New Yacht Technologies?

Don,

I've changed the title of your thread so it is better indexed. "Food for Thought" is not a typical search engine phrase when looking for new technologies or ideas.

Re: question #2... I can't remember the last boat I was on that didn't have some sort of glass display interface. The vast majority new yachts are true "glass cockpits", with nary a dial to speak of. Also, in many ways, the yachting industry parallels the aviation industry in the number of, and complexity of onboard systems.

Here's a thread on the subject; Aerospace vs. Marine...
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/general-yachting-discussion/4190-aerospace-vs-marine.html

On your first question, I guess a variable pitch propeller does the job. Like the famous KaMeWa props from Sweden..

On your last question, some yachts have the system you described, but normally, noise is well taken care of with regular sound and vibration dampening materials on large yachts.

Here's a YF member that has adapted Variable Pitch Prop Technology...
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/moonen-yacht/7421-review-moonen-94-nilo.html

On sound, most builders have gone to great measures to reduce vibration; insulating engines and running gear for reduced decibel levels.

variable pitch props

Indeed variable pitch is better than gears, because it is seamless, no jerky movements and pitch is adopted by the computer according to revs and load. There is also no reverse gear, so the engine does not have instant load changes during maneuvering. Furthermore, during maneuvers you can set the revs to a constant and play with the pitch, reduce thrust to very limited amounts, which enables very smooth operation.

I had a specific experience during my passage through the Corinth Canal. There was a Passilipo Rizzadi 95 following us. The speed limit in the canal is 8 knots and the width is 24 meters. Possilipo had to engage port and starboard engines in and out of gear all the time to keep her speed in line with the convoy speed. Due to this she was moving to port and starboard each time she engaged gears and was obliged to make correction with her bow thruster each time, whereas I had a very smooth and easy drive.

Couldn't agree more with the variable pitch prop - keep that reduction gear simple, hard enough to fix the one on my car let alone when it weighs a few tonnes.

#3 sounds interesting, I'm aware of the principle but haven't seen it applied to an industrial enviroment only to aircraft headphones. Any examples on the web?

No.1
The two-speed boxes currently available from ZF work very well, as long as the prop design is optimised correctly...but still dont offer the theoretical improvement over fixed props that VP ones do.
I've not seen much lately on the carbon warping props that potentially offer much of the VP advantages but from a monolithic prop unit...promising much, lighter weight and higher efficiency at a greater rpm range. Anyone with any experience of these ?
I'm looking forward to the day when VP props are available for the smaller high performance yacht market. I guess VP props for surface drives would be the Holy Grail in that segment. I'm a fan of the 'pod' drives that are making a name for themselves at the moment, and I also think the general mechanical layout of these things would lend themselves to VP props far easier than a simple shaft...but they are still a way off as far as ultimate prop efficiency goes compared to pure surface props.
So, is Yellowfin VSD going to be that Holy Grail ?

P.R Trans do a Volvo Penta stepdrive 2speed which is from a Landrover....not the best. Just get bigger HP

on No. 2:

Last I checked, corporate jets were more expensive than boats. By a long shot.

A 'Green' GV - No interior, just basic airframe/engines, and bottom line avionics runs $80,000,000.00. I'm sure it's up closer to 100mil since the dollar is down. The BBJ's, ACJ's and airliner conversions can be much more.

Depends on the jet and the boat its compared to.
Heres one that is matched closely by the alledged owners yacht.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6768237.stm
Search the net enough and you can even find provisional layouts of the jet that include a model of said yacht.

Three: Active noise reduction.
ANR has been implemented in a number of industrial situations with varying degrees of success. The size and shape of the space has as much to do with the ultimate noise reduction levels as does the original noise source.
Tried to apply ANR to a LNG pumping station about fifteen years ago. Steel shed on a concrete pad with an interior volume of 6000 cu.ft. Fairly constant levels and little variance in the frequency range to be controlled. The noise from the shack was disturbing the neighbouring cattle. There was an amplifier company in Washington state that lent a hand to the project but I don't remember their details. From what I recall the use of insulation and other passive noise control measures was almost as effective and had no reliability issues.

One look at the bridge aboard the Maltese Falcon and you will be wondering when jet technology is going to catch up with it

With respect to your first thought, I would have considered that owners would be looking at the use of diesel /electric propulsion as this technology is now well proven in the commercial world. The benefit is that you can run your engines at their most economical speed.

Diesel-Electric

Not only can you bank the engines in a row very low down in the centre-line of the keel but have the shafts at the optimum horizontal plane. Azimuting drive-pods with variable pitch props and nozzles could be used.

I could write a novel about all the issues I have encounterd, seen and heard about regarding the 'glass cockpit' question. I was involved as far back as the late 80s in trying to get that kind of bridge technology off the ground..when the first of the glass avionics systems were quite new actually.

Probably the biggest single impediment for achieving the same level of integration in vessels has been the myriad number of players involved and, even to this day, the lack of a single true 'avionics buss' specification and technology (including very specific requirements for buss performance, redundancy, message priority, etc etc) to which all parties can and will adhere to. Tower of Babble syndrome.

Equally frustrating has been the various engine manufacturers different methods for handling their engine control and monitoring requirements and their unwillingnes to let that out to any 'third party' systems in many cases. Back when we dabbled in 'integrated bridge' development in the 80s, for example, we had, at that time the ONLY third party monitoring and control system that was approved by MTU (and DnV) for monitoring their high-speed diesels. Achieving that designation turned out to be very costly yet was not enough of a descriminator to achieve economic success when so many other players were developing similar systems and each new entry to the market was cheaper than those that came before it. We left that product market in the early 90s.

All that IS changing slowly (even MTU has CANopen data ports that are accessible by third party systems..but still do not want to relinquish critical engine control and monitoring functions to this day) and in recent years has finally started to come 'somewhat close' to what the aircraft industry achieved long ago, but the challenges of integrating ALL shipboard systems when there are still so many closed and proprietary system buss protocols (or analog systems with no external data ports, requiring additional sensors and data input devices be added..and integrated) is still there. The systems that do come close are typically all from one source..said source having gone to great lengths to get to that point.

BTW..I used MTU as an example above because I have worked with their engines amd various incarnations of their MCS-series controls systems since they first came out 20 years ago. I wasn't picking on them..similar examples exist with the other engine builders.

Hi,

That was a very well written and honest article above.

I still battle with this sort of thing on new projects, getting the info and drawings electronically is tough with some builders and must be spelled out in the spec to get anything.