The bow tends to climb as the bow wave approaches Hull speed (lifting the front half of the boat on the wave angle), and the aft tends to sink (increasing the waterline area, and drag forces).
This is not that much beneficial. They are improving wave-making resistance but adding too much weight + wetted surface area. In addition, this technology is already used via BULBS. You simply put the bulb behind the ship and destroy the flow that comes from the propeller. The water should be as much as more open after the propeller. Propellers have the best efficiency when there is open water. You little bit of improved stern wake and that is all. There is no way to gain 14% efficiency with this with any hydrodynamically analyzed ships. The effect and benefit is exaggerated.
Hi, great upgrade for any boats, yachts or ships! Any chance to see a video with a dynamic hull vane at work on a real ship or yacht? Thanks for the videos...very interesting upgrade.
Wow, 12-14% is HUGE savings for something so relatively simple.. Great Innovation...sharply lowers Fuel Cost, Maintenance, OPEX and GHG Emmissions! Congratulations....
Excellent proposal and quite obvious from the beginning of the idea. New materials and construction techniques, leaving behind the "vase" and offering a new range of hull options to avoid waterlogging and discomfort on board. The rowing boat will remain, for a classic experience only.
but for the same range, you need less fuel, so it reduces Emission and if you increase range because of lower fuelburn it reduces Emissions too overall
@@santyclause8034 lets look at Research-Papers from frontiersin and ship-technology: Boat emissions vary significantly at different speeds. Here are some key points based on that research: Reducing speeds across shipping Vessels has been shown to make a substantial contribution to effective short term measures for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A modest 10% speed reduction across the global fleet has been estimated to reduce overall GHG emissions by around 13%. A 20% reduction in speed would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides. This speed limit would also cut underwater noise by 66%. When ships travel more slowly they burn less fuel, which means there are also savings in black carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen oxides. In conclusion, slower vessel speeds, which increases btw. the Range of a Vessel, can significantly reduce GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. Let´s take a real life example of a 73ft (lwl) Steel hull full displacement Yacht with 165 mT Displacement, equipped with twin Cummins QSM 11 350HP marine Diesel Engines. The Max Speed is 11 Knot - Cruising Speed is 9 Knots ... at Max Speed (11 Knots), this Vessel burns 130l/h on 100% Engine Load, which equtes to a roughly 2200nm Range. If you drop the Engine Load to 50%, you reduce your Speed only at 20% to 9 Knots and burn only 67l/h, which increases your Range to 4500nm. If you decrease Your Engine Load by 50% - you also decrease your ghg-Emissions by around 20%. The Kicker comes, if you shut down one Engine and run the remaining Engine at around 51% Load - which is around 8,5 Knots, this drops your Fuel consumption to 47l/h and increases your Range to around 5000nm by decreasing your ghg-Emissions by around 30% overall ... so, the tankfull Fuel will NOT produce the same volume of ghg-emissions no matter what ...
This has got to be the dumbest comment I've read in a while. So you are saying that a car that gets 15 mpgs, improves its efficiency to 20, or 22 mpgs...is of no benefit to emissions although it burns less fuel to achieve the same work. Ffs. You must be a modern-day college grad. No wonder our diesel technology is so messed up. We could easily have doubled the efficiency of modern diesels, yet with people that think like you. We burn more diesel yet add Def fluid to the combustion. Smh.
I was just thinking of a dynamic hull vane type mechanism, but fitted to the bow to control pitching and slamming in rougher seas. Imagine Canard type vanes that can be retracted or deployed. It is almost like the stabilizers already fitted on the sides of yachts. Very interesting the dynamic hull vane.
Dear Mickey, no, on a semi-displacement hull we recommend to install the Hull Vane solution: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bSQVw_C0BrE.html Foil Assist is for planing hulls.
I don't agree with it being complicated, it's like the wing on the back of a van....turned upside down. Reduce drag, and make it more stable. I'm sure I saw this on a RU-vid video about a year ago, thinking what a good idea. What else can we take from the automobile industry, and apply it to boats?
Hi Bruce, could you send an e-mail to info(a)hullvane.com with the maximum speed of the boat, as well as your cruising speed and (if you have them) some pictures of the hull?
hi guys, your video can win more fun if you give translation in english. I can understand holländisch from Deutschland :), but people from another countries, maybe not.
Totally B.S.! The hull is like a pendulum. Lift the rear end and the whole rest of the hull sinks into the water causing more friction. Which is why foils are amidship OR PLACED ON BOTH ENDS TO lift the entire hull as on a ferry. Also, why not just build ships to ride deeper in the bow area to begin with, with weight distribution... Because engineers know better. design alone can lift or deepen either end. Also, I DOUBT speed on large ships is just not adequate with their weight for a foil to cause even that low percentage, IMHO... And if it were reversed, would bring the widest part of the hull DEEPER into the water which would create even more drag... Foils on boats have been around for decades. The U.S. Navy put them on the fast PT Boats and made the very fast a long time ago ...
Dear Rob, did you watch the explanation in the video? Kindly also view the other videos on our channel. The purpose of Hull Vane is not to lift the vessel at the aft (even though that happens and is beneficial on many ships). The purpose is to reduce the overall resistance. You can clearly see this in the reduction of the stern wave (waves are energy, when a ship makes less waves, it consumes less energy). Hull Vane has very little in common with the 100% hydrofoiling applications on US navy patrol boats, Russian ferries and America's Cup sailing boats. Different kind of ships (in weight especially), different location of the foil, different goal and different working principles.
I was Ch Officer of a 100m long coastal tanker, max draft 6.0m. When fully loaded i kept a 0.5 -1.0m trim by the stern. Sea speed about 11.0 knots. Contrary to what was shown in the video, at sea speed my vessel takes a trim by the bow, even with initial static trim of 0.5 - 1.0m by the stern. When my ship moves ahead at sea, rain water and sea water on deck would flow forward towards the bow. When the vessel reduces speed on arrival port, the water flowed aft. Perhaps this aspect needs to be studied further. With the hull vane fitted, i presume the ship will be trimmed more by the head when moving at sea, lowering the bow height above water.
Would it work on Fishing vessels at speeds of around 5kn? it would be benefitial since the maximum power allowed for fishing vessels is restricted. (but the regulation dating from 1975 never took the shape of the ship into account) If this can help the fishing vessel reach the ideal 'fishing speed' at around 4.5- 5.5 knots, combined with better fuel efficiency and stability that would be very interesting.
Do you mean interceptors with cav plates? There is a paper comparing Hull Vane with interceptors at various speeds for a typical round bilge displacement hull on our website (AMECRC series 13): www.hullvane.com/papers/
@@hullvanebv2550 Interesting. I'm curious as to the differences between the fixed propulsion you diagram and outboard propulsion. The cav plates/ appended vanes I've seen on either side of outboard driven boats help with planing. I believe that your treatise is also. As well as efficiency.
