[HN Gopher] The roller ship was not an effective way to cross th...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The roller ship was not an effective way to cross the high seas
        
       Author : Stratoscope
       Score  : 74 points
       Date   : 2024-03-30 06:42 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
        
       | helsinkiandrew wrote:
       | Reminded me of the 19th century Russian circular ironclads:
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
        
         | 082349872349872 wrote:
         | If someone does a steampunk version of Star Wars, that'd be the
         | Falcon design.
        
       | mojomark wrote:
       | "The general hope was that the roller ship would slash travel
       | times by virtue of its low-drag design. Sadly, an attempt to
       | cross the English Channel in 1897 revealed that the roller design
       | had one unforeseen drawback. In the water, the rollers tended to
       | drag a great deal of water up with them as they rotated."
       | 
       | Super fun. I'm a marine engineer and design vessels. I've seen a
       | lot of whacky designs over the years and never encountered this
       | one!
       | 
       | Apparently, from the above quote, the culprit for increased drag
       | was skin friction (in this case, that meant water clinging to the
       | surface of the rollers and being lifted out of the water - kind
       | of like the reverse effect of a Tesla turbine which exploits skin
       | friction between moving air and a stack of rigid discs on a
       | rotor). That would certainly cause propulsive inefficiencies.
       | 
       | However, from my view, the primary source of drag here are the
       | "hollows" between the rotor discs. If you were to look at a plan
       | (top) view of the vessel as it moves through the water you would
       | find significant water pressure gradients between (at the aft and
       | fore end of) each wheel. When you have multiple wheels in series,
       | you have oscilating high and low pressure zones along the length
       | of the waterline. That's a tremendous amount of energy lost to
       | water turbulance.
       | 
       | When you look plan views of hydrodynamic hullforms at the
       | waterline (whether monohull, or multihulls like
       | catamaran/trimarin/SWATH) or even aircraft foil shapes, you don't
       | see "wavy" form lines for this very reason.
       | 
       | I will say that these inventers were encroaching on the SWATH
       | hull shape. The author states that this roller disc hull would
       | not be stable due to the high CG. However, SWATH hulls are known
       | for their stability in high sea states.
        
         | LorenPechtel wrote:
         | So many things are obvious once pointed out. I never would have
         | thought of pressure gradients but once you did it's obviously a
         | very uneven surface and you don't do that in anything
         | contending with a lot of drag.
         | 
         | How do you see this as a SWATH? This is a catamaran that
         | combines buoyancy and propulsion. I do agree it has a high
         | center of gravity, but that's a relative term--what counts is
         | the ratio of height to width. And a catamaran or SWATH has a
         | much wider base than a typical ship.
         | 
         | Wikipedia says SWATH ships require complex control systems--
         | why? Yes, they're very load sensitive because the small contact
         | at the surface means a lot of vertical movement to compensate
         | for weight changes, but couldn't that simply be handled with
         | some pumps and tanks? Make the ship always weigh X--take on
         | water or pump it out as needed to maintain that X.
        
           | usrusr wrote:
           | I'm not a marine anything, but I'd assume that the control
           | system Wikipedia mentions are ballast tanks that need to
           | reflect any change in load, load distribution and even wind
           | load I'd guess. Sinking a little deeper won't do much to
           | compensate increased load because the small surface area
           | means little change in displacement per change in vertical
           | position. Active trimming pumps.
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | I don't understand why they would think this to have low drag.
         | 
         | - Displaced volume wouldn't be lower than that of a traditional
         | ship (likely even quite a bit higher because the wheels would
         | add mass and the hull would have to be stronger than one that
         | rests on the water)
         | 
         | - Surface area would be higher than that of a single hull.
         | 
         | Also, looking at this as a variant on the paddle steamer (https
         | ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer#Seagoing_paddle...),
         | didn't we already know in 1897 that screw propellers are a lot
         | more efficient? SS Archimedes
         | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Archimedes) was built in
         | 1839.
         | 
         | So, what was the thinking? It being easier to have low rpm in
         | steam driven engines, and that compensating for those
         | disadvantages?
        
           | eternauta3k wrote:
           | Part of the drag scales with the relative velocity between
           | the surface of the wheel and the water. If they move with ~0
           | relative speed, drag is reduced.
        
           | bluGill wrote:
           | Paddels can he just as efficent as screws but only with
           | mechanical comylexity which makes them unreliable.
        
           | s1artibartfast wrote:
           | Wheels add mass and cross sectional drag to my car, but
           | rolling more than makes us for it.
           | 
           | I assume the thought was similar.
           | 
           | Some of the energy is lost to friction, some is lost to the
           | motion of water.
           | 
           | Imagine a ship where the hull sufface has the same relative
           | velocity as the water. It would behave the same as a
           | frictionless ship.
        
           | usrusr wrote:
           | Isn't it rather obvious that they thought friction was the
           | main (or the sole!) component of drag? If displacement waves
           | didn't exist, or did not cause meaningful drag, floaty wheels
           | might even have taken over already in the age of sail.
        
         | 082349872349872 wrote:
         | For the high seas I had thought a design criterion was self-
         | righting; is that only true for smaller vessels?
        
           | s1artibartfast wrote:
           | I don't even think it is true for small vessels. Catamarans
           | and outriggers are absolutely not self righting.
        
         | adonovan wrote:
         | > the culprit for increased drag was skin friction
         | 
         | You raise the question of whether Teflon-coated rotors might
         | have improved the efficiency... but isn't the skin friction
         | also the source of propulsion? Would eliminating the tendency
         | to "drag a great deal of water up" also eliminate the tendency
         | to make headway?
        
       | cpeterso wrote:
       | "In 2016 a Florida man attempted to run from Boca Raton, FL to
       | Bermuda in a home-made, inflatable plastic bubble. Reza Baluchi
       | had been warned by the Coast Guard that any efforts to attempt
       | his journey would be futile and result in severe legal and
       | financial retribution. However, Reza's convictions and ambition
       | left him undeterred by such threats - he'd been waiting his whole
       | life to do this and nothing was going to stop him. This is the
       | story of that fateful journey as told by the man who attempted
       | it."
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/da6_LjiIzXk
        
         | ricardobeat wrote:
         | That video is so frustrating. The coast guard complains the
         | "rescue" cost $144k, but nobody called for it, and then they
         | sink $120k of private equipment for no good reason. What a
         | waste of resources. No difference from people who cross the
         | atlantic alone in a kayak but they don't get forcibly rescued.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | "Damnation Alley" (1977) had the "Landmaster" [1], a large ATV
       | with a roller ship mode. But that was an amphibious vehicle with
       | some river crossing capability, not a ship.
       | 
       | There are amphibious monster trucks. Here's a Russian one.[2] No
       | props, just ridged tires. They're not great watercraft, but if
       | you are crossing frozen ground and break through the ice over a
       | lake, they can grind across the water and up onto hard ground.
       | 
       | [1] https://youtu.be/26n3RsXNyKE?t=392
       | 
       | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7n00Xx38o&t=104s
        
         | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
         | Argh. I just got PTSD from that reference.
         | 
         |  _Damnation Alley_ was _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ -level bad.
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | SHERP is a Ukrainian brand that used to have production
         | facilities in Russia.
        
       | pfdietz wrote:
       | Drachinifel on these:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNLf0yt0IHo&t=1559s
        
       | jbm wrote:
       | > Rather than turning quickly, the rollers labored and the craft
       | could barely break a dozen miles an hour according to a
       | contemporary account. Even for the late 19th century, that was
       | slow
       | 
       | This reminds me of a lot of my failed efforts to refactor code.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-31 23:00 UTC)