Thanks for the amazing response everyone. I just wanted to address a few points raised in the comments. I like to keep things as accurate as I can so do continue call me out when I get things wrong and I'll correct anything needed. Hull Speed - is not actually a speed limit. As many have pointed out, it is just when the vessel's length equals the bow wave length. It doesn't actually restrict a vessel's speed. HP - is used purely for ease of comprehension as it is easier to visualise than kW. Drag - it does depend on numerous factors, but I kept it as a cross section alone as the main point was to illustrate the way it increases with speed. Obvious Answer - maybe, but the purpose of the video is entertainment. I have plenty of tutorials on the channel so am making videos like this for fun. Again, thanks for watching!
Slightly wrong about the drag equation. It is uncommon to use d to represent density, which is a very important factor as the density of water is much greater than that of air and is the main contribution to the drag force. Secondly, for low speeds, drag is said to be proportional to v not v squared. This is because drag force is not something that is fully understood and the equation is just an approximation. For low speeds, it is impossible to tell the difference between quadratic and linear proportionality. For high speeds however, it will be very obvious.
Hull speed absolutely is a speed limit when operating a displacement hull. Unless you push it onto plane, which takes exponentially more power, especially for a hull not designed for hydrodynamic lift.
25 knots is about 50km/h which is pretty fast. Thats pretty fast for large vessels. I work myself at an offshore construction vessel and we usually inly sail in 8-9 knots. About 3 knots in heavy waves.
@@pandahungry8000 He was talking about the point of ships. The fuel used per tons carried is extremely low, so it doesn't really matter how long it takes. It's an efficient method to transport great loads of product across very long distances
@@pandahungry8000 Size matters, a huge ship like that can work with a crew of 11-15. That is for day and night... If you put your cargo on 10 smaller ships, sure each smaller ships itself might need less but with 10 ships...you still might end up paying 40-50 people! And that is the people, how about the fuel, again, that huge engine, per tonnage moved, uses less then if you use 10 smaller ships. How about pollution, same... that one engine doing the work of 10 smaller ships puts out less pollution than 10 ships. So the cost is lower for the business of moving the stuff, meaning the cost is lower to get goods from A to B, meaning that the business selling goods can make more money/lower prices. And all that because we have huge ships.
You actually want less HP per ton that means you're using less energy to move more mass. Airplanes are pretty much the most inefficient way to move anything. I wish he would have explained why it's still used today.
A plane can skip about anywhere on the planet in a day: but that ship is carrying far far far more cargo than the plane could ever hope for and makes the whole operation much more economical than airmailing everything for the sake of speed alone.
@@AtomiK-XIX-Bit Sure, if you had the money you could do anything you wanted. The point is that everything you see on shop shelves that have been imported probably arrived in a shipping container: if it arrived by airmail the price of everything would go up tenfold because aircraft are much less efficient than bulk freighting
This simplistic approach to the subject is a perfect way of introducing someone to PHYSICS. Therefore, I would encourage you contact high schools and some colleges and ask that they make your videos standard viewing material for their students. I only wish I had these visual aids when I attending college physics many moons ago. You did a marvelous job here!
You just missed the one essential fact in the plane-car-ship comparison. Fuel use per ton moved per distance. Addition if this would have given a sterling illustration of WHY we use superhuge ships for mass cargo transport.
Red Ships would easily win that. The largest oil tankers transport over 500 000 metric tons of oil at a time. The Emma Maersk weights 62 000 tons on its own (lightship condition), yet she can carry up to 157 000 tons of deadweight. More than twice her own weight.
Red That would be interesting indeed. The AN-225 has a payload of about one ballast tank in a medium sized ship, a single tank that is, out of 12, so i would be surprised if its not many fold the cost of a ship. That maximum payload is like a balance scale weight to a ship.
Burrito Bowl01 Somewhat lighter = moderately lighter when compared with the greater magnitude of difference between a car and airliner or airliner and cargo ship.
@@fred2796 He's talking about the weight. The difference between the weight of the jet vs the weight of the normal sedan is greater than the weight of the sedan vs the weight of the F1 car. He's not talking about the difference in Horsepower or the Horsepower to ton ratio.
That depends. In the 1980s I worked on twin steam turbine, twin screw container ships that could go from the UK to the Far East in just under six weeks. Cruising speed was between 25-30 knots and we burned £,£££s of pounds worth of fuel per hour, but many freight forwarders would pay the premium price for the fast delivery. The company was Ben Line Steamers of Leith, Scotland. Their slogan was "Fast to the Far East" Does a Cross-Channel hydrofoil doing 40 knots or a Pegasus class destroyer count as a ship?
@@ChazizMTA That's the thing larger ships tend to either be faster or more efficient (which is a design choice), this has everything to do with the square-cube law which comes about because while the length is almost irrelevant to drag it is very relevant to volume and thus buoyancy. For this reason, if you double every dimension (beam, draft, and length) you increase your drag by a factor of 4 but the volume and weight capacity by a factor of 8 which allows way more mass to be devoted to the engine, fuel capacity and payload the choice between efficiency and speed is the tradeoffs the designer chooses in how to spend this extra mass budget.
@@seraphina985 that's one part of the equation but there is also a hull speed to do with the wave length created by the boat, shorter boats can actually require more energy to go the same speed as a longer one.
I'm so glad there's a channel out there covering nautical topics. My father was in the navy, so I find these topics fascinating, but most people I run into have no interest in them. I hope this grows into a mega-channel.
Nice video, I worked for a shipping company for some years, also a Danish shipping company like Maersk. Shipping companies. or atleast the US and EU are trying to find ways to make ships more economical. there are also resistance of the paint on the sides ( so it's important to use paint that has low resistance ) . And sea animals attaching, so it's important to keep the vessel clean too. this affects the resistance A LOT, and is measurable. Another thing is bunkers oil, if people don't know what bunkers is. basically it's the leftover material of refined oil. Oil that is pumped up, goes through a treatment, where you make Diesel oil, gasoline, and other products, and the leftover is just bunkers oil, which vessel use. Also, it become a thing to "slow steam" which means, if you have 14 days to get from point A to point B . and you could do it in 12 days, with 20 knots, but 14 days with 12 knots. that is the prefered way. even if it means delivering items slower. Some Maersk vessels also use sails, like a big kite if the wind is correct. it might sound stupid, but if you have plenty of time, it saves millions of dollars. Also, there are two types of the Maersk Triple-E The first x amount of triple-E vessels were produced with a single engine, as the later models came with 2 smaller engines :-) More economical!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thats a good question
When something copy righted or something shows up, instead of talking down the video youtube shows the creators where to censor so they do that. It sucks but at least we get to see the video. Gotta add, fuck this censorship bro.
Ships seem slow because, today, we can compare them to airplanes and cars. As recently as a one to two hundred years ago, ships were the fastest way to get around. Not to mention technological improvements that allow ships to cruise at 20+ knots- five hundred years ago it took months to cross the Atlantic.
Trains were invented in 1804. They were the fastest mode of transportation at the time, followed by horses. And horses were always faster than ships. But for crossing an ocean, ships were our only choice until airplanes came along 👍
Raturagutulei Moses yes, and they also travel 24 hours a day, which makes a huge difference, a point not compared with "physics" presented in this video.
Most small boats plane at 15-20 knots and 20 knots is what I'd cruise with my 17ft boat. Its definitely not slow for big ship. Besides some fast boats. Most recreational small boats max out at low 30's knots
This is the first of your videos I've seen, and I must say, I'm impressed. Despite the relative simplicity of the topic - it could literally be answered by saying "ships have much more drag" - you still managed to go into a good amount of detail and simultaneously gave a good account of the maths without overcomplicating it. I personally would've liked to have seen it mentioned that ships also have to deal with air resistance in the same way that both air resistance and friction were mentioned for cars, but I understand that that might be complicating it for some. Very well done!
Huge ships are actually an engineering marvel. They move huge amounts of cargo much more economically than I'd all the cargo was moved by trucks. All things considered the ability to move hundreds of containers with minimal human labor involved and less fuel.
@@OpenGL4ever 3 routes for different goods. - air ( 1 day travel ) - sea ( 2 months travel ) - railroad ( 1 week travel ) Railcargo is much cheaper as aircargo but has less traveltime. for Bulk, heavy equipment and no time restrictions the Ship always wins.
3:22 - "Do you remember working out terminal velocity in school"? Thankfully, no. I've spent the better part of the last 45 years trying to forget those nightmares.
In fact that's the main reason, haha - think about a car that only has 0,5-1 hp, haha. That would be much slower than the ship, just because of the rolling resistance of the tires. Even though the ship has a lot of drag going in water, that resistance doesn't scale up at the same rate as the weight (wich is also why large ships tend to be faster than smaller, like he said in the video) - so compared to it's weight, a large ship has lower total resistance moving forward, than a car. But a train or even a tram would in fact be able to go like 60-80 km/h (about 32-43 knots) since it's rolling resistance is like 1/10 of a car, compared to its weight, and the air resistance doesn't get very high either, at those speeds. Although, even a rail vehicle would not be useful with such low power, since it would take "forever" to get up to speed and also going uphill would be a problem - even a quite small hill would slow the vehicle down to walk speed (this is something a ship doesn't have to deal with, going on a water surface, that by it's nature always stays perfectly flat). A plane would need far more than 0,5 hp/ton to generate enough lift to even be able to fly at all, regardless of wich speed it's going - so that's out of the quiestion, hahaha
@@Speeder84XL But trains often do run at that kind of ratio. The difference is that a diesel locomotive is only using it's diesel engine as a generator so it really can't stall and you get the benefits of electric motors for the actual driving. Diesel locomotives are pretty heavy and have all wheel power delivery trough electric motors, combine that with really low rolling resistance on rail and they are really really good at draging crap on rail. The country I live in is relatively flat so you get stuff like this th-cam.com/video/10h-jE8cfV4/w-d-xo.html these 2 section locomotives have ~4600hp combined and the consists they are pulling are ~5000 tons so we're under 1hp/t here and it works pretty well.
@@GreatGodSajuuk That's true - I didn't thaught about those really heavy freight trains. They can indeed make it with similar power to weight ratios. Once they get up to speed, they can also often go up small hills quite easely using their momentum (since there is almost nothing except gravity, that slows them down) :)
Speeder84XL is the ocean that these overgrown boats sail the globe on really perfectly flat? Or do does it wrap around the globe? Do you really believe that the earth is flat?🌏
The advantage of big ships is the carrying capacity increases with, roughly the cube of size while the driving energy, fuel consumption, by the square. The bigger the ship the lower the cost per ton of cargo.
Thanks for this! I love a detailed yet simple explanation. That’s when I know I’m listening to fact. It’s been 20 years since I last studied physics and it’s nice to not be patronised while having a short refresher. 👌🏽 10/10
In 1976 I joined a container vessel in Southampton, spent a day loading and sailed. Through Panama Canal, Tokyo, Kobe, Hong Kong, Singapore and back to Southampton around the Cape of Good Hope. This took 59 days, the vessel averages 26 Knots, 950ft long 103 ft beam. I think that's fast. Carrying , loading and discharging containers.
It probably had some generic sponsor on the car and F1 sponsors are notorious a-holes. Likely had to blur it out to avoid demonetization and it was just easier to blur the whole car rather than the small logo
Congratulations on your videos, most of them take me back to my days at the academy, and some of them are curiosities that I didn’t know. Keep up the good work.
Did you forget the hullspeed? Hullspeed [km/h] = 4,5 x SQRT Waterlenght [m] That is the max. speed for a "not planning" vessel. 80 % Hullspeed is the economic speed for a small vessel.
The cat can also go faster because it has very long, narrow, and sharp hulls which don't make a lot of wave. The same applies for some kayaks, racing rowing boats and military speed boats. Some of the latter use also the Lürssen-Effekt. There are a lot of effects, which would blow the video too complex. Fast cat ferries also use the space between the hulls to build up an air cushion to lift them and reduce drag. Emma Maersk is cruising far below her hull speed, which would be about 48 knots. If you would double a ships speed (still being under 80% of her hull speed) you would need 4 times as much fuel for the same distance and an 8 times more powerful engine (you want to burn 4 times the fuel in half the time so it has to burn it 8 times as fast). The hull speed formula is not 100% applicable. Most yachts for example have a transom (German: Spiegelheck) so they have a longer virtual waterline which varies with their speed.
Your explanation is incomplete. You missed to explain the secret about the Hull speed. 6:38 Submarines do dive to get rid of the problem which is introduced by the hull speed. Thus they are much faster when submerged. The rest is sheer power. When driven by a nuclear reactor, they canj easily reach over 30 knots. And these are only the official numbers.
Hull speed is a factor of overall length and displacement, At a certain speed, if the hull is not designed to rise up on plane, or is just too heavy the bow wave gets deeper and adding more power just sucks the ship deeper, increasing drag. a bad analogy, very much of an oversimplification would be like breaking the sound barrier. Hull speed equation (simple version) HS= SQRT(OAL x 1.2)
The reason subs is faster when they are submerged have mostly to do with cavitation... Or rather lack there of. A sub is simply faster due to having a very powerfull engine. Most hydrofoil or catamarans have water-jet to combat cavitation. Submarines don't want that because water-jet is noisy
Now compare the speed of transport. A car would carry 400kg loaded. The ship for example 50.000kg. So even though the car is faster, it would need to do the same distance like 125000 times? Go back empty, pick up another load and do it again, increasing it to about 250.000 trips? Comparing it that way, the ship is at warp 10 compared to planes and especially cars.
There is another important factor missing which is hull speed. Slightly simplified, a ship in displacement mode (as compared to planing mode like a small RIB for example) will create a wave system and at a certain speed it will sail uphill on its own wave. The hull speed is increasing with the length of the waterline so this is more of an issue for a recreational 10m sailing yacht (hull speed 7.6kn) and has a more limited effect on large ships (400m vessel -> 48kn) but its effects are noticable in terms of fuel consumption. And this is another very important factor that is a bit missing here. While it is possible to build container ships that sail faster than 20 knots it is simply not economic as nobody would pay extra for a 1 day faster shipment from China to Europe.
As a freight forwarder in europe i can tell you people pay extra for 4 days off the total transit. So much that carriers offer usually 2 services (MD1 and MD2) to get from south europe to main ports of china
Sees the title: duhh, because they're damn huge sailing monstrosities that carries hundreds of containers Still watching it, then afterwards: I knew it, but surprisingly learned some more 😏
The norwegian marine have some vessel called the "Skjold class". They have two jet engines. Insanely fast, and are mobilized with some of the most advanced missiles in the world. I was onboard ine of those, fucking hell theyre awesome.
I salute you for doing this entire video without ever touching upon the topic of bow wave resistance which isn't the main factor for the biggest cargo ships because they operate at displacement speed for their hull length and shape but it is certainly a factor for the fast catamaran passenger ferries and small speedboats (the sharp hulls of the really fast catarmaran ferries makes it a lot easier to pierce the bow wave and also detaches easier from the waterflow around them). The main reason for smaller cargo vessels being slower than the superships is because they are also "displacement hulls" but their shorter length makes their displacement speed slower because their bow wave can not be as long, if you try to go faster than your displacement speed your ship will have to climb a "hill" which is created by your own bow wave. A bulb in the bow of the ship "trips" the bow wave before the main part of the hull gets to it (by creating its own wave at the appropriate distance to cancel out the bow wave from the main mass of the hull) which improves performance a bit but you still can't go much faster or else your stern will sink into the trough of the wave causing your whole ship to sit lower in the water and have to climb ever more "uphill" as the speed increases, as you can imagine: that takes a lot of power.
Someone was saying that they think TH-cam did it, because they had already seen this video and the first time there was no blurring. I think I can further testify this as now its not only the F1 car, but also the logo on the side of the ship as well as some of the other images he used. Like when he was talking about the faster ferries, there were literally two images that were just straight blur.
As someone who has witnessed a container ship leave to head out to open sea in a shipping lane ( I was piloting a gillnetter when they passed about 150 feet directly in front of me) I’ll say they can move pretty fast for their size.
When you go to a pool or to the beach, put your arm underwater and try to move it as fast as you can. Once you get way out of the water, try to move your arm as fast as you can. Try to grasp the difference in resistance levels. That's your answer as to why ships move much slower to cars, planes or trains. Also take in consideration that the more area exposed to the air flow or water increases resistance, so bigger the ship, the slower it will move and why speedboats move fast af.
My friend had a contract to cut up a container ship for scrap. It was in a slip in the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia. I was really surprised how easily it moved at low speed. He had to move it about 100 feet in the slip to secure it the way he wanted and pulled it with a 4 wheel drive Chevy pickup in 4 wheel low range. It really didn't strain at all
Great vid, as usual. I did not know that Jumbo jets had so much "oomph" it's stunning how many MPG they get. But I do recall that the QE2 and Concord had the same power.
@@seraphina985 Really interesting to read up on this. Found out that TOGA thrust can usually only be sustained for about 5 minutes, and the setting below that (max continuous thrust) is, well, the maximum amount of thrust that an engine can put out continuously. But you're absolutely correct. Proportionally, by far most of the energy that a plane uses is used during takeoff and ascent. And while they still burn a shit ton of fuel when they're at cruise altitude, it's important to note that they're also super fast (on account of experiencing way less air resistance up there), meaning the amount of fuel used per unit of distance is actually fairly modest. On longer trips, travelling by plane is more fuel efficient than travelling by car alone (although the plane and car match up when you have 2 people in the car, and the car becomes more fuel efficient if you also reduce the trip size). That's also a really good reason for banning short haul flights between city pairs that have a competitive high speed rail link - trains blow all other modes of transportation out of the water in terms of energy efficiency. But that's a different discussion.
@@alex2143 Indeed trains are excellent in big part due to their steel wheels not deforming much which keeps rolling resistance low. Car tires loose a lot of energy due to it being dissipated as heat due to the internal friction as they deform while rolling and the larger contact patch due to the tyre effectively flattening against the road also creates more friction. Obviously this does happen with steel train wheels also to a point but it's very slight because steel is way stiffer and can handle the stress with much less deformation. Downside of this is it makes them really vulnerable to surfaces with poor traction being far more prone to wheel slip, thus why leaves on the line are a real problem accelerating and decelerating a train with crushed oily leaves on the track does not work so well.
The feather doesn't fall slower because it experiences more air resistance than the ball. It falls slower because the air resistance per unit weight is higher.
Jimbob Actually it is per engine but it doesn’t really make sense to compare, because it depends so much on air pressure, current speed and much other.
I was in the US Navy in my youth, a half century ago, and served aboard Gearing class destroyers, built at the end of WWII. These were 3540 ton vessels that were about 120 meters long and 13 meters wide at the beam. Powered by 60,000 hp steam turbines, they could reach speeds of 33 kt's (36-37 mph). My paternal ancestor came to America from England in 1638 on a wooden sailing vessel, arriving in Boston after a 50 day crossing at an average speed of 2-2.5 kt's. What contrast in speed and crossing time, the 300+ years brought.
Compare what a ship, plane, and car, (or truck) can carry for cargo. Then see how long it would take for each to move the same amount, you'll quickly see that while a ship 'moves' slower it actually gets more cargo transported faster and cheaper.
I've been on a catamaran to Helgoland, and it does the journey that usually takes 3-4 hours in 1. It's also the only time I've ever been seasick when we had a bit of weather on the trip and the ship was skipping over the waves. Almost all the passengers were sick and vomiting and two (probably) seamen ate lunch on the table next to ours. XD
@@CasualNavigation How about a video comparing different hull designs? Or one on what people are currently trying to improve in ship design, like what sort of engineering/technical challenges there are to overcome, ect...
He also said that the average car has 100 hp. Maybe British hp is significantly different but I can't think of any car with 100 hp besides a smart car. Most economy cars are in the 150-220 hp range.
@@MrCody01 In the US, yes. In Europe most people buy 60-150hp cars because engines with higher power output usually consume more fuel, which is expensive as fuck in most of Europe (e.g. $6+/gal (US)). Cars with higher displacement engines are also taxed heavier --> fewer people buy them. Besides that, for the average person 100hp is more than enough in day-to-day life. Hell, even my 85hp Golf Mk7 could fly down the Autobahn at 115mph.
Thanks for the amazing response everyone. I just wanted to address a few points raised in the comments. I like to keep things as accurate as I can so do continue call me out when I get things wrong and I'll correct anything needed.
Hull Speed - is not actually a speed limit. As many have pointed out, it is just when the vessel's length equals the bow wave length. It doesn't actually restrict a vessel's speed.
HP - is used purely for ease of comprehension as it is easier to visualise than kW.
Drag - it does depend on numerous factors, but I kept it as a cross section alone as the main point was to illustrate the way it increases with speed.
Obvious Answer - maybe, but the purpose of the video is entertainment. I have plenty of tutorials on the channel so am making videos like this for fun.
Again, thanks for watching!
Squat will be covered in a future video. You have to account for it every time when docking a large ship
I like the video you should do one the bubble system that reduces drag on the bottom of the ship to glide better
Slightly wrong about the drag equation. It is uncommon to use d to represent density, which is a very important factor as the density of water is much greater than that of air and is the main contribution to the drag force. Secondly, for low speeds, drag is said to be proportional to v not v squared. This is because drag force is not something that is fully understood and the equation is just an approximation. For low speeds, it is impossible to tell the difference between quadratic and linear proportionality. For high speeds however, it will be very obvious.
Nice video super informative
Hull speed absolutely is a speed limit when operating a displacement hull. Unless you push it onto plane, which takes exponentially more power, especially for a hull not designed for hydrodynamic lift.
If you're sitting in a sailboat, and one of those container/oil ships comes barreling at you at, say 25 knots, you won't think they're so slow!
25 knots is about 50km/h which is pretty fast. Thats pretty fast for large vessels. I work myself at an offshore construction vessel and we usually inly sail in 8-9 knots. About 3 knots in heavy waves.
@@TheFrontyer yeah, all i know is that it was faster than the diesel in our 40' sailboat, and as Murphy would have it, the wind had died down!
@@buixote Yeah I am sure of that. Thats a violation of the naval right of way lawsn luckily it went good I guess.
Get an AC72 😛
Frontyer 50 km/h is snail's pace when compared to car on motorway.
Because seeing one of these skip around like a speedboat would be way too awesome for any of us to handle.
Now im picturing a big fucking boat pulling the dankest wheelie on the ocean in like 60 km/h
...form a LARGE distance, preferably through a telescope.
Benjamin Sletten bfg?
Nah
Bfb
Hahaha good point, way too much for our simple minds
*F1 racers*: We are the dank speedys
*Random captain who put turbo on his ship and maxed the engine*: Hold my bass.
dam I got tricked into learning math
Lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
Jajaja
"Cathedral engines" sounds like something out of 40k
Lmao, it does.
Now I want to see a modern cargo ship just in the style of the 40k IOM.
@@mycoolhandgiveit In Star Wars there are those Rebel transport ships that look like space containers
I choose to believe they have a bunch of mechanical monks doing Gregorian chants to keep the engine running.
@@arthas640 Gotta keep that Machine spirit happy. A sad Machine spirit makes everyone's lives worse.
*_The Omnissiah brought us here_*
One factor missing in this video would be fuel used per tons carried. It would help understand the point of ships.
Math123 fuel aint gonna make much of a difference. They are ships not tuner cars
@@pandahungry8000 He was talking about the point of ships. The fuel used per tons carried is extremely low, so it doesn't really matter how long it takes. It's an efficient method to transport great loads of product across very long distances
@@pandahungry8000 i'ts is main reason why cargo ships exist
@@pandahungry8000
Size matters, a huge ship like that can work with a crew of 11-15. That is for day and night...
If you put your cargo on 10 smaller ships, sure each smaller ships itself might need less but with 10 ships...you still might end up paying 40-50 people!
And that is the people, how about the fuel, again, that huge engine, per tonnage moved, uses less then if you use 10 smaller ships.
How about pollution, same... that one engine doing the work of 10 smaller ships puts out less pollution than 10 ships.
So the cost is lower for the business of moving the stuff, meaning the cost is lower to get goods from A to B, meaning that the business selling goods can make more money/lower prices. And all that because we have huge ships.
You actually want less HP per ton that means you're using less energy to move more mass. Airplanes are pretty much the most inefficient way to move anything.
I wish he would have explained why it's still used today.
A plane can skip about anywhere on the planet in a day: but that ship is carrying far far far more cargo than the plane could ever hope for and makes the whole operation much more economical than airmailing everything for the sake of speed alone.
if you have the mony you still can pay for airline shipping
@@AtomiK-XIX-Bit Sure, if you had the money you could do anything you wanted. The point is that everything you see on shop shelves that have been imported probably arrived in a shipping container: if it arrived by airmail the price of everything would go up tenfold because aircraft are much less efficient than bulk freighting
I was thinking to type same thing, however the video about why they are slow. So it makes sense to discuss just disadvantages.
nah u forgot blimps
This simplistic approach to the subject is a perfect way of introducing someone to PHYSICS. Therefore, I would encourage you contact high schools and some colleges and ask that they make your videos standard viewing material for their students. I only wish I had these visual aids when I attending college physics many moons ago. You did a marvelous job here!
You just missed the one essential fact in the plane-car-ship comparison.
Fuel use per ton moved per distance.
Addition if this would have given a sterling illustration of WHY we use superhuge ships for mass cargo transport.
What you'd really want is fuel use per ton payload moved per distance.
Red Ships would easily win that. The largest oil tankers transport over 500 000 metric tons of oil at a time.
The Emma Maersk weights 62 000 tons on its own (lightship condition), yet she can carry up to 157 000 tons of deadweight. More than twice her own weight.
@@SportSoulLife Yeah I know ships would win. I'm more curious about how different planes and cars would compare.
Red That would be interesting indeed.
The AN-225 has a payload of about one ballast tank in a medium sized ship, a single tank that is, out of 12, so i would be surprised if its not many fold the cost of a ship.
That maximum payload is like a balance scale weight to a ship.
Yes we use ships because per unit of mass the fuel usage is less than a plane
Video: Why are ships so slow
Me: Why are the cars blurred?
#BlameTH-cam
@@TimothyChapman really? youtube did that? i watch youtube for hours everyday and I have never see. this before
@@cpt.lando333 Has to be TH-cam. Those boxes weren't there the first time I watched this video and the video hasn't been reuploaded.
@@TimothyChapman
How bizarre.
I NEED ANSWERS
"Formula one cars are *somewhat* lighter" bit of an understatement mate
Burrito Bowl01 Somewhat lighter = moderately lighter when compared with the greater magnitude of difference between a car and airliner or airliner and cargo ship.
f2013 yeah no. F1 cars are a lot lighter, and that difference in weight is more significant than the difference in horsepower between the jet and ship
@@fred2796 He's talking about the weight. The difference between the weight of the jet vs the weight of the normal sedan is greater than the weight of the sedan vs the weight of the F1 car.
He's not talking about the difference in Horsepower or the Horsepower to ton ratio.
Fweed As Grizzer said, you’re comparing apples with oranges. That comment in the video was just referring to weight differences 👍
@@fred2796 you missed his point.
Imagine those huge cargo ships running like a speed boat 😂 🚤
That's pretty funny in a weird way right? Lol
@@mohamedelyaouti2051 exactly 😂
Containers will fall apart lol
Have fun stopping that momentum :D
Jeff the killer will stop laughing
Ricaldo milos will become straight
Putin will go democratic
I just got back from a cruise and I sat in my cabin the whole trip pondering this very question.!
Ships aren't designed to be fast. They're designed to be economical.
there are some crzy fast ships and boats my friend)
That's why he said ships and not boats
@@hastonfernandes6479 there are hundreds of overpowered turbine ships! and by the way going on foil makes it more efficient but not sure overall)
That depends. In the 1980s I worked on twin steam turbine, twin screw container ships that could go from the UK to the Far East in just under six weeks. Cruising speed was between 25-30 knots and we burned £,£££s of pounds worth of fuel per hour, but many freight forwarders would pay the premium price for the fast delivery. The company was Ben Line Steamers of Leith, Scotland. Their slogan was "Fast to the Far East"
Does a Cross-Channel hydrofoil doing 40 knots or a Pegasus class destroyer count as a ship?
@@corydorastube i wonder why they don't install nuclear reactor inside that container ship...=_=
70,000 tons of steel moving at 27 knots isn't slow for me...
Are you talking bout yamato?
Yeah
@@kennethignacio8268 I do
@@staliniumprojectile I am*
@@Editsbypaulie iron man ? Right ?
The bigger ships move alot quicker than some of the medium size ones. Power matters at sea. Tell the master of the Titanic 27 knots is slow lol.
Titanics max speed was like 22 knots
I know Carpathia's max speed was 17 knots. So Titanic was faster than Carpathia considering it was the biggest ship? Not Bad
@@ChazizMTA That's the thing larger ships tend to either be faster or more efficient (which is a design choice), this has everything to do with the square-cube law which comes about because while the length is almost irrelevant to drag it is very relevant to volume and thus buoyancy. For this reason, if you double every dimension (beam, draft, and length) you increase your drag by a factor of 4 but the volume and weight capacity by a factor of 8 which allows way more mass to be devoted to the engine, fuel capacity and payload the choice between efficiency and speed is the tradeoffs the designer chooses in how to spend this extra mass budget.
@@seraphina985 that's one part of the equation but there is also a hull speed to do with the wave length created by the boat, shorter boats can actually require more energy to go the same speed as a longer one.
This is only for boats that are not planning
I'm so glad there's a channel out there covering nautical topics. My father was in the navy, so I find these topics fascinating, but most people I run into have no interest in them. I hope this grows into a mega-channel.
"BECAUSE SHIPS ARE HEAVIER AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH LOT OF DRAG" ..There I save you 7 minutes
Edit: Thanks ..... i never got so many likes
Not only that, but literally 90% of youtubers will make videos 10 mins just for the youtube ads
Dude exactly 😂😂😂
Wait, I thought weight only affect Acceleration, not speed when you are travelling in a flat line.
Nah - because ship crews are more paitience.
You also have alot of drag. Just on the weekends though I've heard.
EVERGIVEN: stuck at Suez Canal
TH-cam: I see this as an opportunity to recommend my collection of ship videos
first
HORSES CAN RUN FAST BUT THEY CAN'T SWIM FAST. Logic.
But they can still swim faster than fly.
CavCave idk about that, they pick up speed quickly when they go over a cliff
@@SuprSi HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@@SuprSi Achivement unlocked: When pigs fly
CavCave But a pegasus can fly! So his logic still stands.
Nice video, I worked for a shipping company for some years, also a Danish shipping company like Maersk.
Shipping companies. or atleast the US and EU are trying to find ways to make ships more economical. there are also resistance of the paint on the sides ( so it's important to use paint that has low resistance ) . And sea animals attaching, so it's important to keep the vessel clean too. this affects the resistance A LOT, and is measurable.
Another thing is bunkers oil, if people don't know what bunkers is. basically it's the leftover material of refined oil. Oil that is pumped up, goes through a treatment, where you make Diesel oil, gasoline, and other products, and the leftover is just bunkers oil, which vessel use.
Also, it become a thing to "slow steam" which means, if you have 14 days to get from point A to point B . and you could do it in 12 days, with 20 knots, but 14 days with 12 knots. that is the prefered way. even if it means delivering items slower.
Some Maersk vessels also use sails, like a big kite if the wind is correct. it might sound stupid, but if you have plenty of time, it saves millions of dollars.
Also, there are two types of the Maersk Triple-E The first x amount of triple-E vessels were produced with a single engine, as the later models came with 2 smaller engines :-) More economical!
Gotta love Economy of Scale and small little details that do a lot of good.
I don't remember those censor boxes being there when I first watched this video. #BlameTH-cam
Yeah what was up with that?
Yeah that’s confusing, no clue what that’s about.
Yeah what's that? Did YT told him to censor that or the algo did it automatically?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
thats a good question
When something copy righted or something shows up, instead of talking down the video youtube shows the creators where to censor so they do that. It sucks but at least we get to see the video. Gotta add, fuck this censorship bro.
If they stopped tieing so many knots together they might actually get somewhere.
OH GOD
dad is that you
Very well done...
😂
tying... otherwise a career in comedy awaits you
Ships seem slow because, today, we can compare them to airplanes and cars. As recently as a one to two hundred years ago, ships were the fastest way to get around. Not to mention technological improvements that allow ships to cruise at 20+ knots- five hundred years ago it took months to cross the Atlantic.
Trains were invented in 1804. They were the fastest mode of transportation at the time, followed by horses. And horses were always faster than ships.
But for crossing an ocean, ships were our only choice until airplanes came along 👍
It was faster for Roman grain ships to sail from North Africa to Ostia than it was for an army to march from Rome to Capua.
@@demariushenderson1802 Horses and people riding them need to rest and sleep, ships keep going day and night.
bristoled93 ...not without any wind 😂
Plus they don’t do well when you need to cross a continent.
@@demariushenderson1802 They did better than going by foot or horse.
0:48
I have sailed as a Cadet on the Estelle Maersk (E-class) sister ship of Emma Maersk.
i can confirm that the engine is HUGE!
20 knots at sea is not slow
Raturagutulei Moses yes, and they also travel 24 hours a day, which makes a huge difference, a point not compared with "physics" presented in this video.
From the perspective of a yachtsman, 20kts is pretty damn racing speed when such a vessel is at a collision course.
Most small boats plane at 15-20 knots and 20 knots is what I'd cruise with my 17ft boat. Its definitely not slow for big ship. Besides some fast boats. Most recreational small boats max out at low 30's knots
Thats a cruise ship, these shipping containers are averaging 8 knots...
Back in the 60’s maybe - most modern / large containerships will easily get to 20kts if not more. Check out the AIS on ships deep sea
Answer: Because they're big and heavy.
Rockets are also big and heavy but they go fast as fuck boi
Give this man a banana
Gergő Turán They are propelled by jets i believe
Weight is smaller part of the problem, water friction boi
Me, an intellectual:then equip ships with thrusters
One of the best educational videos on youtube, just perfect
Ships are pretty fast, but you underestimate them because they're so big
You're right, you can waterski behind a large container ship.
Not to mention if they go faster the momentum will take a few minutes to stop completely
This is the first of your videos I've seen, and I must say, I'm impressed. Despite the relative simplicity of the topic - it could literally be answered by saying "ships have much more drag" - you still managed to go into a good amount of detail and simultaneously gave a good account of the maths without overcomplicating it. I personally would've liked to have seen it mentioned that ships also have to deal with air resistance in the same way that both air resistance and friction were mentioned for cars, but I understand that that might be complicating it for some. Very well done!
A typical ship is a couple of hundred thousand tons. The fact that they can move at 20 knots (23mph) on average is actually quite amazing.
It should have been seahorse power.
Ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the inconvenience, but all the adult themes had to be blurred.
Why is there so much blurring in this video? What was worthy of censorship?
It’s probably TH-cam. They may have copyright striked him for something stupid
Branding perhaps? His purchased material probably has no blurring. Guessing.
Oh good, the algorithm is starting to blur random things in videos on its own now. I don't foresee this going horribly wrong.
Automated censorSHIP, Since it censored a whole ship at 5:17.
Maersk did a dmca strike?
1:20 yep f1 cars are totally inappropriate
Copyright strike?
Huge ships are actually an engineering marvel. They move huge amounts of cargo much more economically than I'd all the cargo was moved by trucks. All things considered the ability to move hundreds of containers with minimal human labor involved and less fuel.
Imagine carrying 20000 containers on trucks from shanghai to rotterdam. The ship is certainly the best solution
Ships beat trains. Trains beat trucks.
@@CasualNavigation The Chinese are builindg a new Silk road to deliver the goods via railway to Europe.
@@OpenGL4ever 3 routes for different goods.
- air ( 1 day travel )
- sea ( 2 months travel )
- railroad ( 1 week travel )
Railcargo is much cheaper as aircargo but has less traveltime.
for Bulk, heavy equipment and no time restrictions the Ship always wins.
@@CasualNavigation Try it with a 747.
3:22 - "Do you remember working out terminal velocity in school"? Thankfully, no. I've spent the better part of the last 45 years trying to forget those nightmares.
"And the MM Maersk, 0.5 hp/t"
Me: Oh that explains everything.
In fact that's the main reason, haha - think about a car that only has 0,5-1 hp, haha. That would be much slower than the ship, just because of the rolling resistance of the tires.
Even though the ship has a lot of drag going in water, that resistance doesn't scale up at the same rate as the weight (wich is also why large ships tend to be faster than smaller, like he said in the video) - so compared to it's weight, a large ship has lower total resistance moving forward, than a car.
But a train or even a tram would in fact be able to go like 60-80 km/h (about 32-43 knots) since it's rolling resistance is like 1/10 of a car, compared to its weight, and the air resistance doesn't get very high either, at those speeds.
Although, even a rail vehicle would not be useful with such low power, since it would take "forever" to get up to speed and also going uphill would be a problem - even a quite small hill would slow the vehicle down to walk speed (this is something a ship doesn't have to deal with, going on a water surface, that by it's nature always stays perfectly flat). A plane would need far more than 0,5 hp/ton to generate enough lift to even be able to fly at all, regardless of wich speed it's going - so that's out of the quiestion, hahaha
@@Speeder84XL But trains often do run at that kind of ratio. The difference is that a diesel locomotive is only using it's diesel engine as a generator so it really can't stall and you get the benefits of electric motors for the actual driving. Diesel locomotives are pretty heavy and have all wheel power delivery trough electric motors, combine that with really low rolling resistance on rail and they are really really good at draging crap on rail.
The country I live in is relatively flat so you get stuff like this th-cam.com/video/10h-jE8cfV4/w-d-xo.html these 2 section locomotives have ~4600hp combined and the consists they are pulling are ~5000 tons so we're under 1hp/t here and it works pretty well.
@@GreatGodSajuuk That's true - I didn't thaught about those really heavy freight trains. They can indeed make it with similar power to weight ratios. Once they get up to speed, they can also often go up small hills quite easely using their momentum (since there is almost nothing except gravity, that slows them down) :)
Speeder84XL is the ocean that these overgrown boats sail the globe on really perfectly flat? Or do does it wrap around the globe? Do you really believe that the earth is flat?🌏
It's "Emma" Maersk, by the way.
I never wondered about this until I saw the title. Good job and really interesting!
The advantage of big ships is the carrying capacity increases with, roughly the cube of size while the driving energy, fuel consumption, by the square. The bigger the ship the lower the cost per ton of cargo.
The effort put in to blurring out the names made me chuckle. Great video as always.
No one:
TH-cam recommendation: Ｂｏａｔｓ
Edit: ｓｈｉｐｓ
you happy?
He's talking about ships, not boats.
Get it right or pay the price.
Its *S H I P*
im happy now
What if I'm *_not_* happy?
Ships are just big boats, remove the edit.
63,000 subs and 1.8 mil views. This dude is doing something right!
Thanks for this! I love a detailed yet simple explanation.
That’s when I know I’m listening to fact.
It’s been 20 years since I last studied physics and it’s nice to not be patronised while having a short refresher. 👌🏽 10/10
*WhY aRE sPaCe ShIps So fAsT!?*
because in space...there is nooooo Air........no air = friction.....sorry my bad engrish....You need to learn Physics boiiii
@@xensored03 You obviously dont get the joke.
lEwD oUr lOlI r/wooosh
Slaps a big fat SRB in the face... That's why!
@@mrs.chandler9384 it is r/woooosh you libtard
This was really awesome. I subbed! Much love from California!
In 1976 I joined a container vessel in Southampton, spent a day loading and sailed. Through Panama Canal, Tokyo, Kobe, Hong Kong, Singapore and back to Southampton around the Cape of Good Hope. This took 59 days, the vessel averages 26 Knots, 950ft long 103 ft beam. I think that's fast. Carrying , loading and discharging containers.
Great video. Your voice is clear and at a perfect speed. Some other video presenters speak far to fast.
You can change playing speed ;)
The real question is...
Which way it's the propeller spinning?
4:28
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Subscribed!!! I'm a Naval Architect; and your videos are really informative.
Great to have you here Kilby
Why did you have to blur out the shape of an animated F1 car?
It probably had some generic sponsor on the car and F1 sponsors are notorious a-holes. Likely had to blur it out to avoid demonetization and it was just easier to blur the whole car rather than the small logo
*I already knew this but I still enjoyed the video cause of your elaborate and comparative explanations, plus the animation too. Good job.*
*(BOLD TEXT)*
Congratulations on your videos, most of them take me back to my days at the academy, and some of them are curiosities that I didn’t know.
Keep up the good work.
Did you forget the hullspeed?
Hullspeed [km/h] = 4,5 x SQRT Waterlenght [m]
That is the max. speed for a "not planning" vessel.
80 % Hullspeed is the economic speed for a small vessel.
The cat can also go faster because it has very long, narrow, and sharp hulls which don't make a lot of wave. The same applies for some kayaks, racing rowing boats and military speed boats. Some of the latter use also the Lürssen-Effekt. There are a lot of effects, which would blow the video too complex. Fast cat ferries also use the space between the hulls to build up an air cushion to lift them and reduce drag.
Emma Maersk is cruising far below her hull speed, which would be about 48 knots. If you would double a ships speed (still being under 80% of her hull speed) you would need 4 times as much fuel for the same distance and an 8 times more powerful engine (you want to burn 4 times the fuel in half the time so it has to burn it 8 times as fast). The hull speed formula is not 100% applicable. Most yachts for example have a transom (German: Spiegelheck) so they have a longer virtual waterline which varies with their speed.
Your explanation is incomplete.
You missed to explain the secret about the Hull speed.
6:38 Submarines do dive to get rid of the problem which is introduced by the hull speed. Thus they are much faster when submerged. The rest is sheer power. When driven by a nuclear reactor, they canj easily reach over 30 knots. And these are only the official numbers.
Any differences on submerged drag and air drag?
@@bernalfiesaysip8791 Water is denser than air, thus resistance will be still much larger.
Hull speed is a factor of overall length and displacement, At a certain speed, if the hull is not designed to rise up on plane, or is just too heavy the bow wave gets deeper and adding more power just sucks the ship deeper, increasing drag. a bad analogy, very much of an oversimplification would be like breaking the sound barrier.
Hull speed equation (simple version) HS= SQRT(OAL x 1.2)
There is also wetted area friction from the viscosity of water.
The reason subs is faster when they are submerged have mostly to do with cavitation... Or rather lack there of. A sub is simply faster due to having a very powerfull engine.
Most hydrofoil or catamarans have water-jet to combat cavitation. Submarines don't want that because water-jet is noisy
I don't know why would anyone need this explanation but this is an interesting deep explanation.
Now compare the speed of transport. A car would carry 400kg loaded. The ship for example 50.000kg. So even though the car is faster, it would need to do the same distance like 125000 times? Go back empty, pick up another load and do it again, increasing it to about 250.000 trips?
Comparing it that way, the ship is at warp 10 compared to planes and especially cars.
Your math is way off.
@@cpotisch If you can do better.. its just an example.
Deiphobuzz
Ships can carry tens of millions of kilograms, not 50,000. And 50,000 kg / 400 kg would be 125, not 125,000.
There is another important factor missing which is hull speed. Slightly simplified, a ship in displacement mode (as compared to planing mode like a small RIB for example) will create a wave system and at a certain speed it will sail uphill on its own wave. The hull speed is increasing with the length of the waterline so this is more of an issue for a recreational 10m sailing yacht (hull speed 7.6kn) and has a more limited effect on large ships (400m vessel -> 48kn) but its effects are noticable in terms of fuel consumption. And this is another very important factor that is a bit missing here. While it is possible to build container ships that sail faster than 20 knots it is simply not economic as nobody would pay extra for a 1 day faster shipment from China to Europe.
Lots of navy vessels have their top speeds limited by hull speed, it’s not just small sailboats that get screwed over by physics.
As a freight forwarder in europe i can tell you people pay extra for 4 days off the total transit. So much that carriers offer usually 2 services (MD1 and MD2) to get from south europe to main ports of china
*Small mistake: one Boeing 747 has 150.000 hp, not one of it’s engines. So it‘s actually 300 hp per ton, not 1.200.
I would say that's a massive mistake and destroys this whole video.
Sees the title: duhh, because they're damn huge sailing monstrosities that carries hundreds of containers
Still watching it, then afterwards: I knew it, but surprisingly learned some more 😏
Glad you enjoyed it DesertBlade18
Try thousands of containers. I think the biggest now carry 8,000 containers up from 4,000 containers a couple of decades ago.
@@daveroberts6884 Haha nope! The largest carry about 18 000 TEU
@@shehanross356 WTF is a TEU?
And that number is for 20' containers, much like MilVans, which are about equivalent to "std" containers.
Why are ships slow?
They lack rocket engines.
No V-TEC :(
They should take notes from the spirit of Australia
The norwegian marine have some vessel called the "Skjold class". They have two jet engines. Insanely fast, and are mobilized with some of the most advanced missiles in the world. I was onboard ine of those, fucking hell theyre awesome.
This also explains why little old ladies are slow too.
Right! The fastest ship in the world has you guessed it a jet engine.
I salute you for doing this entire video without ever touching upon the topic of bow wave resistance which isn't the main factor for the biggest cargo ships because they operate at displacement speed for their hull length and shape but it is certainly a factor for the fast catamaran passenger ferries and small speedboats (the sharp hulls of the really fast catarmaran ferries makes it a lot easier to pierce the bow wave and also detaches easier from the waterflow around them). The main reason for smaller cargo vessels being slower than the superships is because they are also "displacement hulls" but their shorter length makes their displacement speed slower because their bow wave can not be as long, if you try to go faster than your displacement speed your ship will have to climb a "hill" which is created by your own bow wave. A bulb in the bow of the ship "trips" the bow wave before the main part of the hull gets to it (by creating its own wave at the appropriate distance to cancel out the bow wave from the main mass of the hull) which improves performance a bit but you still can't go much faster or else your stern will sink into the trough of the wave causing your whole ship to sit lower in the water and have to climb ever more "uphill" as the speed increases, as you can imagine: that takes a lot of power.
Ships might be slow
But in transportation it Carries the most
cargo/passengers
Than planes ,bus ,trains
*Planes, trains, buses
Pretty sure 1 train can move more material than 1 plane, across land
@@charlescourtwright2229 extra long trains are probably heavier than this ship
Man, that F1 car was super obscene
It's pretty heavy for 3am but I'll definitely sleep better now, thanks man.
Ok TH-cam you win, I finally clicked on this video
WHY IS THE F1 CAR BLURRED?!???!?!?
I dunno
He has probably some doodoo in the pants because formel 1 or the holder to a company logo on a boat will strike him
I guess it's a joke referring to all the sponsor logos on the F1 cars.
Someone was saying that they think TH-cam did it, because they had already seen this video and the first time there was no blurring. I think I can further testify this as now its not only the F1 car, but also the logo on the side of the ship as well as some of the other images he used. Like when he was talking about the faster ferries, there were literally two images that were just straight blur.
As someone who has witnessed a container ship leave to head out to open sea in a shipping lane ( I was piloting a gillnetter when they passed about 150 feet directly in front of me) I’ll say they can move pretty fast for their size.
Why are some things blurred out?
When you go to a pool or to the beach, put your arm underwater and try to move it as fast as you can.
Once you get way out of the water, try to move your arm as fast as you can.
Try to grasp the difference in resistance levels. That's your answer as to why ships move much slower to cars, planes or trains.
Also take in consideration that the more area exposed to the air flow or water increases resistance, so bigger the ship, the slower it will move and why speedboats move fast af.
My friend had a contract to cut up a container ship for scrap. It was in a slip in the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia. I was really surprised how easily it moved at low speed. He had to move it about 100 feet in the slip to secure it the way he wanted and pulled it with a 4 wheel drive Chevy pickup in 4 wheel low range. It really didn't strain at all
This video was great! I just stumbled upon this video and it was great! I wasn’t interested into boats until now.
"well, swim next to it if its so slow!"
-someone, probably.
Love your videos! I am a engineer on a harbor tug. We land and turn ships for sea.
"the typical car has around 100 horsepower"
*laughs in American*
His estimation would be correct in Moldova or Mauretania. So maybe that's a worldwide average?
But a typical 100hp European car would be far superior than a 500hp American one😂
phillyslasher English? Americans wouldn’t even be existing with out Britain..
phillyslasher Didn’t you guys get help from France? Britain would have won if they didn’t use all their money protecting you.
phillyslasher but why is it okay when you guys need help. When we need it you need to brag and everything.
I always think big cargo ships are actually exceptionally fast considering their weight
Couldn't help but notice at 2:00 one of the equations is R = I²R, but it should be P = I²R
Loved the video!
Great vid, as usual. I did not know that Jumbo jets had so much "oomph" it's stunning how many MPG they get. But I do recall that the QE2 and Concord had the same power.
The reason is that power is pretty much exclusively used for takeoff and initial (
@@seraphina985 Really interesting to read up on this. Found out that TOGA thrust can usually only be sustained for about 5 minutes, and the setting below that (max continuous thrust) is, well, the maximum amount of thrust that an engine can put out continuously.
But you're absolutely correct. Proportionally, by far most of the energy that a plane uses is used during takeoff and ascent. And while they still burn a shit ton of fuel when they're at cruise altitude, it's important to note that they're also super fast (on account of experiencing way less air resistance up there), meaning the amount of fuel used per unit of distance is actually fairly modest. On longer trips, travelling by plane is more fuel efficient than travelling by car alone (although the plane and car match up when you have 2 people in the car, and the car becomes more fuel efficient if you also reduce the trip size). That's also a really good reason for banning short haul flights between city pairs that have a competitive high speed rail link - trains blow all other modes of transportation out of the water in terms of energy efficiency. But that's a different discussion.
@@alex2143 Indeed trains are excellent in big part due to their steel wheels not deforming much which keeps rolling resistance low. Car tires loose a lot of energy due to it being dissipated as heat due to the internal friction as they deform while rolling and the larger contact patch due to the tyre effectively flattening against the road also creates more friction. Obviously this does happen with steel train wheels also to a point but it's very slight because steel is way stiffer and can handle the stress with much less deformation. Downside of this is it makes them really vulnerable to surfaces with poor traction being far more prone to wheel slip, thus why leaves on the line are a real problem accelerating and decelerating a train with crushed oily leaves on the track does not work so well.
Bruhhh this is so creepy I was sitting in science class thinking why boats are so slow then I get home and this popped up ahahah lol 😂
Google can read thoughts now.
@@sevenkendrick5843 😂
@@azreyevans1843 is not a joke is a creepy thing
u must be stupid to not know this...
Are they? 500km/h sounds pretty fast to me... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_speed_record
The feather doesn't fall slower because it experiences more air resistance than the ball. It falls slower because the air resistance per unit weight is higher.
Fairly sure the hp for the 747 is around 150,000 in total, not each engine.
Jimbob Actually it is per engine but it doesn’t really make sense to compare, because it depends so much on air pressure, current speed and much other.
@@EirikAnd99 A 747 does not have 600,000hp.
@@JimmyLLL No, it has over 60000 pounds of thrust, using hp for jet engines doesn't make much sense
@@Morrov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio
Converting thrust to horsepower is like converting meters to kilograms
I assume the F1 car and the side of one of the ships were blurred for copyright reasons?
i want to think that
I was in the US Navy in my youth, a half century ago, and served aboard Gearing class destroyers, built at the end of WWII. These were 3540 ton vessels that were about 120 meters long and 13 meters wide at the beam. Powered by 60,000 hp steam turbines, they could reach speeds of 33 kt's (36-37 mph). My paternal ancestor came to America from England in 1638 on a wooden sailing vessel, arriving in Boston after a 50 day crossing at an average speed of 2-2.5 kt's. What contrast in speed and crossing time, the 300+ years brought.
For ship that big, 20 knots it's fast tho.
Great graphics to explain the subject,thanks
This channel has gotten rid of my fear of the sea and has instilled a natural call from it
Compare what a ship, plane, and car, (or truck) can carry for cargo. Then see how long it would take for each to move the same amount, you'll quickly see that while a ship 'moves' slower it actually gets more cargo transported faster and cheaper.
This is very interesting , thank you for the vid.
some massive warships can get to 40 knots which is crazy
... I know that some of those huge ships have 8KM+ of breaking distance. Imagine them going 5x the speed...
" at the top there's F1 cars"
*laughs in top fuel dragster*
Pffft so slow
/laughs in flashlight
We‘re talking mediums that are capable of going more than 1 mile ;)
Joke‘s aside, physically you‘re right. (Y)
I’m really enjoying these videos. It’s actually a very good theory refresher. 👍
one question, why is half the video blurred
Copyright
I've never thought of ships as 'slow' considering the space they occupy.
My thoughts exactly ⛴️
Sailing on foils, nothing in the water but a thin blade and rudder going 30 knots in 15 knots true wind speed is absolutely spectacular.
What's with the weird blurred boxes?
stupid name copyright censorship by youtube, it’s on many of his older videos
@@recklesflam1ngo968 damn that sucks, thanks
Why are logos blurred?
I've been on a catamaran to Helgoland, and it does the journey that usually takes 3-4 hours in 1.
It's also the only time I've ever been seasick when we had a bit of weather on the trip and the ship was skipping over the waves. Almost all the passengers were sick and vomiting and two (probably) seamen ate lunch on the table next to ours. XD
Thank you for all these videos! Can you make a video comparing each types of vessels and their pros and cons? Have a nice day.
Do you mean comparing container ships to gas carriers to passenger ships etc? That would definitely be an interesting one to make
@@CasualNavigation How about a video comparing different hull designs? Or one on what people are currently trying to improve in ship design, like what sort of engineering/technical challenges there are to overcome, ect...
I was already planning on comparing different hull designs. Like the x-bow compared to normal etc..
YOURE A GREEK
AND YOURE PROBABLY A SAILOR
GREEK SAILORS ARE SUPER STRICT
I was looking for the same. A comparison between them on basis of stability, structural rigidity etc..
F1 cars: I have 1,000 horsepower
Cargo Ships: Oh I don't know, somewhere about 109,000 HORSEPOWER
He also said that the average car has 100 hp. Maybe British hp is significantly different but I can't think of any car with 100 hp besides a smart car. Most economy cars are in the 150-220 hp range.
@@MrCody01 In the US, yes. In Europe most people buy 60-150hp cars because engines with higher power output usually consume more fuel, which is expensive as fuck in most of Europe (e.g. $6+/gal (US)). Cars with higher displacement engines are also taxed heavier --> fewer people buy them. Besides that, for the average person 100hp is more than enough in day-to-day life. Hell, even my 85hp Golf Mk7 could fly down the Autobahn at 115mph.