This really sounds comically like a sales pitch: So many fancy words without any explanation or numbers. I mean the animations are great and I can kind of get the idea, but between all the fancy language and epic music, a little more comparison to other technologies in terms of actual numbers and an actual explanation (as opposed to just naming) of the relevant problems and solutions would have been interesting.
You eliminate the cavitation by eliminating the impeller/propeller tips. And the additional noise by eliminating the mechanical power transmission. This is being employed in the US Cavalry-class Light Utility eVTOL Search & Rescue vehicle. At 1,000X the rpms.
Like, this isn't the worst video out there, but if you are going to have someone who speaks english so well read it, why not have someone who speaks English as a first language edit the script?
Companies paying off bureaucrats to make useless regulations to make more money, like the antifouling scam, which caused a huge increase in maintenance and fuel consumption of small boats.
I am eager to buy ships and remove all the propellers and drive shafts. Propellers create a lot of drag, and use far too much energy. I plan to use direct gravity wave propulsion. It is far more efficient. It also increases control over the ship.
There they are for a long time. Common Container Panamax Class with max. 95rpm They do experience uneven flow though, since they have not the shape of a torpedo
To decrease propeller hub cavitation just drill relatively narrow channel from propeller wing (high pressure side) to the hub end. This will decrease efficiency a bit, but getting rid of cavitation... improves efficiency as well.
Noise reduction to 10 DB comes AFTER noise reduction to 3 DB. So Ships are going to get louder by design? Had they said noise reduction BY then those statements would have made sense.
operating a boat is like pushing a baby carriage through the sand. Why not pull. A large commercial vessels creates a bow wave which grossly inhibits forward motion. Why not two pods at the bow not only eliminating the bow wave but using the increased speed to force more water through the pods in direct proportion to the speed. Picture a tanker going 80 mph
A bow wave is created by the hull form, you could add a bulb which may reduce the bow wave. Putting a propeller up front will drastically affect the flow on the hull, thereby increasing the drag and even potentially creating vibration and noise issues. Also, you have to think in terms of the weight distribution of putting pods or propeller upfront. There is also the issue of damaging your pods in a the event of a collision. The entire ship will be a sitting duck. And 80 mph ... haha never going to happen, the power required typically goes up as cube of the velocity. You would need 8 times the power to go twice as fast. The only advantage I can see of putting the pods or propeller upfront is that you get a nice clean inflow to your props.
THIS VIDEO TALKS ABOUT EFICIENCY, BUT DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBERS. I KNOW THAT IN A GOOD DESIGN THE OUTPUT IS, IN THE STATE OF ART, SOMETHING NEAR 60%. IN AZIPOIDAL, MAY RISE UP TO 70%. IN YOUR TECNOLOGY, HOW MUCH??
깝깝하다.... 휴~~ KRISO 라는 연구기관이 저런 깝깝한 연구를 하고 있다니, 1970년 대 이미 NASA 에서 BLC 를 이용한 연구기술들을 일부 카피하고 응용한 것에 지나지 않는데, 이게 몇년 지난 거지? 40년도 훨씬 지나서 이런거를 에너지 저감장치라고 개발하다니, 항공기에 적용한것을 선박에 적용했으니, 기술의 진보성이 있다고 우기는 건가 ? 흣... 바닷물이 무슨 민물처럼 깨끗한 줄 아시는지...잠수부가 들어가서 청소해 줘야하나 ? ㅋ 국민이 낸 세금으로 녹을 먹는 국가기관의 연구원들이 저런 깝깝한 연구주제에 매달려 엄청난 돈을 낭비하니...참...속탑니다. 속타~~
Well, That's REALLY STUPID. First you're going to reduce the noise level to 3db, Then you're going to reduce it back up to 10 db. Who the Hell is in charge of this nonsense ? ? ? Do they even understand that 10 db is FAR NOISIER than 3db ? ? ? Some 'College Boy Genius'
Are you dumb? Yeah, everyone should maximise fuel burn and noise pollution. In fact, let’s get rid of modern turbofans and go back to engines from 1970. You know it’s cheaper for companies to burn less fuel right? Ie. Less spent transporting material from A to B, more money in company pockets. Such dumb thinking, you act like saving money is a bad thing
No it is not idiot. Because burning less fuel means lower speeds, lower energy production. The route from A to B is still as Long as it was before. Furthermore, Turbochargers are not part of the energy Efficiency, that the government imposes on People. But forcing people to pay for bullshit fuel quality is, so it is not cheaper. Also, there are a lot of solutions for noise pollution without reducing fuel, again None are enforced by regulations. Nice way of seeing things though, you are the reason we have These Regulations today, only see one side of the coin. Idiocracy!
amazing!
what is the software that you ùake the simulation with?
Ah the mysterious TH-cam recommendations algorithm...
But knowledge is good for everyone!
"Algorithm", because the term "AI" invokes the thought of Skynet and friends. You know, in the past (1980s~1990s), they used the term AI for this.
Surely, propeller HUB cavitation problems are very TRIVIAL compared with the propeller BLADE cavitation problems. So, why not solve that first?
This really sounds comically like a sales pitch: So many fancy words without any explanation or numbers.
I mean the animations are great and I can kind of get the idea, but between all the fancy language and epic music, a little more comparison to other technologies in terms of actual numbers and an actual explanation (as opposed to just naming) of the relevant problems and solutions would have been interesting.
nice content....thanks for sharing
Wonder if it also works on Large Pod Propellors onboard Cruise ships
Re-edit and remove the unnecessarily loud and interfering muzak.
Interesting .Thanks !
Ok, I'm sold! But unfortunately I don't have a ship to put them on.
You eliminate the cavitation by eliminating the impeller/propeller tips. And the additional noise by eliminating the mechanical power transmission. This is being employed in the US Cavalry-class Light Utility eVTOL Search & Rescue vehicle. At 1,000X the rpms.
Like, this isn't the worst video out there, but if you are going to have someone who speaks english so well read it, why not have someone who speaks English as a first language edit the script?
Like reducing decibel levels to 10, from 3 ?
Patented? How much will it cost?
"Commercialized" sounds like it will cost a lot and not do much to save the environment.
Companies paying off bureaucrats to make useless regulations to make more money, like the antifouling scam, which caused a huge increase in maintenance and fuel consumption of small boats.
I am eager to buy ships and remove all the propellers and drive shafts. Propellers create a lot of drag, and use far too much energy. I plan to use direct gravity wave propulsion. It is far more efficient. It also increases control over the ship.
If you found a reliable source for merging super massive black holes please let me know.
Good
The Navy has had super-quiet propellers for submarines for years. It is all secret though.
It was mostly vibration of the engines. By removing that they became 'quiet'.
I don't think they made very many changes to the propeller.
2:09 That is a nice soundtrack. May I know what is the song title and where can I get it? Thanks in advanced.
Intel & Nvidia SUXXZZZ!!! Damn 1 year still no reply
iPhysicz ...ask your phone to name that tune ...enjoy ....
Elcteo dance promo check the description
why not do what subs do large prop that rotates slower
There they are for a long time. Common Container Panamax Class with max. 95rpm
They do experience uneven flow though, since they have not the shape of a torpedo
Bravo! Well done!
What a science!
To decrease propeller hub cavitation just drill relatively narrow channel from propeller wing (high pressure side) to the hub end. This will decrease efficiency a bit, but getting rid of cavitation... improves efficiency as well.
The corkscrew, conchshell shape is most efficient.
Bombastic Buster : as a pump yes for propulsion no ...
Noise reduction to 10 DB comes AFTER noise reduction to 3 DB. So Ships are going to get louder by design? Had they said noise reduction BY then those statements would have made sense.
A reduction of 3db and later 10db. They didn't indicate the prior noise level.
@@PointyTailofSatan He said reduction TO, As V Star said.
@@mikemckelvey7144 3db is the sound of a falling pin hitting a desk. 10db is the sound of someone coughing 100 yards away. lol
0:33 to 3dB or for 3dB?
American technical writers would use "by 3dB".
Great!
Very Good. We are making tests with cavitation for Cannabis Oil extraction ate PHARMAIUM
Excellent
1:09 its nice they used the Big U (United States) :DD
They used it as an example of inefficient ship though.
pregunto...!!!!???? si es tan deficiente la traducción automática....???, porque se sigue usando, a quien beneficia???
best of luck to dr sols and hansin.............
How did I get from a vid on the Falklands conflict to this
operating a boat is like pushing a baby carriage through the sand. Why not pull. A large commercial vessels creates a bow wave which grossly inhibits forward motion. Why not two pods at the bow not only eliminating the bow wave but using the increased speed to force more water through the pods in direct proportion to the speed. Picture a tanker going 80 mph
A bow wave is created by the hull form, you could add a bulb which may reduce the bow wave. Putting a propeller up front will drastically affect the flow on the hull, thereby increasing the drag and even potentially creating vibration and noise issues. Also, you have to think in terms of the weight distribution of putting pods or propeller upfront. There is also the issue of damaging your pods in a the event of a collision. The entire ship will be a sitting duck. And 80 mph ... haha never going to happen, the power required typically goes up as cube of the velocity. You would need 8 times the power to go twice as fast.
The only advantage I can see of putting the pods or propeller upfront is that you get a nice clean inflow to your props.
@@qwertyman9560 how fast (mph) does a tanker usually travel across ocean?
@@garden0fstone736 Typically around 15 knots, that's 7.5 m/s
👍👍👍
Very nice thank you so much
위대한 한국인 ^^
Small device , big claims .
Why isnt this done on outboard engines?
Because usually the exhaust exists the center of the propeller
What about multi propeller.
Reduce TO 3dB near term and to a louder 10 dB in out years? lol
Maybe BY 3 dB and BY 10 dB REDUCTIONS? Not massive improvements.
The decibel scale is logarithmic
Where did you go for college American university of New Samoa
Put a shroud around it and you will have something there
All lost when it's windy!
nice!
The music is distracting and not necessary.
Sir,
I want to know about marine propulsion system.
Plz help me
When rowing the boat the harder you pull the faster you go
not 1 meantion of how many % icrease in efficiency? full of bullshit designs to make it look like they are doing work for the boss. jail them
Use a real voice next time! Real voice for real human customers.
Cool : thanks
THIS VIDEO TALKS ABOUT EFICIENCY, BUT DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBERS. I KNOW THAT IN A GOOD DESIGN THE OUTPUT IS, IN THE STATE OF ART, SOMETHING NEAR 60%. IN AZIPOIDAL, MAY RISE UP TO 70%. IN YOUR TECNOLOGY, HOW MUCH??
just computer animaton, nothing real for this time? :((( it is good for the brain to exercise his function, it have is value this muvie afterall :)
computational simulations are really accurate now days.
Sono piccoli accorgimenti ci vuole ben altro, potrei molto anzi di più ma.....
... primitive technology
Music is a total nuisance.
Жаль перевода нет...
깝깝하다....
휴~~ KRISO 라는 연구기관이 저런 깝깝한 연구를 하고 있다니, 1970년 대 이미 NASA 에서 BLC 를 이용한 연구기술들을 일부 카피하고 응용한 것에 지나지 않는데, 이게 몇년 지난 거지?
40년도 훨씬 지나서 이런거를 에너지 저감장치라고 개발하다니, 항공기에 적용한것을 선박에 적용했으니, 기술의 진보성이 있다고 우기는 건가 ?
흣... 바닷물이 무슨 민물처럼 깨끗한 줄 아시는지...잠수부가 들어가서 청소해 줘야하나 ? ㅋ
국민이 낸 세금으로 녹을 먹는 국가기관의 연구원들이 저런 깝깝한 연구주제에 매달려 엄청난 돈을 낭비하니...참...속탑니다. 속타~~
But i like noise
Noise reduction means reduction of fun and less exitement.
Guess wy i like old Triple expansion Steam engines
Nobody cares what the ship sounds like thousand miles off the coast at sea. The point is to reduce noise impact on sea life.
better idea... buy AMERICAN Made and transport it on TRAINS and TRUCKS......
90% of the world's trade happens through shipping, so that aint going to happen.
Hi
30年遅れの技術ですね。プロペラ形状なんて、50年遅れの形状を平然と出すなんて。
比較対象とするだけ、異常。
Well, That's REALLY STUPID. First you're going to reduce the noise level to 3db, Then you're going to reduce it back up to 10 db.
Who the Hell is in charge of this nonsense ? ? ? Do they even understand that 10 db is FAR NOISIER than 3db ? ? ?
Some 'College Boy Genius'
JAMES TUTTLE thought that was what I heard! Shrouds are supposed to be up to 30% more efficient under 10 knots!
Chill bro
Everyone who is responsible for the "energy efficiency" bullshit, should be put in jail.
TROLL !
It must have been the French. It is always the French!
Are you dumb? Yeah, everyone should maximise fuel burn and noise pollution. In fact, let’s get rid of modern turbofans and go back to engines from 1970.
You know it’s cheaper for companies to burn less fuel right? Ie. Less spent transporting material from A to B, more money in company pockets.
Such dumb thinking, you act like saving money is a bad thing
No it is not idiot. Because burning less fuel means lower speeds, lower energy production. The route from A to B is still as Long as it was before. Furthermore, Turbochargers are not part of the energy Efficiency, that the government imposes on People. But forcing people to pay for bullshit fuel quality is, so it is not cheaper. Also, there are a lot of solutions for noise pollution without reducing fuel, again None are enforced by regulations. Nice way of seeing things though, you are the reason we have These Regulations today, only see one side of the coin. Idiocracy!
Scho0rschi you're a fucking moron, holy shit