| Live Weather Stations: East Gloucester | Rockport | Sandy Bay Yacht Club | GoMOOS Buoy | |||||
Gloucester Inner Harbor
![]() |
Sandy Bay Yacht Club
![]() |
Sandy Bay Yacht Club
![]() |
Lanes Cove
![]() |
||
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Thong Extractor |
|||
|
Wow, not even one second of self reflection. It seems as if your daddy complex has you so narcissistic over your late husband's ideas that can't
comprehend anyone could challenge you or your delivery or even (god forbid) flaws in the message.
|
|||
Ward4 2NoMore |
|||
Under current regulation-vectors that current high horsepower dragger/scalloper fleet here, in New Bedford etc. will have serious difficulties matching product-income to growing energy-cost. If fuel goes up and then stays up at 4,50-5/gal. and everything goes up with it, fewer folks will eat scallops - New Bedford's primary source of income - just as their operational cost leave the known spreadsheet parameters. Up will also go processed fish-farm feed, cost of shipping 'Gortons' fish from Alaska to China to Long Beach CA to Gloucester MA for 15,000mile long 'freshness', even the cost of road-hauling Herring caught off Penobscot Bay as 'bait' back up into Maine. Cascading consequences. Who is prepared ??Susan no one in the fleet is prepared for what is on the horizon, I agree. The question is, what will it cost for a 40,80 or100 ft highly efficient fishing boat? |
|||
William Taylor |
|||
|
Well, we are now on post number 43 and I mentioned this simplicity thing back on post number 2 but yet we are still all tangled up and not getting much
progress.
I would like to pose the question that is it possible or economical to use natural gas as a fuel on boats? Natural gas is our country's most abundant energy source, non polluting and inexpensive. Massive new finds in the Marcellus shale fields have insured that we will have plenty of cheap gas for over a hundred years. We have a distribution system but no filling stations for cars otherwise we would driving around with natural gas. Filling stations for boats would be a cinch. |
|||
SusanneandPhil |
|||
|
Good Morning Ward 4 2 No More
Preliminary estimates for a 6000-7000lbs capacity craft - about 40'x9' - run around $50-55K hardware, incl. basic nav gear. ground-tackle, etc. PLUS labor and fishing gear. 60 HP 4-cyl. 'mouse'-diesel will be adequate for 8kts and hydraulic plump plus two bigger alternators. Quiet smooth soft-mounted dry-exhausted drivetrain will take between 15-20k of the 50k pie (plus labor, always!). Similar approach for a 30,000lbs capacity 70'x14' w/ 200HPx11kts will now likely run around 100k plus labor etc. Labor is the 'Wild Card' to be assessed soberly during the first 30'+ boat-building project due next Spring at GMHC on Harbor Loop. The design-approach is 'manic' about simplification of hull-shape and -structures to avoid man-hours 'black holes'. But reality will be checked as we learn to maximize inherent opportunities at 'building-efficiencies'. We'd be really fine-tuning the approach by now, had we been able to build a few progressively larger hulls over the recent years. But things are moving at last. And we will learn... I appreciate your interest.
Last Edited By: SusanneandPhil
11/07/09 10:28 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
SusanneandPhil |
|||
|
William Taylor, good day to you as well,
Yes, you have the logistics down in principle. We'd just have to have respective filling-stations in all the fishing-ports to match the at time itinerant nature of fishing, plus the need to be able to trade these hulls within the fleet without discarding conversions. But since these ports are not large in numbers, the logistics should not be a serious obstacle - as you pointed out. But first low-carbon hulls to burn that much less of this good and finite domestic stuff; as more consumers shift to natural gas, burning less will be more affordable/sustainable long term. (We should not ask 'cractor-man' though, as his idea of 'gas' sends him dashing off to his manure-pile stirring for psych-muck and inhaling way too much...) As to the simplification approach - apart from my inherent limitations as a non-nativer speaker - in these 7 years we've learned to not 'talk down' to anyone involved in the subject matter; that would be a certain prescription for alienation within the fleet. We've talked to a lot of folks on the waterfront and (again) 40 fishers plus key shore-side stake-holders expressed support in writing. Ditto for cultivating reasonably productive relationships with fishers elsewhere who approached us and continue to stay in contact as realities here and there evolve. Those are the folks who are most likely to understand the language and the concepts conveyed by it. And those are the folks who are the 'audience'. Not GoO et.al. Amongst those fishers 'far away' are several who wonder why we've not had hulls running out of Gloucester years ago. Once something is running, like Robin Jean', even NATIONAL FISHERMAN 'comes to town' - because this is interesting stuff. They'd be even more interested in a diesel-powered hull or two that addresses directly many of the immediate needs of the core of the inshore fleet for instance, such as that 6,500lbs capacity 40' or a 15,000lbs capacity 50' craft, both of which would lobster just fine as well, or make live-aboard yachts, etc. We could be building and selling these out of this port. Quite a few more jobs created, plus jump in tax-base, ergo better City-budget-health and less morose/defeatist feelings around the harbor a la Capt. Joe and friends. This greying widow with miles on her face will keep pushing.
Last Edited By: SusanneandPhil
11/07/09 10:29 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
William Taylor |
|||
|
That's the way it works......keep pushing! Persistence is one of the best attributes of success.
|
|||
Dun Fudgin |
|||
|
If I had money to invest in a new disign of fishing vessel I would lean in favor of a multi hull design for these reasons;
A major increase in fuel efficiency over a monohull due to the hull shape. A monohull with a traditional displacement hull has a quickly building hydrodynamic drag barrier which set the theoretical hull speed based on square root of "length at waterline". Catamarans make use of needle like hulls which significantly reduce this source of friction. Catamarans are typically lighter and thus have less displacement and drag. This is because they don't require a keel counterweight since righting movement is derived from the spacing between multiple hulls. Catamarans have a wider beam which makes them more stable and therefore able to carry more fish/cargo per unit of length than an equivalent monohull. With the wide platform more stability means safer working conditions. |
|||
Gang of One |
|||
SusanneandPhil wrote:As William says, keep pushing. Absolutely; but push it elsewhere - for if you are, indeed, getting through to the people that matter - your 'audience'...then why are you here? To gain wider understanding, acknowledgment, and hopefully support? If that is the case, then learn to speak to all...which does not mean 'speaking down' (I love the self-assumption that you are somehow 'up'. Some might surmise you are 'up' your own arse, Madam.) |
|||
Damon |
|||
|
Dun, it is not that simple by any means. A cat for example is just as stable upside down as right side up. Once the leeward hull is under water, you lose
righting moment fast. It is the old problem of initial stability versus range of stability. The wave and frictional drag argument does not really work for
boats carrying cargo and the strength problem is complicated for a cat. Sometimes they work, but are no means a cure-all.
Damon |
|||
Damon |
|||
|
William - get the hull narrowed down to reasonable drag first, then worry about alternative propulsion.
Damon |
|||
SusanneandPhil |
|||
|
On Dun's Multihull preference, let me add to Damon's thoughts:
- 15-20:1 (length-to-beam) 'needle'-lean multihull hulls are typically not designed to carry more than themselves, some crew, some supplies. The more you want to carry the wider and/or deeper the hulls will have to be getting closer to 10:1 perhaps. - Structural weight of any multi always suffers from the need to connect these two/three hulls with meaty structures fit to have each of these hulls on 'different waves', not to mention the weight of cargo in or across these hulls. - Building multiple hulls plus the connecting structures is a lot more work than doing a monohull of equal carrying capacity. - A lot more work equals a lot more construction-cost and time. - Those swoopy multis, such as those hypnotic go-very-fast sculptures from our old friend Dick Newick, are dramatic wind-powered sporting-devices for very high performance plus stunning visuals - and thus are amongst the most costly and manhour-intensive boats per lbs of structure, never mind $/lbs of potential cargo-carrying capacity. - Our modest body of work on Proas, Catamarans, and Trimarans only range up to 40-feet and are usually designed for 'small-crew' people-carrying. For these reasons (and others) we obviously prefer 5-6+:1 length-to-beam ratio monohulls, power, motorsailer, or sail-powered. |
|||
William Taylor |
|||
|
Why isn't there some sort of nanotube paint for hulls.....you know like a teflon coating that makes it slick/no stick forever?
|
|||
Dun Fudgin |
|||
William Taylor wrote:There is thanks to Gloucester's Tarr & Wonson Paint Factory ! They were the 1st to develop anti fouling paints. The Union had an edge is sea power during the Civil War, with anti fouling paint from Gloucester the Union fleets were faster than their Rebel counterparts. Today for my boat I use an ablative paint. $200 bucks a gallon but one gallon I can get 3-4 years worth of paint and saves me probably $300-500 in fuel bills per season.
Last Edited By: Dun Fudgin
11/09/09 01:16 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Damon |
|||
|
There are three kinds of drag on your surface ship, wave, frictional, and separation.
Frictional dominates at low speed. That is where your smooth paint and no fouling is important. As speed increases, much of the power from the propulsion goes into making surface waves and frictional drag is not such an important item any more. At that point hull geometry is all important. Separation drag is tricky. You can put a lot of effort into making the hull smooth and accomplish the result of keeping the water flow laminar rather than turbulent as it moves aft along the hull. However inevitably before reaching the stern, the water blurbbles away from the hull leaving a wake before it can reach back to the stern. This leaves the hull with a low pressure at the stern and a high pressure at the bow, retarding progress. Laminar flow separates from the hull further forward than turbulent flow because the lack of interaction between layers prevents transport of higher kinetic energy water deep into the boundary layer, meaning the smoother hull will have more drag. In other words it is not all that simple. Damon |
|||
SusanneandPhil |
|||
|
A few more thoughts on Dun's multi-hull proposal.
Once you are at a 10:1 length-to-beam ratio on two hulls - as in a catamaran - and you were to lash them directly them side-by-side, then from the pier look down on her at low tide, you'd see a de facto 5:1 hull geometry - ergo you are in the middle of our mono-hull proposals ('Robin Jean' is a pinch 'fatter' at about 4.75 at waterline). When you then add the connecting-structure to align these hulls apart at between 50 and 100% of their length, that structural weight comes directly off what the hulls could carry in cargo/fish. So between unfavorable weight-issues, the added manpower necessary to build 2 hulls and all connecting pieces, plus the unavoidably resulting increased cost, multihulls are often not good for the purpose. Michael Leary's 'Laurie B.'/ the 'Bat-boat' catamaran in good part ailed under the weight of these penalties. If he had taken us seriously - being a New England Fisheries Management Council Member and all - he'd have instead spend about half his budget on one of our solutions and would not have been forced to sell it after just a few years of progressively uneconomical operation fishing. He could have led by successful example. Instead we found ourselves shaking our heads as to the reasonably predictable economics of his Cat once she arrived. There are several such loocal projects with serious money invested that just could not 'future-proof' the fishing-operation. Quite tragic. Major opportunities lost. People did not think Phil Bolger had anything to say... The 'daily' exposure to catamarans is typically in the passenger-ferrying trade, where the 'cargo' is relatively light-weight and requires square-footage of 'walking-around' area, keeping both the overall cargo-weight low while maximizing the people-needs using the decked-over wide connecting-structure. The dramatic increase in perceived stability with these hulls this far apart is for many passengers amongst the most convincing arguments here. Finally, many of the jet-powered cats are also based on cheap fuel-cost assumptions as jets don't begin to come into their own until high speeds are achieved. They should be smoother and offer distinct shallow-watwer capability but the latter is typically irrelevant in standard ferrying duty. But we may see re-configurations to prop-drive - if geometrically possible - as energy-cost escalates and speed-expectations are moderated since high-speed will cost way more than medium-speed. The easier motion will remain a key asset for passenger-ferrying cats. On the paint issue, we'll have to wait. There are no patent medicines as yet that are convincing in thr commercial environment for the initial investment. As we learn from Damon's perspective, that element of drag in minor compared to basic hull- and drive-train geometry choices. Once those priorities are 'rationalized', then minor percentage points of advantage might lurk in the paints universe. Ergo - no 'patent-medicine', pixie-dust etc. for this and any commercial fleet. Only sober prioritizing toward 'least-carbon' ambitions. Remember that the WW-I era US Navy class of 300 submarine-chasers measured 110-feet by 16-feet, and successfully steamed to Europe on their own bottom in Navy-duty, and were - post-USN-service - used for decades later for Seining etc. by for instance the Gloucester fleet. Length-to-beam ratio of 6.8:1 ! Today quite a few Fishers would claim that geometry to be 'obviously' unworkable... Lot's old knowledge left to remember and new things to learn.
Last Edited By: SusanneandPhil
11/09/09 08:33 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
SusanneandPhil |
|||
|
Notice how many sentences have already been spent between Dun, Damon, Susanne just on the issue of multi-hull opportunities for the commercial fisheries. That
would readily cover at least 50% of one page in my 'Tome' format. And we have yet to polemically beat up on our predatory fiends in certain circles.
'Simplification' only goes this far if you also need to cover right up front predictable 'yes-but'-responses.
Nothing is more toxic to debate and therefore any chance of progress than un-mentioned/unaddressed assumptions that keep folks from focussing on key priorities. I do claim that, as an addition to the 'standard agenda', to express our design-technical perspective the two-page/one-sheet 'Tome' pretty much does just that.
Last Edited By: SusanneandPhil
11/09/09 08:42 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
sidebar © ezdesign