On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.
For the ship propulsion, well, we might suppose a hull rolling or
pitching about static cargo on platforms or in supported containers
would provide more than enough power. The size of hull and rate of
roll would be a factor to have to consider.
But it's the megawatt figure that interests me more. Because you make
it 100,000 tons, of just inert concrete, and you have that 300 megs,
indefinitely. Which is interesting.


Other ideas for alternative power generation at sea extract energy from
the rise and fall of the water against the ship's side. I like this
idea because it works effectively on very large vessels. The amount of
energy produced is still not enough for propulsion. Instead it will be
used to power the electrics on board a cruise ship which would
otherwise normally expend a noticeable percentage of its fuel powering
lights, heaters and other equipment. They propose using floats moving
up and down geared to turn a generator or bladders pressing against the
water's surface to create a reciprocal air pressure inside a tube to
turn a turbine. These ideas are much more promising for hybrid ships
of the future in my humble opinion.

In article , writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.

What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Will you supply some written arithmetic then.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, wrote:

In article , writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
megs approx . Much wrong?

So, maybeI I have to repeat, who's the fool?

Best wishes for a swift recovery of your face and dignity.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
megs approx . Much wrong?

So, maybeI I have to repeat, who's the fool?

Best wishes for a swift recovery of your face and dignity.

The power to weight ratio of electric motors is exceptionally high. The new
range of Mitsubishi EV cars will have motor in wheel hub arrangements,
replacing the large, bulky and heavy IC/transmission arrangements.

I have always wondered why electric motors were not used in prop planes to
drive the props, with centrally mounted Stirling engine(s) to provide the
energy for the electric motors. Also, the wings and fuselage top could have
structural PV panels as planes are invariably over the clouds in direct
sunlight.

In article s.net, "News" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.

What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Will you supply some written arithmetic then.

Calculate the kinetic energy of 1000 tons at 1 foot per second.
Assume that you extract all of this energy (which you won't, but we're
being optimistic here) in a second. Assume that the waves renew the swing
within a second (which they won't, but we're being optimistic here).
High school exercise.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , writes:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, wrote:

In article , writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
megs approx . Much wrong?

Yes.

The the kinetic energy of your block is barely 0.5*10^6*(0.3)^2 = 45 kJ.
If you manage to extract it in a second, you get 45 kW. And it won't
be renewed in a second.

If you think in terms of up and down motion, the block will be going
up and down with the ship, gimbals or no gimbals. It is only the
differences in kinetic energy that you'll be extracting.

All these simple schemes have been evaluated ad nauseam over at least
a centtury. Would there have been anything there of a magnitude
approaching your numbers, they would've been in use for a long time by
now.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

The power to weight ratio of electric motors is exceptionally high. The
new
range of Mitsubishi EV cars will have motor in wheel hub arrangements,
replacing the large, bulky and heavy IC/transmission arrangements.

I have always wondered why electric motors were not used in prop planes
to
drive the props, with centrally mounted Stirling engine(s) to provide the
energy for the electric motors.

Because a simple shaft is more efficient and lighter than using a generator
and motor, and there is no particular advantage to that design, and
Stirling engines can be heavier than standard otto cycle engines of the
same power output.

CM

"CM" wrote in message
nk.net...
The power to weight ratio of electric motors is exceptionally high. The
new
range of Mitsubishi EV cars will have motor in wheel hub arrangements,
replacing the large, bulky and heavy IC/transmission arrangements.

I have always wondered why electric motors were not used in prop planes
to
drive the props, with centrally mounted Stirling engine(s) to provide
the
energy for the electric motors.

Because a simple shaft is more efficient and lighter than using a
generator
and motor, and there is no particular advantage to that design, and
Stirling engines can be heavier than standard otto cycle engines of the
same power output.

Stirling engines are about twice the efficiency of IC engines. Free
floating piston Stirlinsb are lighter and are ideal for this application.
With two IC engines you have twice the weight. With one specially designed
engine to produce electricity and tow "very small" electric motor must surly
be more efficient (and lighter). Stirling engines operate better in high
altitudes than IC engines.

In article ,
wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
writes:
On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP"
wrote:

Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
faster.


What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.

Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
megs approx . Much wrong?

Yes.

The the kinetic energy of your block is barely 0.5*10^6*(0.3)^2 = 45 kJ.
If you manage to extract it in a second, you get 45 kW. And it won't
be renewed in a second.

If you think in terms of up and down motion, the block will be going
up and down with the ship, gimbals or no gimbals. It is only the
differences in kinetic energy that you'll be extracting.

All these simple schemes have been evaluated ad nauseam over at least
a centtury. Would there have been anything there of a magnitude
approaching your numbers, they would've been in use for a long time by
now.

And, instead of bathtub gin, we'ld all be generating bathtub
juice.

Why doesn't somebody just build one in your bathtub and see?

/BAH