new hull technology
 

I had a brainstorm ( or brain fart) and think i just invented the newest technology for hulls it can even be applied to existing hulls or new hulls..not sure i want to divulge it though till i patent it!!

do yourself a favor and hire an attorney to do the entire patent, you can start by doing a search though. The actual patent review process takes a year an a half to two years minimum but you are protected from the actual filing date good luck. If you need an outstanding attorney that specializes in this let me know and i will put you in contact it is money well spent.


http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en

Eeh, ok.

:worthless_without_p

i will put it out their this should be record enuff,, ready fot it??

ok here it goes

The United States Patent office issued the first patent for "Step bottom speedboats" in 1904.

Hope your idea is right on......we need some new technology. Good luck.

"Dimples" was looking at a golf ball and thought that would be perfect for a boat hull, same idea less area in contact with water when aired out or moving at high rate of speed. so think about it if hull was dimpled (like a golf ball surface) less surface area touching water but when hitting waves you get benefit of full area of hull..can even be adapted , maybe with a skin to existing hulls??

A ball moving through air experiences two major aerodynamic forces, lift and drag. Dimpled balls fly farther than non-dimpled balls due to the combination of two effects: First, the dimples delay separation of the boundary layer from the ball. Early separation, as seen on a smooth sphere, causes significant wake turbulence, the principal cause of drag. The separation delay caused by the dimples therefore reduces this wake turbulence, and hence the drag

you can use that on your new boats just build me one and we will call it even

Americas Cup racers have used a similar technology since the eighties, 3M developed a transfer sheet that had a series of small oval shaped dots that had favorable results. They were a male instead of female, in other words they stuck out rather then in. The problem with using a golfball style dimples is going to be the laminar flow of the water. Hydro dynamics and aerodynamics dont work the same (well sometimes but not here :D) It would be interesting to see what it would do though

I would make them slightly teardrop shaped with the pointy end toward teh rear to aid in lower speed efficiency. If they were round, as on a golf ball, the rear portion of the cutout would be acting as a wall during periods of slower speed cruising.

I like the idea, and have wondered myself why is was never tried on a high po boat.

Oh by the way starting a thread and describing here on line does not help protect it but rather actually hurts your ability to obtain a patent.

I know its been discussed before but did any one even try it just on pad with a skin ?? it took reggie to make steps cool again and they were around a long time...

I got a million more...

You have to remember that air and water does not react exactly the same. Aerodynamics does not always go well with hydrodynamics. If anything, put it on the part of the boat not in the water. I don't know how many manufactures are doing aerodynamic research in windtunnels and so on. But it sure looks like there are some builders who do not think about aerodynamics at all.

It's been tried. Both the "innies" and the "outies", on smaller drag boats. You WILL get ariation, but "re-entry" gets too much drag. But if you wanna play with some hull designs, play a bit with the strakes. How many? how wide? flat, angled or cancave.? All will have different results, the problem is that it's harder to make the molds. I been playing with some "strake" stuff on the Cad, but nothing final. The best option is a variable strake design. Flat and wide on the front to stop from "stuffing", concave to get you some air in the mid and flat/concave to get you lift and speed on the back. A mold builder nightmare. :)

Anyone see the episode on mythbusters where the scaled up the dimples and but them on a car? They did several tests and confirmed it actually got better MPG. The original myth was that a dirty car got better mileage so the tested that theory then teched it up a bit by covered the car in clay then carved large symmetric dimples over the entire surface. Was a pretty good episode.

Back in the days, I never washed my car, for that reason alone. Now.. I been watching "Top Gear" on BBC and all the Europian cars gets twice as much gas milage then the US counterparts. So.. I changed plugs +5% MPG, Fuel, air, oil filter, +9% MPG, Nitrigon in the tires, +8% MPG, Fuel octane booster, +12% MPG, New CPU chip and timing chip, +15% MPG, Light weight, alum rims, +8% MPG, Disconnected AC belt and AC, installed fan at dash, +12% MPG, Oil additive/less friction, +7% MPG, Taped all the cracks on the hood etc. +6% MPG, Airodynamic wipers, + 4% MPG, new trans vacum modilator, shifting at lower RPM's, +6% MPG, Lowered car by 3" with special spring shackles, +7% MPG, Removed spare tire, rear seat, etc, +4%MPG, Put in 93 octane gas, +3% MPG, Synthatic dif oil, + 2% MPG, replaced my muffler to a HPO muffler, +3% MPG, Removed catalitic converter, +7% MPG, Installed Formula 1 farings and air diflectors, + 4% MPG,
Spent 15K and I still have to stop at the gas stations, I'm getting 119 % gas milage and I have to stop and empty my tank every week.


(sorry for the thread theft, I always wanted to post this, :evilb: )

First thing I thought of!

Good one:lolhit::lolhit:

But I also recall, that dirt on the car did not work, so drive in a clean car:party-smiley-004: Hate dirty cars
:waffen093::violent040:

I would be interested in trying a small section that would stick to the pad and up to the first strake rear of the step of my kryptonite. Dimples, not bumps. I think it would work.

But then again I have been drinking since noon. :drink:

Dimples and textured coatings were tried on surf board bottoms in the 80s. I say just sand the rear portion of your hull w/ 220 and call it a day. It works!:drink:

I remember watching a t.v. show about some bombs that we made, dimpled em' and dropped them out of a plane. They skipped across the water in a perfectly calculated manner and hit their target, a damn. Not related but it was very interesting. How bout sum HHO injection on boats, better wear your kevlar.

What's the science gonna cost and can you sell it!!!
 

Aerodynamics and hydrodyanmics are two totally different sciences (animals) and what works on golf balls and clay covered cars on Mythbusters does not work at the same efficiency or way that it would work on the bottom of a hull that is wet or in water. Many hull design engineers have played with hull surface textures over the last 100 years and what we have in many high efficiency hulls now is pretty close to the best thing you are going to achieve using the old "Cost versus Benefit" measurement and results that current technology is providing. Got a "Jillion Dollars" and want something better, have at it, just remember you have to develop it, make it and sell it and hopefully make a profit on the cost of development, manufacture and sales! That's the real tricky & difficult thing to do successfully.

Best Regards,
Ray @ raylar

Golf balls fly becasue they are rotating. Boats dont rotate. Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics follow the exact same fluid dynamic laws, they just have different density and viscosity. Boats deal with both as well as the freesurface.

+1

Disappointing to read this thread :angry-smiley-038:I had the same thoughts 10yrs ago, however it was not by looking at a golf ball, it was through something else which worked this way, and then as you assumed the next most obvious choice was to shape it as you have suggested ... However I do hold a patent on something non boaty :) although that is also racking up the costs on development and like many things may not come to fruition

On the boat idea,I had never done any research to find out if this had already been put into practice, all I knew is I'd never seen a boat hull with these ideas down the boatyard, but what I think is true to say with nearly 7Billion people on the planet it starts to become less likely to think of something that nobody else has ever thought of

The Coandă effect is what is going to make this an inefficient idea. Water will travel the bottom and follow any curves, crevices...etc. This is why any trailing edge has to have a clean break... it's also why, when tabs are even with the trailing bottom, you can raise the bow with negative tab. Steps work because they are ventilated and have clean breaks.

As far as Hull patents. Anyone can patent a hull design but, as those who have tried to enforce these patents will tell you, protecting those designs is another issues all together. Theoretically, aero and hydrodynamic principle designs are by nature discoveries. This falls into a fine line between what is created and what is simply reacting to the laws of physics. Many aircraft design patents are not enforceable because of this very fact.

Good luck with your ventures.

T

It's amazing how a new concept can already be construed almost 100 years prior - in a time when the automobile was in its infancy.

About 18+ years ago when I was in school, I had a few semisters of Naval Archeticual design. This would have been about the time when APBA was on tv.....I had the same idea of dimpling the wetted surfaces or even above the water line if the concept would have worked. Long story short, quickit1 and Raylar on spot on the money.

I had the opportunity to speak with two major golf ball mfg'r engineers about the principals of the air flow of a golfball and the direct impact of the shape/ depth and surface texture of the dimples.

One engineer was a "blow boater" and knew what I was pondering. On a displacement hull ( such as America's Cup) positive dimples could somewhat would improve performance as the variables of water flow across the surface of the hull are MUCH different that that of a planing hull. The cost of technology would have been outragous to find the ideal surface profile to suit an america's cup boat.

With planing hulls, this engineer pointed out that there is no way to defeat the increased drag on the wetted surface unless you could guarentee that you could encapsulate an air pocket within each dimple - the increased surface area created by the dimple would create a larger wetted surface area than a smooth hull. Areodynamic vs hyrodynamic....

Golf balls supposedly decellerate much quicker hitting the water than a smooth ball....

As mentioned golf balls are also travel in an arc and tumble. This path of travel has had million upon millions dumped into the dimple design just to gain a few feet farther than the next company's ball.. One last tidbit, the round dimple is not the most efficient but the least complex and most repeatable in a mfg process so if comes down to cost vs gain.

It was some very interesting phone calls - still remember the bill and possible may have some of the documentation that the companies sent kicking around in a box......and yes there definitely are existing patents. The most cost efficient gains from a hull are to Blue print the bottom and add more HP!

I have seen a few bottoms this way. There was a guy in Florida who was building a Mirage ccopy of some sort. He had dimples in the bottom. He also had a twin prop surface drive from merc on an outboard. The idea from a bravo 3. thing was a screamer. I also believe that HTM had a 24sr with dimpled bottom.