158376.html

--Vic

Actively variable deadrise
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
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. 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?
Hehehehe. You *are* quite the poster.

Yes, there are plenty of "variable deadrise" hulls around, but not because
of hinges.

If we are talking small monohull planing hulls, there are flat bottom
boats that pound at speed, boats with deadrise like yours that plane
nicely in a light chop, mod-vee hulls that do a bit better than yours in
more chop, and deep vee hulls. There also are hulls with rounded chines
that do a bit better than yours.

A hinged bottom? Hey...design and build one, and get back to us.



Active Variable deadrise. Actually an interesting concept. I know fighter
places have variable wing surfaces, etc. Maybe an inflatable sponson for a
tunnel on the sides, etc. At least it is a boating content thread. But
since you are imagination restricted, would be hard for you to accept this
as an interesting concept.



I find travel faster than the speed of light an interesting concept, too.


--
The morality police - the bloviating gas bags of the religious right -
have fallen lower than the stock market. It has truly been an amazing
(and amusing) thing to watch these so-called "spokesmen of Christ"
defending their morally indefensible positions these days. Finally -
they're going away. It seems an answer to a prayer. Thank you, Lord.

Actively variable deadrise
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:44:06 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:



Active Variable deadrise. Actually an interesting concept. I know
fighter
places have variable wing surfaces, etc. Maybe an inflatable sponson for
a
tunnel on the sides, etc. At least it is a boating content thread. But
since you are imagination restricted, would be hard for you to accept this
as an interesting concept.

Here ya go.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6158376.html

--Vic


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...s/99-1511.html


Eisboch

Actively variable deadrise
 

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...s/99-1511.html


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

Actively variable deadrise
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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. 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?

Hehehehe. You *are* quite the poster.

Yes, there are plenty of "variable deadrise" hulls around, but not because
of hinges.

If we are talking small monohull planing hulls, there are flat bottom
boats that pound at speed, boats with deadrise like yours that plane
nicely in a light chop, mod-vee hulls that do a bit better than yours in
more chop, and deep vee hulls. There also are hulls with rounded chines
that do a bit better than yours.

A hinged bottom? Hey...design and build one, and get back to us.



Active Variable deadrise. Actually an interesting concept. I know fighter
places have variable wing surfaces, etc. Maybe an inflatable sponson for a
tunnel on the sides, etc. At least it is a boating content thread. But
since you are imagination restricted, would be hard for you to accept this
as an interesting concept.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

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).

If I can find it, I'll send you a paper written by some Russian scientists.
It was given to me by a German friend of mine who surprised me with it
following a long debate we had over some beers.

(he held two Phd's in Physics)

Basically, it describes an experiment whereby a laser beam was fired into a
tube that contained cesium in a gaseous form, then exited the tube and hit a
target sensor. 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.

Eisboch

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

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).

If I can find it, I'll send you a paper written by some Russian scientists.
It was given to me by a German friend of mine who surprised me with it
following a long debate we had over some beers.

(he held two Phd's in Physics)

Basically, it describes an experiment whereby a laser beam was fired into a
tube that contained cesium in a gaseous form, then exited the tube and hit a
target sensor. 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.

Eisboch

Yeah, I read about that. The catch was the diff tween "group"
velocity and "wave velocity" (I forget which is which). What the
speed of light limitation REALLY says is that no information can be
transmitted faster than light. A simple sine wave carries no
information so that laser beam can exceed light speed but if you try
to modulate it to carry info it wont work, your signal travels at
speed of light.
I have just exhausted all my knowledge of this subject. Mostly a PhD
in physics is a license to bull**** authoritatively.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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

Actively variable deadrise
 

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).

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:14:35 -0500, wrote:

All good ideas are proceeded by lots of bad ones.
WD-40 followed 39 failed attempts.

My great uncle, before he worked on the atomic bombs, invented a
perfume, Chanel #4, a soft drink, Six-Up, and the five pack of beer.
Finally got something to work: the Little Boy.

Casady

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Mar 19, 9:08*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:14:35 -0500, wrote:
All good ideas are proceeded by lots of bad ones.
WD-40 followed 39 failed attempts.

My great uncle, before he worked on the atomic bombs, invented a
perfume, Chanel #4, a soft drink, Six-Up, and the five pack of beer.
Finally got something to work: the Little Boy.

Casady

My uncle was down there working on the bomb too.. It is a pretty
interesting story.

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:45:22 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Ever been down to the museum in Fort Myers?

Yes. I actually found it a bit disappointing although the grounds are
very nice, including a totally humongous Banyan tree. The Henry Ford
Museum in Dearborn, Michigan is a lot more interesting and contains
many of Edison's original patent models. Ford and Edison were good
buddys and lived next door to each other in Ft Myers during the
winter.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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?

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable 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

Actively variable deadrise
 

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...

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

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.

Actively variable deadrise
 

wrote in message
...
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.

************************************************

I didn't say they did jackass.

Actively variable deadrise
 

HK wrote in
:

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.


I was thinking more of models in a wavetank. But seriously: where in
the hull is deadrise most important to achieving planing status? Is it
in the forward third, the midships third, or the aft third? Since
planing is essentially the result of climbing one's own bow wake, or the
wave whose wavelength is equal to your waterline length, my hunch is
that the geometry near the stem is probably most significant in
acheiving planing. But there has to be some kind of optimum - it seems
to me that a flatiron skiff, say, would take more energy to achieve
planing mode than a runabout of identical length. So if the critical
region is in the forward third of the hull, where major changes in both
hull geometry and hull area occur as you mess with deadrise, it seems to
me probably not worth the effort.

Actively variable deadrise
 

Jim Willemin wrote:
HK wrote in
:

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.


I was thinking more of models in a wavetank. But seriously: where in
the hull is deadrise most important to achieving planing status? Is it
in the forward third, the midships third, or the aft third? Since
planing is essentially the result of climbing one's own bow wake, or the
wave whose wavelength is equal to your waterline length, my hunch is
that the geometry near the stem is probably most significant in
acheiving planing. But there has to be some kind of optimum - it seems
to me that a flatiron skiff, say, would take more energy to achieve
planing mode than a runabout of identical length. So if the critical
region is in the forward third of the hull, where major changes in both
hull geometry and hull area occur as you mess with deadrise, it seems to
me probably not worth the effort.

Deadrise isn't important in achieving planing status: a flat-bottomed
boat will plane just fine. The more deadrise, the more power it takes to
get a boat up on plane.

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:25:30 -0400, HK wrote:

Jim Willemin wrote:
HK wrote in
:

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.


I was thinking more of models in a wavetank. But seriously: where in
the hull is deadrise most important to achieving planing status? Is it
in the forward third, the midships third, or the aft third? Since
planing is essentially the result of climbing one's own bow wake, or the
wave whose wavelength is equal to your waterline length, my hunch is
that the geometry near the stem is probably most significant in
acheiving planing. But there has to be some kind of optimum - it seems
to me that a flatiron skiff, say, would take more energy to achieve
planing mode than a runabout of identical length. So if the critical
region is in the forward third of the hull, where major changes in both
hull geometry and hull area occur as you mess with deadrise, it seems to
me probably not worth the effort.

Deadrise isn't important in achieving planing status: a flat-bottomed
boat will plane just fine. The more deadrise, the more power it takes to
get a boat up on plane.

....therefore, deadrise *is* important in achieving planing status. The
more deadrise, the more difficult to achieve plane.

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Mar 20, 1:29 pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:25:30 -0400, HK wrote:
Jim Willemin wrote:
HK wrote in
:

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.

I was thinking more of models in a wavetank. But seriously: where in
the hull is deadrise most important to achieving planing status? Is it
in the forward third, the midships third, or the aft third? Since
planing is essentially the result of climbing one's own bow wake, or the
wave whose wavelength is equal to your waterline length, my hunch is
that the geometry near the stem is probably most significant in
acheiving planing. But there has to be some kind of optimum - it seems
to me that a flatiron skiff, say, would take more energy to achieve
planing mode than a runabout of identical length. So if the critical
region is in the forward third of the hull, where major changes in both
hull geometry and hull area occur as you mess with deadrise, it seems to
me probably not worth the effort.

Deadrise isn't important in achieving planing status: a flat-bottomed
boat will plane just fine. The more deadrise, the more power it takes to
get a boat up on plane.

...therefore, deadrise *is* important in achieving planing status. The
more deadrise, the more difficult to achieve plane.

I've been reading about "variable deadrise" hulls where the deadrise
changes as one goes from center of the keel area toward the chines.
The pictures all show a series of areas with reduced deadrise toward
the chines. Why not make this a continuous change? I am not sure
what the advantage would be however one can imagine a large deadrise
range at the bow area going to significantly less at transom.
Why does a hard chine boat ride diff from one with rounded chines?

Actively variable deadrise
 

Frogwatch wrote:

Why does a hard chine boat ride diff from one with rounded chines?


Is that a serious question? You can't visualize it?

Actively variable deadrise
 

On Mar 20, 3:26 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
Why does a hard chine boat ride diff from one with rounded chines?

Is that a serious question? You can't visualize it?

Of course its serious

Actively variable deadrise
 

Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:26 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
Why does a hard chine boat ride diff from one with rounded chines?
Is that a serious question? You can't visualize it?

Of course its serious


Try to visualize the surface and edge a hard chine boat presents to the
water.

Then visualize the surface and lack of edge a round chine boat presents
to the water.

The hard chine boat tends to bang onto the waves; the round chine boat
tends to slide into the water.

Water doesn't compress too well.

Actively variable deadrise
 

Einstein did not say faster than light travel was impossible. Speed was
limited by energy contraints. Maybe there is another factor in the energy
equation that we do not realize is there in our universe. Just happens to
be 1 or unity on Earth.

Actively variable deadrise
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:14:35 -0500, wrote:

All good ideas are proceeded by lots of bad ones.
WD-40 followed 39 failed attempts.

My great uncle, before he worked on the atomic bombs, invented a
perfume, Chanel #4, a soft drink, Six-Up, and the five pack of beer.
Finally got something to work: the Little Boy.

Casady

And the name 7-up? Was to define that the bottle was bigger than the 6 oz
bottles that coke came in.