On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

wrote in message
...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no answers
are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no engineering
in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be a
patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously question is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship. This
depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass moves
up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look up
'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

wrote in message
...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no answers
are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no engineering
in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be a
patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously question
is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship. This
depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass moves
up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look up
'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

P. Lyttle brings up some good points.

Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship. Normally,
the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the ship
rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the CG
high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.

Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How 'tall'
a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the roll
of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side, your
weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).

If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side to
side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it towards
the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order to
extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to starboard,
just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.

As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the starboard
side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with the
ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the weight
(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling becomes
so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At that
point, the ship is lost.

The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected by
making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of the
ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even sometimes
ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.

daestrom

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

wrote in message
...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no answers
are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no engineering
in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be a
patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously question
is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship. This
depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass moves
up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look up
'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

P. Lyttle brings up some good points.

Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship. Normally,
the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the ship
rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the CG
high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.

Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How 'tall'
a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the roll
of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side, your
weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).

If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side to
side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it towards
the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order to
extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to starboard,
just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.

As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the starboard
side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with the
ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the weight
(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling becomes
so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At that
point, the ship is lost.

The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected by
making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of the
ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even sometimes
ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.

daestrom


Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
any way.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

wrote in message
...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple
and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it
and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of
some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all
around
the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and
the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no
answers
are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no
engineering
in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be
a
patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously
question
is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship.
This
depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass
moves
up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look
up
'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

P. Lyttle brings up some good points.

Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship.
Normally,
the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the
ship
rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the
CG
high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.

Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How
'tall'
a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the
roll
of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side,
your
weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).

If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side
to
side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it
towards
the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order
to
extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to
starboard,
just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.

As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the
starboard
side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with
the
ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the
weight
(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling
becomes
so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At
that
point, the ship is lost.

The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected
by
making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of
the
ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even
sometimes
ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.

daestrom

Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
any way.

Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.

News wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

wrote in message
...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is
the description of a novel method of propelling ships and of
generating vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both
without combustion, without chemical reaction and without
pollution. Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on
August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple
and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it
and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of
some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all
around
the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and
the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no
answers
are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no
engineering
in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be
a
patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously
question
is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship.
This
depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass
moves
up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability.
look
up
'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

P. Lyttle brings up some good points.

Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship.
Normally,
the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of
bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the
ship
rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the
CG
high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.

Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How
'tall'
a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates'
around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship.
Problem with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused
by the
roll
of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side,
your
weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).

If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side
to
side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it
towards
the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in
order
to
extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to
starboard,
just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this
is *exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid
that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water
'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.

As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the
starboard
side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with
the
ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the
weight
(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling
becomes
so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At
that
point, the ship is lost.

The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected
by
making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree
by not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll
of
the
ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even
sometimes
ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.

daestrom

Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
any way.

Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.

I will try this one more time...
in order for a mass to release energy it will have to move downward, helped
by the gravitational field. (the mass will convert its potential energy
into kynetic energy.) The energy will have to be restored by the movement
of the ship. As she rights herself she will have to move the mass back
upward, against the gravitational field. (The mass will have to be
'recharged' by moving it upward.)

Therefore the ship will lose stability, i.e. the ability to regain her
vertical position, as the beforementioned mass will bleed this
self-righting force.

It has nothing to do with resonance, just energy exchange.

P. Lyttle

News wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
wrote:


Don Kelly wrote:


wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax. com...

Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.

It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple

and

apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it

and

its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.

The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of

some

folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all

around

the planet.

--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and

the

weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no

answers

are provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no

engineering

in this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be

a

patent office publication.

I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously

question

is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.



I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship.

This

depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass

moves

up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look

up

'free surface' in shipping, for instance he
http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578

P. Lyttle

But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?

P. Lyttle brings up some good points.

Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship.

Normally,

the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the

ship

rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the

CG

high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.

Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How

'tall'

a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the

roll

of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side,

your

weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).

If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side

to

side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it

towards

the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order

to

extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to

starboard,

just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.

As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the

starboard

side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with

the

ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the

weight

(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling

becomes

so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At

that

point, the ship is lost.

The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected

by

making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of

the

ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even

sometimes

ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.

daestrom

Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
any way.


Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.

Gimbals are not perfect

josh halpern